Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Zombies


 * 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. NawlinWiki 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood Zombies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod. Apparently non-notable Topps trading card series - no real assertion of notability and no sources other than their own website. WjBscribe 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so it's not our place to speculate as to what this will become. When it is notable, it will get an article. Right now, it would need reliable sources other than its own website. MKoltnow 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Looks like the article is created with the purpose of product promotion, as evidenced by this:. Zondi 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Keep More info has been provided and the article now looks much different from its original version. Zondi 04:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The is a real product on the market right now from a major company. You could make a strong argument that it doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article (it doesn't) but the same logic would disqualify LOTS of articles we keep (bands that never had a hit, particular episodes of bad TV shows, people who name themselves after Transformers ...). This topic does have some notable aspects. For example, cards in this series were drawn by at least four artists who have decent Wikipedia articles (and are presumably notable). Sure this article is a pathetic stub right now, but that's how they usually start out.  I think this article needs a least a month to be given the opportunity to establish notability; the product has only been available for a couple weeks. ike9898 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now expanded the article somewhat. Previous 'delete' voters should re-evaluate. ike9898 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless reliable sources can be found to confirm that the subject of the article is notable, it should still be deleted (without prejudice to recreation should it become notable in future) no matter how much this article is expanded. It is not for Wikipedia to try to predict the success of a product based on those who have contributed to it - that violates our rules again original research and the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Either this product has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reference in reliable third party sources or it has not - that is the issue that needs to be addressed here. WjBscribe 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now there is a good reference. ike9898 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have to agree per Ike9898. Na uf ana  :  talk  01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable product from a major company. 23skidoo 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I would like to say that I started writing this article amount a month ago. I am not trying to promote this series in anyway, and I agree with the other people who want this article to be kept. This is a card series made by a major card company.  This series is very popular and isn't against any Wikipedia rules.  There are a million articles on this site that are about a card series just like this.  If this article is deleted, you should delete every other card article.andyjoe7and8 July 10, 2007
 * 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.