Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Swift and Steele (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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Swift and Steele (Comics)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable comic, subject of article of claims with nothing to attribute to any sources. Specified google search indicates considerable obscurity. M urgh disc.  12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in this day and age most people who want to can create a comic but that needn't mean it deserves to be here. I did a similar Google search and found virtually nothing beyond the creators site. Obviously if they get major coverage in the future then they can have a go at trying again but this seems to be the least notable comic book I have seen. (Emperor 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete Unreferenced, not-notable, and might even be a hoax. The article certainly makes some rather unlikely claims: "The original transcripts are kept under lock and key in a laser-guarded facility in Florida. The only other publication can be found in a leather-bound book in a museum in Gainesville, Florida." Suuure. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is Ben Pearson. I'm one of the co-creators of Swift and Steele. We just recently had our comic recognized by the copyright office of the United States of America, and I think that if the government officially recognizes our work, then that alone is grounds enough for our Wikipedia page to stay functional. Granted, that "laser guarded facility" comment was a little ridiculous, so I've gotten rid of it. Now everything on this page is completely legitimate. And just because there aren't multiple Google hits when you type in the name of our comic book, I don't think that should mean that our page needs to be deleted. Thanks a lot for your consideration. Hopefully we can see eye to eye on this matter. Ben Pearson74.234.13.72 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The amount of google hits will have nothing to do with how this article fares, but whether there exist sources that justify the article existence based on the Wikipedia principles. Since WP can't be the only place to read a given fact, everything stated in WP must be available to read elsewhere from decent sources. That the gov't copyright office recognizes your work doesn't help but coverage in publication does. M urgh disc.  07:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to burst anybody's bubble or anything, but the copyright office isn't exactly discriminant with what it copyrights: if somebody wanted to copyright a stick figure drawn on a napkin, they could do so. If you really want the article to be kept, show us reliable sources. That's what really matters. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was posted on the internet and no-one on the net (or anywhere else) has reviewed it? Then it's not notable. See WP:WEB. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise it. Smalljim 17:09, 13 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.