Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heroes and Villains Entertainment


 * 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   no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Heroes and Villains Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article about a company that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy notability in general or that specific to companies. All I was able to find was minor mentions in conjunction with work from Top Cow. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A redirect for now, and a mention in the Top Cow might be in order, as the two organizations do share lots of coverage. I have the sense from available coverage that 'Heroes and Villains Ent' just does not quite meet WP:CORP... at this time. Considering their growing coverage, in six or 12 months this may change. So I'd also suggest it be "userfied"... returned to its author for continued work in the meantime (mostly imrpovement it its existing sourcing).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Seems to be a sufficient number of reliable third party sources in my opinion. Like everything, it could use improvement, but I see no need for deletion. TDFord — TDFord (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Mentioned in good independant sources like "Comic Book Resources" and "Newsarama," seems legit and notable enough. As far as combining it with Top Cow, it does seem like they have a lot in common as far as the comic books go, but from what I could find it seems that their management portion of the company is completely seperate, and so they deserve their own article. I think it should stay, can be improved over time. FrankClinton — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankClinton (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)  — FrankClinton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister   talk  02:43, 29 June 2012 (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.