Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Angel Series


 * 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   delete. Could even have been speedied. Friday (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Amy Angel Series

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable comic book series. I mean, look at the text; due to be published up to 2012, no artist selected and a freewebs site. Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is publicity for a perhap-one-day novel series. When that day comes, and third-party reviews are available, then it might be of interest to WP. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Rockpock  e  t  01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator is incorrect in saying this isn't being published till 2012 as the article states it began in 2005 (with a 2012 completion date). However the article gives no indication of a publisher for this series, and in fact this gives every indication of being a self-published/privately published work which, while not necessarily disqualified from being the subject of a Wikipedia article on that basis, needs a lot more sourcing to suggest notability. If someone adds RS to the article, and sourced information to establish notability, I might be persuaded to change my "vote", but not as the article now stands. 23skidoo (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not incorrect; I put due to be published up to 2012.Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found no evidence of the existence of reliable sources independent from the subject. While it's common to source with primary to some degree, material that cannot be sourced at all with secondary sources is not suitable for inclusion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (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.