Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt

:{{la|Kraven's First Hunt}} ([{{fullurl:Kraven's First Hunt|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Little more than a plot summary. I don't see this warrants its own article anymore than the countless similar arcs Spider-Man has had since his creation. It's not as if this has had the same amount of cultural recognition as, say, The Night Gwen Stacy Died. I had prodded this earlier but an anon IP removed it with no explanation whatsoever. In my opinion, these would be better off merged with related articles (like the one for Brand New Day) if not outright deleted.Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related for the same reasons--I don't believe that they are notable enough to sustain an article by themselves.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{la|Flashbacks (comics)}}

:{{la|New Ways to Die}}

:{{la|Character Assassination (comics)}}

NOTE: These articles are not on this AFD anymore per policy. I have nominated Flashbacks separately but I have not yet the others. Sorry for the confusion.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Small procedural thing first... If you are going to AfD more than 1 article, AfD each separatly, even if your reason covers all of them. Provide the links if you feel the AfDs should be considered together, but each article and discussion should be taken on its own merits. As it stands, the AfD tags ar coming off of the other 3 until such time as each is put up for a separate AfD.
• Minor points regarding the article this AfD addresses.
• The article is classed as Start, meaning there is room to work on it. Placing a maintenance tag and giving that time may be more appropriate than jumping immediately to a PROD or AfD.
• PRODs can be removed by anyone at anytime. And while an edit summary is preferred, the assumption is that the removal was done in the belief that the article should not be quickly removed sans discussion.

:- J Greb (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

::I never assumed bad faith on their part...I just pointed out that I had them up for PROD and anon IP removed them with no explanation. That's it.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:::To be honest all that needed to be noted is "I PRODed it. The PROD was removed/contested so I've nomed it for AfD for (reasons). The same reasons I PRODed it." How you stated it though comes off a bit tetchy. - J Greb (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if possible, or merge/redirect to Fictional history of Spider-Man. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Per Colonel Warden below, if Kraven's First Hunt is merged, a better merge target would be Kraven's Last Hunt. BOZ (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP ALL All of these comics have notable reviews in legitimate third party media references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ways_to_Die has more than the others, listed right now. There are plenty of review sites out there which review just about every notable comic book issue that comes out there, so if comics follow the same rules as regular books, that makes them notable. Also, each of these was reprinted as a hardcover book. If they issues didn't sell very well, weren't notable to the fans buying them, then they wouldn't be reprinted in hardcover. Therefore hardcover indicates notability. Dream Focus 22:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• First off, since it was pointed out to the nom that multiple articles in 1one AfD isn't a good way to go, neither "New Ways to Die" nor "Character Assassination" have been re-nomed. Using them to argue for saving "Kraven's First Hunt" is as good an idea as lumping the three for a mass deletion was.
  Second, the review sites don't tend to pick "notable" issues. With Marvel comics they tend to review all the issues that hit the stands in the current week. There's also a tendancy for them to be less critical and more "The plot is...". And someone want to may check, but IIUC film and book reviews are produced not because the work is notable, but to generate sales, hence the reviews preceding the general release of the book or film.
  Third, is salability the same as notability? The trades, and the pattern the publisher releases them in, is designed to generate maximum income. Hardcovers and softcovers coming out within months of an arc ending speaks more to the publisher milking the buzz not the notability.
  Last, there is all but zero real world context present. Where is the material from interviews of Guggenheim about why this story, why these characters, and why extend the Kravinoff family in this way? Where is the information from reviews comparing this arc with “Kraven’s Last Hunt”? Hell, where’s the material from the reviews either picking the arc apart or praising it? All that is there is:
• Bare bones, index level data, original publication info - publisher, comic title, cover date, writer, and penciller. No other creative staff listed.
• Bare bones, index level data, original reprint info - title and ISBN. Publisher(s) and date(s) omitted.
• A single review mentioned in passing. And that just gave where the review was published and a numerical rating. Nothing about the critical comments, good or bad, the reviewer had for the work or even who the reviewer was.

::An article should not be only plot summary, ever. Plot summary can and should be part of articles on stories. But it should be there to bolster the real world context of the article. And looking at this article, what non-plot summary elements are present are there only as window dressing. Only so it can be said "The article isn't 100% plot."

::- J Greb (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Notability must be established individually, and this doesn't pass in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• The other AFD aren't showing up on those articles. When I click on the link there in previous versions of the article page, it links here. If you want to nominate them, check to make sure it lines up properly. I added in two interviews the writer did, on two of those series, and finding more for all of these shouldn't be a problem. Comics like this get more reviews than episodes of popular series. Dream Focus 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

:Several of those mentioned here as being nominated, are talked about in an interview one of the guys who worked on them did. http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010930-Weekly-Webbing.html Dream Focus 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Nom indicates adding two other articles bt those article don't seem to be tagged for AfD. Are they included or not? -- Banjeboi 01:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep New Ways to Die is a keeper (even if it needs more work), and before nominating the others problems should have been flagged (with {{t1|notability}} as well as any other that apply) - the articles are currently failing but with enough time I know I can dig up more reviews and perhaps an interview. There is a broader issue about these, while we can probably make a modest article on them do we need one? I am unsure from the articles about why these are more important than others and I don't feel Wikipedia is the place for articles on every story arc for main characters. So I'd suggest tagging the other three but unless strong reasons it should have its own article (answering the question: "why this arc and not others?") then we should look at merge discussions to Fictional history of Spider-Man. (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

• COMMENT Sorry for the confusion everyone. Per policy and J Greb, I have removed the additional articles off the list as they should not share the same AFD. Flashbacks has its own AFD, and depending on the outcomes of these, I may or may not submit the other ones for AFD at a later point in time. Once again, sorry for the confusion.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Fictional history of Spider-Man. No sources discuss it, it isn't a notable piece of fiction by itself. Fences and windows (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation - it wasn't difficult. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment How does the [http://www.comicbookresources.com/?id=16616&page=article article you linked] prove that it fits the notability guidelines?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::* It is a source which discusses the topic. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Its a puffpiece/interview. It would be fine for sourcing the article, but I don't see how that proves that the subject is "evidently notable" when such promo pieces are a dime a dozen with comics.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:::: It seems fine to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I searched for quite a while without finding anything that I'd characterise as a reliable source, so well done Colonel Warden. This one sources doesn't change my Merge recommendation though. Fences and windows (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::* Here's [http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=user_review&id=240 another article] from the same publisher which reviews the first issue in some detail. Turning up such sources online just takes a minute or so. I expect that there are offline sources such as Wizard too. Note that your merge target is not ideal as Kraven's Last Hunt seems better - it already has a section for this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Comicbookresources reviews 90% of the comics on the market. I'm well aware of comicbook reviews on the internet--I just don't think that they ensure the notability of the subject. While I hate to pull out WP:WAX, if issue reviews are notable enough, then that's grounds to make articles for nearly every comicbook out. If the sources you're pulling out prove notability, then the standards for notability have dropped vastly. I'm going to ask for an opinion from the RS noticeboard.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:::: You are begging the question. Books are reviewed by book reviewers, films by film reviewers and comic books by comic book reviewers. You seem to be working from an assumption that comics are inherently inferior and so the media that cover them are not acceptable. This seems to be a systemic bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::::: Please assume good faith--I actually enjoy a lot of comics, including Spider-Man. So this isn't a matter of my own personal opinion about comics as a medium or whatever. But in this case, I don't think most individual arcs of a recurring comicbook series are notable enough to warrant their own articles on Wikipedia, with some obvious exceptions. There's stuff like Daredevil: Born Again, The Death of Gwen Stacy, Kraven's Last Hunt that ARE notable enough to warrant their own article. But by your standards, every single comicbook that has received a review on Comicbookresources should have their own article, which I disagree with.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• merge - bog standard storyline. It's simply not notable in the same way that say Kraven's last hunt is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• merge as above - insufficient independent notability for retaining this as a separate article - just plot summary, now with a soupçon of trivial guff masquerading as a source. Eusebeus (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2009 (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.