Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classics Illustrated Special Issue: The United Nations

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. The two "keep" opinions cannot be taken into account as they do not address, or are at odds with, our inclusion requirements (WP:V#Notability), which focus on third-party coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 05:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classics Illustrated Special Issue: The United Nations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see evidence that this specific issue meets the notability criteria. There were other issues about Real-World organisations (such as the RCMP), and the rarity of the issue does not make it notable. The majority of the references are at retail/auction websites, the others do not appear to meet the required standard. I am a fan of the Classics Illustrated series in its various forms - but do not think that this specific issue is notable. I would be happy for a "Merge/Redirect to Classics Illustrated" outcome to this AfD, but feel that the correct outcome would be "Delete". PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it is notable because it is about a notable organization. That's what is special about it. - AnakngAraw (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an edition of a magazine about the organisation, not about the organisation. The United Nations is notable, but most books and magazines about it are not. I would contend that this is an example of one which is not. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 07:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing strong keep - as author and as an inclusionist of more knowledge, for a more open Wikipedia. Article existing since July 2011. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, those do not really counter the reason I nominated this article for deletion. How long it has existed and who the author is not relevant to whether the article is kept. "A more open Wikipedia" is a nice idea, but content needs to meet the criteria for inclusion. I looked to find some sources which would justify keeping this article, but I could not - hence the nomination for deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. If we consider only the editing side of his work, user AnakngAraw did a very nice job on this article. He's to be commended for that, and I'm sorry to have to !vote to delete. Unfortunately there's just nothing about it that even comes close to satisfying wp:note or, more specifically, wp:notability (books). Likewise for many of his articles, I'm afraid. Per my talk page comments, his Lion's Head (Kennon Road) article could also have been subject to an AfD for notability problems, before I added refs to establish that. Looking through his edit history, briefly, his recent Split Jack article also seems doubtful to me re notability, as independent from Jumping Jack, especially. Too, his First Lady of the World book article, and his Score the Goals and U.N. Force comic book articles all seem to me to fail notability requirements, although you have to look at the many listed refs to see that. I value the editor's obviously good intentions, but he could save both himself and his fellow editors considerable time if he would study our various wp:note guidelines before he creates any more articles. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.