Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Bullet Comics
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 was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Silver Bullet Comics
Re-creation of an article recently speedily deleted, so I'm bringing it here in good faith. Original speedy reasoning was that it reads like an advertisement, and that still holds true. Also, some real Conflict of Interest concerns - article was created both times by SBComics, whose contributions are few and all involve promoting Silver Bullet Comics. Appears to fail WP:N. Antepenultimate 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and Salt as recreated content, otherwise delete for an apparent utter lack of notability compounded by COI problems. Otto4711 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Otto, note we can't speedy G4 here, as the previous deletion was a speedy. --Dennisthe2 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Explanations The original version of this article was about the award winning webzine at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com. The owners of the retail store deleted the content about the webzine and substituted commercial material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.128.81 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- Explanations Article was attacked by person in voilation of the Silver Bullet Comics trademark, causing edit war. Article was deleted. New entry was created to correct that, but entry's contents were lost, so a quick version was posted till further expansion could properly be done. Article suffered speedy delete too hastily, and was reposted. Article only reads like ad because it has not been fleshed out to it's proper state where it was before edit war deletion. Conflict of Interest comes from attempts to protect trademark. Aditional editing will adjust article back to the informational entry on this battle and it's results, removing it's current "reads like an advertisiment" issues.71.71.113.156 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - If I'm understanding what you're saying, then it is being claimed that an article was deleted due to an edit war - which to my knowledge does not normally cause an article to be deleted. Edit-warring articles are generally put up for protection or go through arbitration; it is not a valid reason for deletion (especially speedy deletion). The deletion log show this article to have been deleted twice, both for concerns of advertising. Admins are supposed to check an article's history to make sure it is not the target of sudden, drastic revisions before acting on any speedy deletion request (and I believe they do). If protecting your trademark is truely your number one concern, you should realize that allowing this article to be deleted and salted (essentially, protected from re-creation) will accomplish that quite nicely. I doubt this is solution you're looking for, however.
-
- None of this addresses my concerns of this article failing Wikipedia's Notability criteria, however. The cornerstone of that important policy: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Please note the specific wording of that phrase and follow those links for explanations of just what we mean by "independent" and "reliable" sources. Note also that "non-trivial" means that it is more than a passing mention or quote in an article about a larger or different topic. I was unable to find such sources myself in relation to either incarnation of Silver Bullet Comics.
-
- I hope no-one minds that I moved this coversation down here per usual practice, in order to keep the timeline of comments straight. Also, please sign your comments here by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your posts. Thank you. -- Antepenultimate 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:N. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this article now has more sources and info than the current Wikipedia entries for 'Comic Book Resources', 'The Comics Reporter', 'Comic Shop News', 'Funtime Comics', 'Million Year Picnic', 'Newsarama', and Hundreds upon hundreds of other entries covering comics websites and stores, all of which have been allowed and are not up for deletion. As this entry's subject has long been BOTH a US Trademarked site AND a store, making it unique, and founded by a person with many ties to the comics industry, it shoud be allowed to be fleshed out, not deleted. If every imaginary character that ever appeared in a single comic can have an entry, this unique company more than qualifies, with it's rich history of exclusive stories quoted all over the internet, and current legal battle. Many articles on Wikipedia utilize this website as the source for their article's information... so having this entry be significant enough to qualify as a trusted source, but not accept defining it, is completely contrary to what an enclyclopedia accomplishes. To delete this entry is to disqualify all entries quoting this source as a valid resource. This entry should be allowed to be expanded, as deleting it serves no purpose, in light of other similar content rampant on Wikipeda. To not let it have the chance to expand is to favor other sites' ability to have entries over it, under the same criteria.71.71.113.156 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Please note that inclusion is not an indicator of notability, so the existence of other similar articles is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Also please take a look at arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as you've made quite a few of those above (note that "arguments to avoid" is not an official policy, however, it gives a pretty good idea the types of arguments that closing admins are likely to ignore, IMO). As for many of the "sources" that have been introduced to the article, they all seem to be more about nationwide events that Silver Bullet happened to participate in (especially the 24 Hour Comic sources). This is also true for the Newsarama sources - These do much more to demonstrate the notability of Free Comic Book day than this particular store, and does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the website this article was originally promoting (and yes, I still feel your aims are promotional in nature). Also, these sources are somewhat dubious in terms of what we consider a reliable source - The Comics Journal links, especially, seem to be in the form of a blog, where short blurbs tend only to link back to Silver Bullet's own site. -- Antepenultimate 18:19, 3 February 2007 (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.
