Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic book original art


 * 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/no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk)  15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comic book original art

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

Original comic art deserves treatment in Wikipedia, but this is an inappropriate encyclopedic category. Anything useful here (there isn't much in the current article) would make more sense if merged into Comics or Comic book collecting (both of which already mention original art). The arbitrary focus on "comic book" as opposed to "newspaper comic" or any other kind is one of many reasons this article is better done away with than repaired. BTfromLA (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Is any comic book art not original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.89.184 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: In the comics subculture the phrase "original art" is used to differentiate the drawings made as part of the production process from the finished publications. So, typically, a collector of "original art" acquires a one-of-a-kind drawing in pen and ink, not a book or newspaper. BTfromLA (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – While this could possibly be merged into Comic book collecting, it would make a rather large section in an article that is pretty long already, and the subject matter is different enough that it would be slightly out of place merged into that article. This is an article that could definitely use some cleanup, but probably shouldn't be deleted. &mdash; λ (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Is a topic which reliable sources exist and as Lamda observers a merger is not reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:36, 25 May 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.