Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys (comic book)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys (comic book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unpublished book, only available sources are primary or self published, does not meet WP:BKCRIT. Tgeairn (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Danger_Days:_The_True_Lives_of_the_Fabulous_Killjoys. When this releases it'll likely get far more coverage than it has now. As it is, all I can find are posts in RS that just re-quote a press release or are so brief in nature that they aren't really enough to show notability right here and now. I added a section about the series in the Danger Days article, so this can redirect there until further notice. It's just WP:TOOSOON for it to have an article right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It definitely skirts the edge of WP:TOOSOON but in my opinion it just squeaks by notability. Even if some of the articles cited are stating the same information, there is clearly a great deal of interest in it, and being one of the most anticipated comics of the year puts it above other unpublished books.  I suspect that there will continue to be more information about it (ala the cover reveal), so I would advocate just going ahead and keeping it up as opposed to redirecting. Caseylf (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The IGN bit in the article counts. Newsarama mentioned it.  Digital Spy has a longer article about it.  Other news results to look through if you need more convincing.    D r e a m Focus  20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient articles to prove notability, as illustrated above.  --Ben Knapp (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep — Meets WP:BKCRIT #1: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." All but one of the sources in the article is from the publisher. – Zntrip 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was on the fence about this one. To my mind, what's more relevant here than WP:BKCRIT is WP:CRYSTAL. While "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors", as long as the article avoids "advertising and unverified claims" it should be OK. Taking a cue from WP:NFF, maybe one thing we should consider is whether or not artwork has already been produced. In this case, independent sources have released some preliminary art. Also, there is a defined publication date. While comic books don't always come out on time, both of these factors together seem to put this impending release of this publication beyond mere rumor or speculation. We can always put it up for deletion again if it never materializes (although it is true that some articles about never-published comics have lingered long past their supposed pub dates.) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (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.