Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Heroes in Love
- 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 12:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Young Heroes in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable comic series that fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear in reliable sources. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable for being an early, uncommon example of homo/bisexual superhero characters from a major publisher, and an example of the hybrid superhero/romance genre. Sources include: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- It seems you are just rattling out sources per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, maybe consider whether they are either reliable or significant. I can tell you for a fact that a large number of those are either a primary source (interview), an unreliably sourced blog, or an insignificant mention like a one sentence name drop. I am still not convinced about the notability as there is no indication you are familiar with notability guidelines.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have in fact considered the nature of the sources. Several of them are mainstream sites covering the comics industry or pop culture (e.g. CBR, Comics Alliance, Logo, Gizmodo). Notability guidelines (which I am in fact familiar with) don't require that the subject be the primary topic of sources, only that the coverage be significant enough to establish the facts: It's the sole topic of the very long article on MajorSpoilers.com, and in each of the articles covering it as part of a set of related items (CBR, Logo, InsidePulse, The Star) it gets a section header and 150–300 words, which is more than "a one sentence name drop". While a few of the sources I linked to are blogs, it's worth noting that they are bringing up a comic published many years earlier (not just "look what I bought this week"), which speaks to some lasting significance.(WP:SUSTAINED) Which brings up the content of what several of the sources are saying, speaking of the historical notability of the comic for its depiction of gay/bi characters in the 90s, and its niche in the romance genre. The article does a poor job of documenting this; it looks like it's about a forgettable and forgotten series from 20 years ago. But it is not forgotten and it is notable, and the article could be easily improved to reflect that.(WP:NEXIST) If the only sources available were passing mentions and blogs, you would be correct in assessing it as inadequately sourced to keep, but in fact the sources are more reliable and substantial than that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- MajorSpoilers.com is not a reliable source, as it says nothing about what type of editorial staff is on the site (I am guessing there is none). The Gizmodo reference is one sentence. CBR is just a listicle, so it's not significant coverage. The Star has a couple paragraphs, again not significant. Everything else is an unreliable blog post. I'd say the mention in The Star is the closest it comes to notability but that alone cannot carry the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC))
- I feel you are judging the sources prejudicially (and ignoring the issue of its demonstrated cultural notability) to justify a hasty and careless nomination for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that most of the sources you listed are unusable blogs. Although CBR has won some Eisners in its day, I've found it to be almost useless since it was sold. io9 and Inside Pulse are usable, but I only use them to add color to reception sections, not to satisfy GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- I feel you are judging the sources prejudicially (and ignoring the issue of its demonstrated cultural notability) to justify a hasty and careless nomination for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- MajorSpoilers.com is not a reliable source, as it says nothing about what type of editorial staff is on the site (I am guessing there is none). The Gizmodo reference is one sentence. CBR is just a listicle, so it's not significant coverage. The Star has a couple paragraphs, again not significant. Everything else is an unreliable blog post. I'd say the mention in The Star is the closest it comes to notability but that alone cannot carry the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC))
- I have in fact considered the nature of the sources. Several of them are mainstream sites covering the comics industry or pop culture (e.g. CBR, Comics Alliance, Logo, Gizmodo). Notability guidelines (which I am in fact familiar with) don't require that the subject be the primary topic of sources, only that the coverage be significant enough to establish the facts: It's the sole topic of the very long article on MajorSpoilers.com, and in each of the articles covering it as part of a set of related items (CBR, Logo, InsidePulse, The Star) it gets a section header and 150–300 words, which is more than "a one sentence name drop". While a few of the sources I linked to are blogs, it's worth noting that they are bringing up a comic published many years earlier (not just "look what I bought this week"), which speaks to some lasting significance.(WP:SUSTAINED) Which brings up the content of what several of the sources are saying, speaking of the historical notability of the comic for its depiction of gay/bi characters in the 90s, and its niche in the romance genre. The article does a poor job of documenting this; it looks like it's about a forgettable and forgotten series from 20 years ago. But it is not forgotten and it is notable, and the article could be easily improved to reflect that.(WP:NEXIST) If the only sources available were passing mentions and blogs, you would be correct in assessing it as inadequately sourced to keep, but in fact the sources are more reliable and substantial than that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- It seems you are just rattling out sources per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, maybe consider whether they are either reliable or significant. I can tell you for a fact that a large number of those are either a primary source (interview), an unreliably sourced blog, or an insignificant mention like a one sentence name drop. I am still not convinced about the notability as there is no indication you are familiar with notability guidelines.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to List of DC Comics publications. Anything notable about it will fit in the notes column easily. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I'm finding some coverage as "Young+Heroes+in+Love"&dq="Young+Heroes+in+Love"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizyvK8pf3ZAhUKLKwKHaPZAt44FBDoAQg2MAM here fore example. Yes, it's a compendium, but the series is also noted elsewhere and referred to as acclaimed in another source. Not hugely notable but significant in its niche. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2018 (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.