Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive comic books


 * 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— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of most expensive comic books

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a de facto recreation of previously deleted material. See List of most valuable comic books, the just-closed Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books, and the frivolous DRV at Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_10.

The deleted list of "most valuable comic books" was deleted largely for being based on horrendous original research. The author, who is also the author of the article being considered here, simply took a table from an article on super-hero first appearances, copy/pasted it, and claimed they were the "most valuable" comic books. This was patently absurd, of course, as there was no basis for the assertion, and an overwhelming consensus opted for the deletion of the article. But reading the AfD, there were other concerns based just on subject matter. Editors raised concerns that such a list could ever hope to be valid, as per one comment, for instance: "You can certainly source how much some individual comics (were reported to have) sold for, but can you put them together in a list and say they're definitively the most valuable comic books? I don't really think so... I've never seen a real comic book publication even try to do that." My interpretation of the prior AfD is that, even beyond the terrible foundation and nonsensical basis of the prior article, there were just too many potential issues about any type of list, most importantly the roadblocks in building even a remotely accurate list. So, based on the prior AfD, Delete.

Lets say you disagree with the application of the previous AfD and want to examine the merits of this article, what little of it there is. Perfectly fair. So lets see what this "List of most expensive comics" is based on... Lets look at the first sentence of the article: "This is a list of the ten most expensive sold comic books, according to listings at Esquire Ccomics in order of most to least." Who are Esquire Comics, you ask. Good question. Tooling around the site, I see they are an online high-end comics retailer run by one guy out of Maryland. So why are they special, do they provide a definitive resource on comic values? The answers are that they aren't and they don't. There are thousands of online comic book retailers, both high-end and bargain basement, tens of thousands of brick-and-mortar comic shops and specialty stores, and hundreds of thousands of collectors who sell books at conventions and online in personal stores or on eBay. The secondary comic book market is a multinational multi-million dollar industry - so choosing one unremarkable online retailer as the definitive resource on something as volatile and fluid as comic book values is pure, utter folly. I can already tell you, that right now, there are comics on eBay with higher prices than some of these. This list just plain is not the "most expensive" comics. Period. Delete.

OK, so the editor chose a really, really poor basis for his article. What about the subject in general, you say? Again, the prior AfD provides excellent arguments to the contrary of such an article's potential. In short, how do you gather data, what data do you use, and is such data, even if sourced, reliable and representative of the notoriously fluctuating comics market? There is simply no conceivable way to know what the most expensive comics being sold at every retailer, every convention dealer, every collector conducting private sales, or every eBay auction of X amount is going for. The author of the article is fond of pointing out that there are lists of most expensive pictures and works of art and the like. The difference with individual works of art is the individuality of the pieces. The most likely valuable comic by any likely measure has just 100 copies left in existence. Not much, you may say, but in contrast, there are only three The Pond-Moonlights, only one Portrait of Dr. Gachet... what works for one thing, does not always work for the other. So lets throw out actual realized values and look at potential values. What source do you use? CBG? Wizard? The standard-bearer of the industry, Overstreet? Even Overstreet will tell you that the values listed in their guides are out-of-date rough guesses that are not representative of whats actually going on in the market. And ignoring the obvious and valid issue that WP:NOT a price guide, as noted in the prior AfD, relisting any specific source's prices may violate copyright, a la IMDb. Because of the lack of any logical way of collecting definitive information, and because the nature of the subject is too volatile, again, this should be Deleted.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 07:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete recreation. This list is unsourced. If sourced, it will almost certainly violate copyright. Wikipedia does not reprint other published lists. The recreation's creator (recreator) knew it was a recreation and should have awaited the results of his/her own request for deletion review. Doczilla 07:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Extranet talk 08:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the previous AfD I suggested, based on the existence of similar lists for photographs and paintings, that a properly-sourced "most expensive" list could be created. My intention was that the sources would be reliable secondary ones like these (for UK comics), . But a quick internet search hasn't revealed similar news articles for US comic books (perhaps Americans have more important things to write about!). So I don't now think that such a list can be properly verified. As it stands now, the list is actually A list of the highest prices that the Esquire Comics website states that it has sold comic books for, which isn't notable. Smalljim 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't believe this article seems to be deleted as well.I recreated this after the other one was deleted because the problem was that the article was on most valuable comic books, and I thought this would be a better article. And as for the sources, those were the most reliable sources I could find on the web, because most were about the estimated value of the comic books.If anyone knows a better source, I'de like to see it. And here is the source page . I don't think anyone even found this page yet, and there saying its unsourced.Like I said, can anyone find a better source. Rodrigue 12:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read the nomination, my reasoning for the deletion is not because it is unsourced Rodrigue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It is diffucult to find much other sources, and I don't think there are any reall ones for most expensive comic books, and I haven't heard from anyone who knows any reliable sources. Rodrigue 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Exactly why this article should be deleted, and why the subject of the article can never likely have an article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong userfy. Sigh.  I wish people weren't jumping all over the creator here.  There's no reason he can't attempt to make this article.  Yeah, okay, it's not up to snuff yet, and it's a harder topic to write about than most, but let him work.  So, let's userfy this so he can work on it in peace, and have a debate, if necessary, after that point.  This article was created in the past day for chrissakes.  Mango juice talk 12:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for that, but you know the same person who nominated this page for deletion nominated the previous version for deletion as well, and to me it seemed like the other AFD was implying that the article should be about more expensive and not most valuable comic books, as the comments pointed out. I would also like to point out that I found other sources to verify the first two entries of the article for Action Comics #1, as well as Superman #1 did indeed sell for those prices, and I hope this reassures people that I am not making up this list. Rodrigue 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I did not nominate the prior page for deletion. Second, the other AfD was not implying that.  Third, nobody is saying that you are making it up this time, Rodrigue.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That the article was created in the last day has nothing to do with the fact that it is simply not possible to craft an article on the subject of the article (paragraph three of my nomination above). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we can tell that yet. I mean, there are challenges to making objective and reasonable criteria for inclusion, but it can probably done with work.  (See Emperor's excellent suggestion below; I also have a few other ideas.)  You express your skepticism well... but I have to strongly object to skepticism being carried to the point where we are actively trying to prevent someone interested in writing a potentially good article from even trying: that just flies completely in the face of the openness of Wikipedia.  Mango juice talk 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Even the creator of the entry admits there are no clear definitive sources for this. I do wonder if a "List of the highest prices paid for a comic book" might be an approach to this as they might be notable and newsworthy along the lines of the expensive paintings. However, this isn't that entry hence my vote. If Rodrigue is interested in pursuing this thenI'd suggested starting it off in you sandbox and running it past the Comics Project to see if we have any advice or input. It might never lead to a viable entry but it might. (Emperor 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment. Rodrigue: I strong support Emperor's sandbox suggestion. I was going to make that same suggestion myself. Doczilla 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment OK cool. I have dropped in some thoughts on how such an entry could be recreated at some point in the future here. It isn't going to be quick or easy but it might be doable and a lot of people on the comics project will be happy to give feedback and advice and help out with sources, etc. (Emperor 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Comment Well, as it stands right now, the first two entries of the list have a third-praty reliable source,for Action comics #1, and Superman #1 .But that does not mean there aren't sources for the other comic books, and if we can't find them, then those 2 can still be on the list. Technically speaking, the list should be the ten highest prices for comic books that people can find from soruces, even if they may or not be in fact the highest prices, because according to Attribution,inclusion is based on what can be sourced, not what people believe to be true,even if more than likely.So all that needs to be done is find the published prices for selling of comic books. Rodrigue 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So anyway, I have removed the other comic books from the list that were sourced poorly, and I left the only two that I could find a proper, published source that distinctivly sais the prices were in fact records, and I hope other published sources will be found soon to fill the list. Rodrigue 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. First and foremost, this is speedyable G4 as recreated content.  Not only is DRV that way, but this material is already there!  But, for just a moment, let's pretend this isn't a G4 candidate.  In that case, it is inadequately referenced, inadequately discriminate, and -- often -- simply wrong.  Are we listing book prices ($485,000 for NM Action 1) or auction realizations ($190,000 for Action 1)?  For that matter, are we comparing at a single grade, or just whatever sold for the most?  If we fix to a grade, like NM, what about issues that aren't extant in that grade, or don't sell?  What about concerns over CGC's grading, such as the pressing controversy?  What about British comics such as The Beano and The Dandy, which aren't often covered in American comic book listing but have recently drawn very high prices at auction; do they count?  And, of course, these inclusion issues aside, the content provided is simply incorrect and incomplete, containing uniformly DC issues and overlooking things like the $172,500 sale of Marvel Comics 1, the debut of Human Torch.  I'm not certain that this article can be written, though someone with a lot of reference-digging time might prove me wrong, but what they would write certainly would bear no real similarity to the article whose fate we're currently adjudicating.  Not to mention that its still G4.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per CSD G4 - As this is recreation of previously deleted article with a slightly different name. However it is also Listcruft because the inclusion criteria for this for this list is much too wide and so the list is always likely to be an indiscriminate collection of information. A List of Highest Prices Ever Paid for Comic Books would be acceptable provided that the prices were properly referenced. A1octopus 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment You people should not be blaming the creation of this article just because a similiar one was deleted.If you read the list of most valuable comic book deletion page page, it said that the list be moved to most expensive comic books, simply because value was a vague term, and thats what I did, I changed the prices to reflect actuall sale prices and not the sighnifigance of each one.The only problem with the article is that it does not have much sources, and I admit that is a big problem and I can see why that is a reason to dlete it.That is why I first decided to create a list of most valuable comic books article, because it was actually al.ot easier to find sources that say how much the best comic books are worth, but there is no direct source for sale prices. Rodrigue 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one "blames" the creation of the article, whatever that's supposed to mean. The matter at hand here is the content of the article, not it's creation. Also, the outcome of the AfD for List of most valuable comic books was delete, not rename. That was just suggested by a few editors.Atlan (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced. Such a list might be useful trivia for the comic book collecting category in a more fleshed-out condition. (And why is it arbitrarily limited to 10 comics and not, say, comics that have sold for over $10,000-$20,000?) -Sean Curtin 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy until extensively sourced As I said in the previous AfD I believe it's possible to source an article on this subject...but only with great difficulty. Another high end comics source would be [here] (need a free account to see figures).  This auction site lists the sale of a9.6 graded Flash Comics #1 on January 21st, 2006 for $273,125.00 as their highest auction, followed by two other sales over $200k, three single issue sales $150k-$200k, then 8 sales in the $100k to $150k range (and then several pages of other auctions that sold in the high 5 figures).  If the author wishes to begin trying to build an article on the highest individual sales, there's another source, but as I mentioned last AfD, one would need to contact Christies, Sotheby's, eBay and probably several other auction houses and sites before one could even begin to start making any claim about highest selling single issues.  And of course there would always be the uncertainty of individual personal sales (e.g. it would not be surprising to hear that an Action Comics #1 was sold privately from one person to another for an undisclosed amount). -Markeer 04:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Please, do not userfy this. It is either WP material or not. Remmber Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Slavlin 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I am not suggesting the data be moved to the user's sandbox so he can look at it and point his friends to it.  Don't know about those above, but when I say Userfy I meant move the existing data (including links) to the article creator's sandbox so that he may spend some time researching the subject for awhile so that a solid article could be created in the future (with verifiable citations on every asserted comic book sale).  That's what the sandboxes are for, test pages and works in progress that don't belong in the main namespace. A reasonable argument has been made that there's some encyclopedic value to a genuine list of the highest selling items of these collectibles (with precedent given of similar lists on artwork, etc).  The main problem with this current article as far as I know is that the data is wrong and the citations do not point to reliable sources. So...userfy it if the article creator is willing to do more research on the subject.  Not a unusual way to deal with this sort of thing as far as I know. -Markeer 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I see what people are saying, that the subject is so unreliable and sources are why the article should not be created unless quality ones can be found.


 * But I have to be clear on this, are the sources the only problem with the article??So if the article had the proper sources it would be just fine, it has nothing to do with whether or not the topic is important enough to be an article?, no one has made that distinction yet. Rodrigue 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply There's still a very open question about where it is possible for this article to be cited Rodrigue. As has been mentioned, it's unclear if any definitive source for the highest sale prices of individual comics exists.  The closest I've thought of is to at least source every major auction house and notable comics retailer for their sales information, with the stated understanding that it is possible that something has been missed (similar to the disclaimer on this article).  Better than this would be to find a secondary source that has already done this research, and cite that article, but I'm not aware if any such exists (note: I haven't looked though).  Unlike the article on expensive paintings, I would guess it's more unlikely to find a New York Times article with the headline "biggest sale in history" on a comic issue, although it's certainly not impossible.


 * In the short term though: Until the question of whether an article on this subject CAN be cited is answered, it doesn't belong in the main namespace.  Wikipedia policy is to avoid any assertion that cannot be sourced and verified, period.  And in the even shorter term, it is clear that this article in it's current form is very definitely not correctly cited.  -Markeer 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, ok.I got from your responce that the big issue really is the sources, so I guess you answered the question.But I had a point earlier, that technically speaking, there is no problem with sourcing the article


 * The way youre looking at it is that you have an idea of what the most expensive comic books are and you need sources to make it official.But thats not how it works.You have to find the highest priced comic books on the web wether or not they are likely the most expensive.So hypothetically even if you have a list where the most expensive one sold for $2,000, if it is the highest priced one you can source then that is what goes on the list.


 * Unless your saying that the problem is there are a lack of sources for comic book sale prices in general, and not just a lack of sources for likely most expensive comic books, because only that would really be a problem.


 * And what about the sources for the two comic books on the list now, are they really as "dubious" as the administrator tagged them as?. Rodrigue 23:19, 17 May 2007 (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.