Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic Strip Classics


 * 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   keep.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comic Strip Classics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This stamp issue is not notable in itself, even though the characters depicted clearly are. No assertion of notability and no substantive content to article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It certainly got a lot of attention in 1995 when they were issued as evidenced by newspaper coverage. This article, and this article are but two examples from many google news search hits.  These happen to be viewable instead of behind pay walls.  The question that remain on notability then is if this has had an enduring impact or was it just a news item of the moment.  There is some coverage in this book.  There are some other mentions in books and some newspaper mentions like this.  Admittedly not the strongest case, but for me the substantial coverage at time of issue and the smattering of coverage after barely squeaks past for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one of those news sources actually discusses the issue beyond repeating the basic facts. Every US issue gets some coverage somewhere on the back of the USPS press release due to the size of the country and the number of news outlets that have to write about something, particularly with an issue with wide popular appeal like this one. It's not enough to demonstrate notability. The problem is, the stamps just re-hash existing comic characters, they have no notability as stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those were only two out of lots of news coverage at the time of issue; there are others. Yes, news outlets often rely on press releases to identify things they might cover, but it is the newspaper's editorial judgment that it is worthwhile to cover, and write original prose in that coverage as opposed to simply rehashing a press release.  Neither of the two examples look like press release rehashes to me.  As for having no notability as stamps, these stamps were noted for celebrating the classic comics.  Why these stamps are given coverage versus other releases is neither here nor there.  -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They got the coverage because the subjects depicted on the stamps have wide popular appeal in the U.S. but that coverage was temporary and shallow, and nobody, I think, is writing about them now, because there is nothing to say. Notability is not temporary or based on one event. We have to distinguish between the notability of the subject matter of the stamps and the actual notability and long term impact of the issue as stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  11:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  11:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It got ample coverage. Click Google News search and see.  "Notability is not temporary", which means if it was notable ever it stays notable.  Long term impact is not relevant.  You think most of the famous people, books, games, or whatnot, will still be something anyone cares about decades from now?   D r e a m Focus  23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient news coverage to establish notability. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (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.