Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About Comics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus.  Sandstein  05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

About Comics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:Articles_with_a_single_source which calls for mutiple secondary sources. Sole source provided is a primary source which doesn't suggest notability. Fails Wikipedia:No one really cares as no one really cares about some non notable comic ditrubution company. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING as the article only exists to advertise about comics. Fails WP:PROMOTION as it is linked by User:Nat Gertler and is clearly used to promote his business. JusticeSonic (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This article was not created nor edited by me, nor to the best of my knowledge by anyone connected to About Comics. A page does not become promotion by being linked to by someone related to it. The "single source" claim refers to articles that can only be cited to a single source, which is not the case for this; there are sources such as this at the comics news portal comicon.com and this at ComicMix, and this at the Publishers Weekly site, just to pick a couple quick examples; I will not add those sources myself due to WP:COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete The article appears to not be notable (WP:N) in particular in its notability as a business (Notability (organizations and companies)). and appears to fall short here as well WP:NOTADVERTISING. It is possible the author could correct these problems with further article development.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Publishers Weekly isn't an independent reliable secondary source? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One listing does not make it notable. To be notable the company needs to be fairly large, well known and have some length of time in business (measured in decades). --User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, not only does Notability (organizations and companies) not support your claim of what is required for a company to be notable, it specifically disagrees with it. On being fairly large: "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." On being well-known: "'Notable' is not synonymous with 'fame'". And as for age, the articles linked to above - you'll find that there are multiple articles, not just Publishers Weekly - were built around the 10th anniversary of About Comics, which was years back... so yes, the age of the organization is indeed measured in decades. Not, mind you, that any such requirement is found in the notability guidelines; Wikipedia has articles on hundreds of newer companies. Additionally, you state that "It is possible the author could correct these problems with further article development." As per WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability (organizations and companies)


 * An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
 * A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.


 * Depth of coverage


 * The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.


 * Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3]


 * Notability


 * Notability requires verifiable evidence


 * The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.
 * No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.


 * What is needed is more secondary and tertiary sources from reliable references. Can they be provided posthaste? Significant, to me means in volume --User:Warrior777 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to look more closely at "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Note that "if". The Publishers Weekly piece is not an aside comment, it is a full, reasonable length article specifically on the topic; "significance" does not rest on count, although there certainly are other ones... as with the ones I listed above. The comicon.com article is from a non-self-published specialty site of long and respected standing (now past its glory days, admittedly). Much of the other coverage that one finds online, such as mentions of About Comics founding 24 Hour Comics Day in the Austin American Statesmen, Rocky Mountain News, and other papers, or mentions within discussing About Comics publications, as in the Telegraph-Herald.
 * (And as a note sheerly regarding procedure, so far, no one claims to have shown that such sources do not exist. The call for deletion was done with accusation but no evidence.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For a user who claims he had no part in creating this page, I find your spirited defense of it remarkable. I am not suggesting for a second that you actually created this article, but I think it is relevant that the person who did, User:CarolineWH, was banned.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't just claim that I did not create the page; you can look at the edit history and see that I did not edit it. You can look at the talk page and see that I, in accordance with guidelines, did direct editors to sources that they could use if they wished to fill out the page, and see that those messages were overlooked and the sources not used, which would not be the case if I were either editing it myself or controlling the edits in some way. You can look at my edit history and see that I am an editor with years of service here and a respectable track record. And as for the relevancy of who creates something, you may note that the editor who started this AfD with its unsourced claims and misunderstanding of the guidelines is a WP:SPA, whose every previous edit had to do with a single film (Marianne (2011 film) ), and whose AfD on my company;s article only popped up after I had started an AfD regarding an article on an actress who appears in that film.
 * Would I prefer that About Comics continue to have an article? Yes. But as a Wikipedian, would I prefer that the deletion of this or any article not be grounded in false claims and non-existent guideline criteria? Yes. I have spent time on various AfDs trying to keep them on the straight path. If you have some problem with my contributions to this AfD in the matter of clarifying what the actual guidelines are and in pointing to sources for establishing notability, please raise specific objection. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarification, your statement that "every previous edit had to do with a single film" is false. I have made edits on other pages, including Phil Cleary and Dyson_Hore-Lacy.

JusticeSonic (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you are correct, I was misreading the order on the "earliest edits" page. So only the previous 60-some edits you'd made, including every previous edit you'd made during 2011, was on the subject of Marianne. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Nat Gertler. No need to merge, no need to keep a separate article, because the entire contents of this article are already there. I've looked for sources, including the ones mentioned above, and haven't found sources that would meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard for a separate article on this topic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A full story in PW is enough to make any publisher notable. It's the major source in the subject. The quality of the sourcing needs to be taken into account--interpreting "multiple" literally is sometimes absurd. I would not have said this had it mere a mere notice, or a routine paragraph. Publisher articles are frequently criticised here because of lack of secondary sources specifically about he publisher, and the notability needs to be inferred from the publications. Here, when we actually do have a reliable secondary source, where the major publication thinks the 10 yr anniversary newsworthy enough for a major story, it certainly qualifies.   DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep That About Comics received a feature story in Publishers Weekly (WebCite link) indisputably establishes that it is notable. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.