Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Isle of Mechanical Men


 * 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 Andy Panda. Merging is left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 12:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Isle of Mechanical Men

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unable to find significant coverage in a reliable sources of this story, does not appear to meet wp:BK wp:GNGwp:BK does not apply to comics. I asked for notability advice at wp:COMIC, but received no reply, so I am nominating it for deletion. The only source provided is a user edited database, which is not a reliable source Yoenit (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning to delete unless some one can come up with a source pointing out something that makes this singular issue notable. Wikipedia isn't an indexing site, so I can't see that as a good reason. Are there any others? - J Greb (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I know of Charlie Has Sleeping Sickness from the same issue. Furthermore a bit of searching in the creators history turned up The Haunted Inn, among a lot comic related articles which appear to have better notability.Yoenit (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those two also seem to only be indexes of individual issues or done-in-one stories without any indication that the material is notable. - J Greb (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP per WP:Notability: Criteria 5. "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." Coverage notes tells us "Though the concept of "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga); magazines; etc." Additionally, verifiability and reliable sources are required for material that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and quotations. The article on "Isle" is not likely to be challenged, contains no contentious material and no quotations.  I prefer the article be kept and given the chance for development. It was created only a week ago.SingToMePlease (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that wp:BK does not apply to comics, I was not aware of that. Unfortunately it invalidates your own argument, as this means wp:BK is no longer relevant and notability is determined by the general notability guideline. Independent reliable sources are thus required to establish notability. Yoenit (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if Wikipedia asks us to apply guidelines so rigorously that the baby is sometimes thrown out with the bathwater. But I leave it to you. I'm inexperienced with all of Wikipedia's ins and outs, but it is very depressing to have your work nailed for deletion within days of its creation, especially since it's a good faith article. SingToMePlease (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if I was to treat this as a book Dan Gormley doesn't fall into the category mentioned and while Walter Lantz might/does, it is in a different field (animation) and he did not write this comic and the individual issue is even less notable still.Tetron76 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to Andy Panda, where the comics discussion seems to need expansion. This and the related articles are just variations on a single template, and there's no reason for so much duplicate text. Reminiscent of the TV episodes disputes, but individual comics story articles don't appear to have room for expansion covering ratings, reviews, receptions, etc and series articles can handle the appropriate level of detail. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Andy Panda does not meet notability itself.Tetron76 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A fine issue, and very enjoyable to read. Ah, back when comics cost a dime! But it in no way satisfies WP:N. Also, linking to a complete reproduction of the 1950 comic, which seems to be still under copyright, seems to violate Wikipedia's policy against copyright infringement. I do not see how reproducing a complete work as the linked website does falls within "fair use." Wikipedia only has articles about notable works of fiction, and this is so microscopic a part of the complete body of fiction associated with Andy Panda that merging any significant part of it would give undue weight to it. Edison (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * exactly, what are we supposed to merge to the Andy Panda article? Redirecting is fine with me but I really see no material worth merging. Yoenit (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Andy Panda. If any salvageable material exists in this article, fine to merge it. Rlendog (talk) 18:05, 20 April 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.