Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meng and Ecker

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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meng and Ecker

Meng and Ecker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable, little sources or info about the series itself, and seems to be fancruft that wouldn't be too informative if someone wasn't familar with the series. CyberGhostface 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's obscure (I had never heard about it, and there aren't much sources around), but at the same time it is real and has made in its circle quite a stir. I have found a reference to it in the Comics Journal [1], so it's definitely more than fancruft (the comic, not the article about the comic though). Another article, partly about the banning of the comic in Britain, written by respected author Roger Sabin, can be seen on this (in itself perhaps not so trustworthy) site[2]. It is also mentioned in this article from Asimov's Science Fiction [3], which also mentions that the latest compilation of these comics has a preface by Alan Moore. So it seems that even though not many people know the comics, they are notorious (banned) and at the same time hihgly appreciated by respected experts in the field. The article could be improved a lot though, partially by these sources and probably even more by offline sources and by people who know the comic. Fram 14:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with deference to the above, it looks like fancruft to me and is of marginal notability at any rate. Eusebeus 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable, the novels were published in the mainstream, and the comics were controversial. Pete Fenelon 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: the fact of it having been noticed by public authority, and banned, somewhat increases notability. 69.140.173.15 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is notable in the United Kingdom as a notorious banned comic, and is mentioned in numerous books and articles about media censorship. AdorableRuffian 11:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, what the article needs is some verfified info from reputable sources, and The Independent, The Observer, and The Guardian have several articles on this. (I'll add them as sources when I've got a bit more time.) For example, The Independent on March 12, 2003: "Britton's most notorious title, the brilliantly vile Lord Horror, became the first book to be banned in Britain since Last Exit to Brooklyn. Defended in 1992 by Geoffrey Robertson QC, Britton's Meng & Ecker comics still languish under prohibition." -- Dragonfiend 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added four newspaper sources, two from 1992, one from 1997, and one from 2003. Hopefully that takes care of the sourcing and notability issues as far as all are concerned. -- Dragonfiend 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep-- It definitely made a splash at the time. Historic interest in the history of comics censorship. -- Rhinoracer 12:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per fram and Pete Fenelon. --Arvedui 03:19, 30 November 2006 (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.