Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy


 * 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   no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only one part of the "trilogy" has been released, and it hasn't completed yet. The first part already has its own article, so this is essentially dependent on two series that haven't come out yet. Friginator (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But why wait. The second series has been confirmed. Don't you think its just a little bit silly, making 3 articles and then when the issue has been released of the Trilogy then making it in to one. Ultimate Galactus Trilogy is one article. Im just thinking wht you are doing is making the Ultimate Marvel pages messier buy having seperate articles. It is a trilogy, it has been confirmed over and over again. JFBeard (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - this is being described as similar to the Ultimate Galactus Trilogy which started out as three articles and they were all pretty poor so it was merged into one. Given how poor Ultimate Comics: Enemy and how Ultimate Comics: Mystery is shaping up, I think the best course of action would be to trim the plot down and merge them all into this one article covering all three limited series. We could end up with one fairly decent article as opposed to three poor ones. If one of the parts of this trilogy somehow takes off and does something notable (notable enough that requires a lot more room), then we could look into splitting it but at the moment a merge seems the best option. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Except it wasn't called the "Ultimate Galactus" trilogy until much later. I seriously doubt this will be collected as the "Ultimate Enemy" trilogy, so for now we don't even have a conclusive name. Friginator (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TenPoundHammer's Law can apply in these circumstances - so if, for example, the first single off an album was failing notability it'd make sense to merge it to the album article, which is easier to prove notability for, even if the final title isn't yet known (as long as you can prove notability). The Ultimate Enemy is poor and given the precedent of what happened with the Ultimate Galactus Trilogy article it'd make sense to cover all three series in the one article. I do think the article under discussion has slightly "jumped the gun" but now we have it we might as well use it. (Emperor (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Emperor (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.