Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midtown comics


 * 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. Sources have been found to establish notability and the article has been rewritten to establish notability. A consensus has emerged, after the sources were found, for keeping the article and the article has been rewritten to properly reference and make into less of an advert. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Midtown comics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although this organisation does exist, a peering through google seems to throw up no real notability in either a normal google search nor a news search. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NB This afd didn't file properly, and since i filed this AFD additional external links have been added. However I am still dubious that this shop retains enough notability. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 07:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This site has huge presence over internet (some 250,000 + results when we search for the brand i.e. Midtown Comics). It is highly respected site and brand by google and is on first position for terms like: buy comics online, online comic shop, online comic store and many others. Placeholder signature for User:Ahmansoor Many people has mentioned Midtown Comics on their blogs as well.

Wordpress blogs mentioning midtown comics http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&suggon=0&q=midtown+comics+site%3Awordpress.com

Bloggers blogs mentioning midtown comics http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&suggon=0&q=midtown+comics+site%3Ablogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not considered reliable sources since they are unsuitable for fact checking. You need to find third party independent sources.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 07:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Although they have advertisements just about everywhere and are huge (in volume) they don't appear to meet the notability criteria for significant coverage and such. The article as it stands is just an advertisement. Sandbox it if appropriate but, otherwise delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable online store. Fails WP:COMPANY. The article is rubbish too, the only actual information contained therein is that it's an online store based in New York and founded in 1997. Plrk (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & the above. -- Herby talk thyme 12:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP. Article has virtually no information, and no claims of notability.  The whole "look, we got mentioned in a blog!" part also strongly suggests non-notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Here are few references: 2005 NY Times Article about Midtown Comics:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/business/businessspecial/16gustines.html?emc=eta1 NY Times coverage of Midtown Comics on Free Comic Book Day:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/books/04comi.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Midtown mentioned in article about Captain America, 2007:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/10/eveningnews/main2556333.shtml Comic Book Resources reports on Free Comic Book Day at Midtown:http://www.comicbookresources.com/?id=16229&page=article Publisher's Weekly reports on Midtown Comics at New York Comic-Con 2008:http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/04/15/nycc-midtown  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Refs added to external links section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per credible independent sources added to external links section - although, I recommend restructuring them to be inline citations. Nevertheless, nice additions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have added a few references including few from NY Times. I am sure now no one  have any objection. Once approved we will add more valuable information in the article with further references and stats.
 * - Further more http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/nyregion/thecity/12lang.html NY Times Published: December 12, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/theater/18comics.html?ref=arts, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/books/25king.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/theater/18comics.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt&oref=slogin and find more at http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&suggon=0&q=site%3Awww.nytimes.com+%22midtown+comics%22+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.80.153 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment probably going to get beat on for this but, if the things being added are actual references which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner than they need to be in the references section not in the external links. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep some of the references appear valid. Article is still basically an advert and we need to change this pretty quickly. I'm not removing refs or links but, the map, press releases, etc should be removed in order to avoid the end result looking like something that has a volume of sources to avoid the need for quality sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - New contents added - would add more in future to make it more informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck bolded keep, you've already had your say. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article has been re-written to remove the blatant advert material, and to integrate information sourced from reliable sources (New York Times, Publisher's Weekly). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:22, 14 September 2008 (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.