Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fantastic Four vol 1 1


 * 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. The consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion and so should be deleted. However, if anyone would like to merge suitable content into another article, contact me and I will move it to your user space  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Fantastic Four vol 1 1

 * – ( View AfD View log )

*Keep though I agree that the article needs to be (and currently is) rewritten almost completely. I've outlined my objections to deletion on the talk page, but to sum up, my opinion is that this issue is a seminal comic book in much the same way as Action Comics 1 is and that this article can take on some of the material currently in the main Fantastic Four article along with material about its current market value (though with all respect to Nipsonanomhmata, it is number two, not number one), and use in "homages". I'd be happy to move/rename to line up with the WikiProject MOS, but it's not clear to me how it is deficient (other than needing to be italics). Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis article is a content-fork redundancy of material that already exists in detail at Fantastic Four, Marvel Comics and Silver Age of Comic Books, all of which give third-party sources on the topic of this first issue. This article, the headline of which does not follow WikiProject Comics MOS, adds nothing but a brief plot description and fancruft about where the fictional supervillain the Mole Man will appear next. Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep You can't delete Fantastic Four #1. It's the most valuable Silver Age comic there is. This is the holy grail of silver age comic books.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sssshhh. Don't tell them that. ;-)  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Right now there is a nice pearch on the fence for me with this one. As the article stands it is a very rough index of the issue. That is something that doe not belong with in an encyclopedia, no matter how notable or famous the issue is. That said, there may be an encyclopeadic article in there if Action Comics 1 is used as a guide. That would mean though:
 * NO plot section. Period.
 * No "next appeared" mentions with characters.
 * No story minutia (see #1).
 * A "Publication" section that covers, with cites, how the issue came to be published. How large the run was. What Marvel had to do to get it published. And so on.
 * Moving what is currently the "Reception" section to "Collectability". And expanding it beyond just a single line from a single price guide in a single year.
 * Seriously working on three additional sections: "Development of the story" similar to the "Superman" at Action Comics 1 covering how Lee and Kirby developed the story and what editoral and external concerns they had to comply with; "Reception" covering how the issue did when released and/or critical comentaries of the story content; and "Reprints" again looking at Action Comics 1.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say, though, that as obviously a landmark as Action Comics #1 is, the article for it is surprisingly subpar. There's a great deal of plot, there are several tagged, uncited claims, and there's nothing in the development section that's not already at Superman. "Collectibility" could certainly go into Action Comics. The one thing here that doesn't appear at Superman or at Action Comics is the (uncited) enumeration of five panels that were changed from the original comic-strip format to comic-book format, and once cited, that can go in either or both of those extant articles.


 * I'm thinking the reason we don't have Detective Comics 27 or Amazing Fantasy 15 articles is that, similarly they would almost entirely duplicate what's already at Detective Comics & Batman and at Amazing Fantasy and Spider-Man, respectively. (Housekeeping note: The AF15 link is only bluelinked because it redirects to Amazing Fantasy.) --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are about half a dozen individual issues, give or take, that are notable enough and may have enough information to support their own articles. Action Comics 1 is one of those issues. Ids the current state of that article "perfect" or at GA status? No, but it is at the stage that is a good target to aim others at.
 * The things I think should be there to seriously think about splitting out from the articles on the series are the material related to creating the story or stories in the issue, the critical commentary on that specific issue, the "Collectability" section, and the "Reprint/homage" of the individual issue. That focus on the key issue rather than the over all publication can make splitting natural. Some cases, Detective I think is one, won't immideatly be there since the article on the series is obcenely sparse.
 * As for plot... note I pointed to a plot section. An article like this should not be a plot dump. But in compiling the information about the development of the story or critical reviews it, elements of the plots are unavoidable.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've redacted my keep !vote above; I'm gonna have to switch to neutral on this. I've been going through my sources and, truth be told, it doesn't seem like there's enough new material to warrant a whole article. My recollection was that there was more stuff out there, but when it comes to putting it all down, it just doesn't seem like enough. I still am of the opinion that there are a handful of individual comic books that warrant an article, but I don't see any way I can collect enough sources to sustain this one, at least for now. It's unfortunate that things shook out this way; I just stumbled upon this article while looking around to see if it seemed appropriate for me to create it (synchronicity!) and didn't want it CSD'ed before I at least had a chance to have a crack at it. Well, I've had my crack; I'll go through my notes and see if anything can get added to the main article. If things look different in the future, I'll try to grow this article the proper way rather than like this. Sorry for the bother! Matt Deres (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Matt, however this shakes out, I want to assure you that it's no bother at all for any of us. Honest, spirited debate of different points of view is critical to improving Wikipedia, and speaking personally, I'm glad to to see someone like you &mdash; who wants not only to edit but to expand on what's here in bold ways &mdash; becoming part of our community. Don't stop! I'm looking forward to seeing you around the project. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep it is one of the most important Marvel comics ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.166.186 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's well and good, though an unsigned comment by an anonymous IP has questionable weight. More importantly: What content do you propose we use to fill out this article that doesn't duplicate what is in other articles? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and merge into Fantastic Four if needed. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete undue weight. Merge if appropriate.  This particular Fantastic Four vol shows no particular notability. MLA (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2011 (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.