Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television series and films based on IDW Publishing publications


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Aasim 04:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

List of television series and films based on IDW Publishing publications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:LISTN. The article has been moved to draft and declined as an AfC submission several times since its first revision in October 2019. signed,Rosguill talk 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP Its a perfect valid list article. Clear inclusion criteria.  Category:Lists of television series based on works and Category:Lists of films based on comics shows how similar list are laid out.  Additional references can easily be found and added if needed anywhere.    D r e a m Focus  23:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Dream Focus, I don't see the problem. The inclusion criteria is clear. The list is informative and not filled with excess detail. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep since I find this an encyclopedic cross-categorization list. IDW Publishing is notable on its own. I don't see an issue with Wikipedia having lists of non-comic adaptations of comic book publishers' works as long as the publishers are notable. The works and their adaptations are almost always notable themselves. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment a comment by a previous AfC reviewer that declined a draft of this article which I find to be a compelling case for deletion is that apparently no one has actually ever published a list of media based on IDW publications. If no one else has ever compiled such a list, publishing one is original research and arguably against WP:IINFO as well. signed,Rosguill talk 23:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. It is not original research to list any of the information in this manner.  That's not what original research is.  And it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has clear inclusion criteria.   D r e a m Focus  00:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think saying that argument is irrelevant is a bit strong, given that half of what  said is basically the first paragraph of LISTN, and the second paragraph admits there isn’t clear consensus.  This list clearly falls in the second paragraph as  describes below which is more gray, though I overall agree it meets what I would want from the second paragraph.  --2pou (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Dream Focus said, it is definitely not original research. Furthermore, per WP:LISTN's second paragraph, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." We would accept having a list of films and TV shows based on comics, and having more specific lists by comic book publishers seems to me to be acceptable. Something like a list of films and TV shows based on comics that feature red-headed protagonists would be less likely. IDW, as a distinct publisher, has its own recognition in sources like and  and . Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Given that this article was repeatedly declined at AfC I'm not going to withdraw the nomination at this time, but I would consider my position to be largely neutral. signed,Rosguill talk 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the second paragraph of LISTN is more of a gray area, I feel this list provides good navigational assistance (second WP:LISTPURP) between notable articles in an environment that is WP:NOTPAPER. It seems comparable to subcategories, and I personally find list navigation much more useful than category navigation. --2pou (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there are pages like this and they are not up for deletion Fanoflionking 12:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Daask (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2020 (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.