Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato Moon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:18, 30 May 2009

Potato Moon

I speedied this on OrangeMike's recommendation because it didn't appear to have any independent sources (Peter David appears to have some connection to comicmix.com, and the other two links were to his own website), or to assert that there were likely to be any, but by request and on reflection, I was too hasty ... there have been enough edits on this that it deserves community scrutiny. So scrutinize. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep lots of attention within the comics community. Speedy delete should not have been an option--it is a plausible search term and at the least should be redirected to the author if it is not kept. JJL (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Peter David is certainly a notable author, as are several of the participants, so I have no problem with this meeting the general notability guidelines. The Comics Mix connection appears to be through Glenn Haumann, who runs David's website, but not David himself. However, I've added a few new references, as the story is gaining more notice as it progresses. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peter David is quite notable in the comic book field, and there are references there already about notable reviews of Potato Moon, and most likely plenty more about. Dream Focus 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article clearly belongs with Peter David it is not notable on its own Capitalismojo (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the user above me obviously had the same idea as me. Well done. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 08:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'll agree that it goes under Peter David. It should have it's own section such as "Current projects" or similar.Joe407 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to the david article. There are no reliable sources that establish independent notability for this. Let's leave it up to the active editors at the David article to decide how much weight this should, or should not, be given in his BLP.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Project is notable largely because of David's involvement, so best located in his article. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I, too, agree that it should go under Peter David's main article, especially because it marks his return to Google, and also because it is related to the Twilight Saga, another notable work.Ladysybilla (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Delete''' and then redirect to the david article. There are no reliable sources that establish independent notability for this. Let's leave it up to the active editors at the David article to decide how much  weight this should, or should not, be given in his BLP.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''' Project is notable largely because of David's involvement, so best located in his article. [[User:IceCreamEmpress|IceCreamEmpress]] ([[User talk:IceCreamEmpress|talk]]) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Merge''' I, too, agree that it should go under Peter David's main article, especially because it marks his return to Google, and also because it is related to the Twilight Saga, another notable work.
+*'''Merge''' I, too, agree that it should go under Peter David's main article, especially because it marks his return to Google, and also because it is related to the Twilight Saga, another notable work.[[User:Ladysybilla|Ladysybilla]] ([[User talk:Ladysybilla|talk]]) 17:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
-[[User:Ladysybilla|Ladysybilla]] ([[User talk:Ladysybilla|talk]]) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)