Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloween Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween Man

Self-published comicbook. Official website has an Alexa ranking of over 5 million [1]. The article itself notes that it is pretty much a one man operation. No signs of notability given. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't always been self published. But even then, what's wrong with a self published comic being in Wiki? Lots of comics are self published and underground in nature. That doesn't mean there's no interest in them or that they're undeserving of a "wikiarticle." You have to look at it sort of like an underground band or cult film. I hope you'll reconsidered your stance on the Halloween Man article, because we've put alot of work into it. And hope to have the chance to continue to improve it. Plus the comic itself hasn't just been a self published venture. Though that's been apart of it's history, it's also been published by atleast two small publishers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubfan (talk • contribs)

The amount of work you have put into it is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that this subject isn't notable. Some small press and/or underground comics are. This, unfortunately, isn't one of them. IrishGuy talk 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete comic book published by uber-ultra-micro-indie publisher(s). "Outerspace Spider Comics", for example, has all of 3 Google hits. Poor Alexa rank shows that the ol' "but it's popular on the internet, really" line doesn't apply here. Looks like a genuinely good comic though, and I encourage the creator to keep up the good work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article makes no justification of its notability. The comic may be the best thing since sliced bread but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Yamla 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Look up Across the Pond studios and you'll find that they've had titles out through Image, Dark Horse, etc. Type in "Halloween Man Comics" into google and you'll that there is a interest out there for this character.Not to mention that one of the artist on the comic has been featured in Wizard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubfan (talk • contribs)


If you guys aren't willing to look beyond Alexa, which really isn't the only way to find out about a properties appeal. Then how are you so sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

If you read the above comments, you will see that editors have looked beyond Alexa. The low Alexa ranking is just one factor. IrishGuy talk 23:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, if I google "Halloween Man Comics" as you suggest, I get 21 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Please look at the following. Without the quotas around it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Halloween+Man+comics

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Halloweenman+comics

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Halloweenman+

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Halloween+man+

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Drew+Edwards+comic

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nicola+Scott+comic

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Terry+Parr+comic

http://www.scrypticstudios.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

  • What's the point without the quotes? Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but if you're not even going to look at the sites it pulls up. Then you're making a strong case for your side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

  • No offense, but anyone with an iota of Internet experience knows that looking up multiple-word phrases on Google without quotes gets you a whole lot of sites, mostly not related to what you're looking for. Danny Lilithborne 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I don't know a single person who searches that way. Look at the searches before you write me off why don't you? I'll bet over 99 percent of them relate to the comic Seems to me like you guys have already made up your minds. So why even bother with this discussion? Look I think the fact that there's sereval people debating against you proves that atleast worth a further look before you delete. In the same of fairness, check out those links.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

  • Who? Even if we assume you're not Bubfan, that's still only 2. And everyone I know, when they need to search for a specific term, uses quotes. As for the discussion, you are only making things more confusing, which doesn't help your "cause" at all. Danny Lilithborne 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


If you say so. How do I even know you guys aren't the same person? It's an act of trust now isn't it. If you really must now I'm at work otherwise I'd make a profile. And I came across this little debate quite by accident. But that's nether here nor there. You're dancing around the points I've made rather than simply clicking on the links. I doubt you'll find at all to confusing. It's just a list of sites. Make an informed opinion rather than an uninformed one. Seems the logical choice of action to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm somewhat offended at the assumption that we only vote Delete because we haven't checked your links. But I'm done here. Danny Lilithborne 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there ANY way to save this? - Russell H

Okay- so what exactly is the basis for wanting to delete this whole article? Because it doesn't hold enough interest between you and your group of friends? I really don't quite understand. Aeveryman 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply (and as has been made clear) because the subject isn't notable per Wikipedia standards. Just because something is interesting to a small group of people, that doesn't make it worth an encyclopedia article. IrishGuy talk 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Oh- I get it now. I thought the point of the wikipedia was to be able to include a broader range of (legitimate) subjects that wouldn't be in a paper encyclopedia, since the internet is such a huge resource. I didn't realize it was just a digital form of your average, limited encyclopedia. I stand corrected. Aeveryman 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If by "broader range" you mean "any silly trash me and my friends think it's important" then, yeah, you're right. Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this "broader range"? A quick perusal over the official message forum shows that most threads are dead and the last posts were by the creater Drew [2]. Obviously, someone on the yahoo group is trying to influence this vote [3] and yet still, all votes by legitimate editors vote deletion. There just isn't any notability here. That doesn't mean Drew isn't talented. It doesn't mean the comic isn't good. It simply means that at this juncture the subject isn't notable. IrishGuy talk 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Legit editors? I thought anyone who signed up is a legit editor? Look just because someone on the yahoo group is being pushy, doesn't mean that's how everyone is going about it. Cleary you've pushed some peoples buttons though. Which means people do care more about this character then you originally suspected. Atleast grant us that. As far as the message forum goes, I think most indie comics would have a similar set-up. Really anything that's not DC or Marvel has to be pushed hard by it's creator. I don't get what you mean by "dead" though. There's topics going on in there from the last week or so. Honestly I think "everyman" makes some valid points. There's some stuff on here that's just as fringy as "Halloween Man." How about this, leave the article up for say...six months to a year. You might be surprised at what happens. I'll continue to improve the article myself. I'm sure the others here will as well. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubfan (talk • contribs)

Yes, legit editors. As in, editors who have worked on articles other than this one. IrishGuy talk 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Abe - thanks for copying us over to Comixpedia. Dragonfiend - not sure what you mean by lack of reliable sources. What reliable sources are we lacking? (Not sarcasm - I'm genuinely asking). IrishGuy - is there a way to save this at all? Or perhaps some form of workable compromise? --RussellH 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. If you can illustrate notability about this subject. Something verifiable outside of a small sphere of fans. IrishGuy talk 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the compromise option? A vastly reduced entry, for instance (3-4 paragrahps, a couple of external links and a single picture), with the option of expanding later? Or is it an all or nothing situation? --RussellH 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't something that can really be compromised. Otherwise there would be hundreds of stubs that never became notable but people are still patiently waiting just in case they do. If it isn't notable now, it should be deleted. If it becomes notable later, it can be recreated with the new information. IrishGuy talk 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY keep it! You have a link to Madame Razz from the She-Ra cartoon and you are considering deleting THIS? That's more than a little ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs)


While personally I think they should keep it. Anyone who is a fan of this comic should just work on the Comixpedia article. There's already more effort being put into that one that this version. More people working on it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.131.80 (talk • contribs)

Delete - Notability is in question, but also the quality of the article at this point. Delete and re-write; it reads like a promotional website at this point, loaded with POV and non-informative trivia....

  • Solomon's main power is often described as the "power of the horror movie sequel." citations or re-write; who says, and where?
  • More recently, a major villain in the form of the Phantom Hood has turned up to make Solomon's life hell. Is the whole article written by a comic writer?
  • It reads like it's written by a fanboy; Fans of the series often praise the comic's sly nods to pop culture as a strong postmodernist element. or Naysayers tend to note the physical similarties between Solomon and Jonah Hex.

It's basically a fansite on Wikipedia at this point... --Xinit 20:23, 15 June 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.