Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hunting Party (Judge Dredd story)


 * 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 redirect to Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection.  Sandstein  07:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Hunting Party (Judge Dredd story)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced article about a comic book plotline. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. What makes this story notable? See also Articles for deletion/Mechanismo At best, this can be redirected to Judge_Dredd per the outcome of that other AfDs and several more since. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable anthology, republished as book, notable. IQNQ (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI
 * Delete or redirect - If there's no coverage in reliable sources, the topic does not need an article. TTN (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are no sources being used in the current article, and searching for coverage turned up pretty much nothing in reliable, secondary sources. I would also be against a Redirect as suggested in the nom - in order to make sense to be redirected to the section on "Major storylines", there would need to be some evidence that this was a major storyline, which there is not.  Rorshacma (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: This review is pretty good, but I'm on the fence. It's self-published, but I'd say its from an expert in the field having published two books.  That said it is only one source (if that), so I'm abstaining temporarily, just wanted to throw that out for consideration.  It can't sustain an article alone per WP:SELFSOURCE#5, though.  I'll likely recommend a redirect to Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection since it is already listed (iss.64/vol.41), and it doesn't appear "major" enough to merge to the the main "Major storylines" section. -2pou (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection, I concur with 2pou that Douglas Wolk is probably a subject-matter expert, but unfortunately his review alone is not enough to cause this article to pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection. Other than the review linked above, and a reprinting, this storyline doesn't appear to have attracted much attention. It doesn't have much effect on the Dredd continuity to be considered a "major" storyline either. the wub "?!"  12:56, 12 October 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.