Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabel Brothers Productions

 :''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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Dabel Brothers Productions

 * – (View AfD

This would be considered a vanity article as its creator, Sean J. Jordan is a primary employee of the company and there is an obvious bias to the article which is in violation of Wikipedia's Vanity Article postings as well as neutral POV policies.

There is also inaccurate and contestable information contained within the content of this article.

Certain titles are listed as "monthly issues", yet were not monthly issues, they should more appropriately be listed as floppies if this article is recreated.

Certain issues are listed as being 'reprinted' in graphic novel form, yet were never 'printed' and distributed in any other form.

They list their continuation of the New Spring series which is currently under arbitration in a court of law, thus inappropriate to be listed under their published works when issues 6-8 have yet to be published and may never be published, or may not be published by DBPro.

Their history neglects to mention the public bad breaks with every single previous publisher with which they have worked: Image, Devil's Due, Alias, and most recently Red Eagle. These breaks have included public defamation, slander and accusations which they have never proven or shown solid evidence of in any public domain. Which they continue to some degree in the article itself by implying 'limitations placed on them by publishers' limited their success, yet there have also been public statements from publishers concerning their inability to produce material on a timely manner or to maintain quality on a project by their inability to maintain creative teams for the length of a series.


 * 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.