Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Manifesto Illustrated


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Communist Manifesto Illustrated

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability of this particular publication. —Swpbtalk 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I could find some references and mentions, but their depth and reliability is debatable. WP:DEPTH, WP:RELIABLE
 * Interview at The Charlatan
 * Interview at Sequential: Canadian Comix News & Culture.
 * Review at Socialist Studies
 * About the author (2010)
 * Used as a reference for this book
 * This book mentions it at page 354
 * Article at Toronto Sun
 * Article at The Mary Sue
 * Article at Graphic Policy
 * Review at BASICS
 * There also exist confusing reprint of the original manifesto (I think), and some Spanish book, which are sharing the same name with this comic book series. Ceosad (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is it a hoax article? Its content is mostly lifted from The Communist Manifesto. The subject matter is just asking to be sent up as parody of a superhero-style comic though, if it hasn't already been! If the article is about a parody that does exist, or just an accurate edition of the Manifesto with comic-book-style illustrations that does exist, neither seems to be notable enough for an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not a hoax. I cannot speak to the established criteria for notability being discussed but I have endeavoured to make the article content as pithy and accurate as possible. The series is noteworthy in socialist circles and ought to be considered in comparison to other non-fiction comic book series. It did receive some notoriety in Canada as evidenced by your own citation search. Though, again, I do not know what the minimum standard is. Reddishwagon (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I see it does exist, a sort of graphic novel interpretation of The Communist Manifesto that uses excerpts from it combined with original illustrations and some fictional texts. But it does not seem notable enough to justify an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG and thus WP:NBOOK per the sources (especially reviews) presented above. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 06:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see enough to amount to significant coverage. Also, what content is there to justify an article? A short mention in The Communist Manifesto article might suffice. NB: since this AfD started, the article has been significantly edited and the content that was copied from The Communist Manifesto article has gone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I added a link from the Communist Manifesto article as suggested along with some additional notations on the Manifesto's continued influence (under that section). However, the Communist Manifesto article is heavily policed so I do not know if these minor edits will be allowed to stand (despite their direct relevance).  Reddishwagon (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - This edition has no independent, reliable sources. Only real source is the main one. DreamGuy (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG for lack of book reviews. I do need to pick this up for my library, however. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A graphic novel version of a historical document can be notable in itsown right, and I think this one is; the sources are sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG for books, no non-trivial coverage in good sources. Sentence-long mentions in books do not classify as such, and neither is a very short newspaper article or a review in a journal that calls itself "peer-reviewed" but is obviously a partisan platform which has a justified notability tag on its wiki article. The rest are sort of blogs. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2015 (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.