Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torment (comics)

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 Speedy keep as there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torment (comics)[edit]

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

~~This is a very poorly written stub with no notability presented for the subject within the article. Spidey104^contribs 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I found a large review published by Comics Bulletin, you can find out more at Pink Kryptonite and Rambles websites. I can imagine an informative article about this comics series. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Spidey104, but AfD is not cleanup. In my opinion we should discuss the notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the section you linked to: "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option."

I think it is harmful as is because it looks to be a non-notable subject that was given an article as fancruft. I think the story arc is notable, but if you read my previous comment again you will see that my complaint is that this article does not show that. Spidey104^contribs 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be familiar with the topic. Why don't you improve the article by editing? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like it could be notable as it was McFarlane's revamping of Spider-Man (with a new issue #1) which led to so much in 1990s comics (worth checking some of the sources at Modern Age of Comics). Equally, this was made in April 2009 but hasn't got much attention since, this is partly because hardly anything links to it (only one mainspace article - it isn't in the navbox as it should be). I'd suggest an intensive round of linking this in from the creators and characters, as well as a look around for more sources. Revist this in 6 months and see how it has shaped up. (Emperor (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep I've added some of the solid coverage from Voger (which contains interviews with McFarlane and the editor) as it is a key run with record breaking sales (if you search Amazon for "Spider-Man" and "McFarlane" the relevant pages pop right up). It needs more work but it is notable. (Emperor (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - isn't this one of the highest grossing comic storylines of all time? That seems notable enough. - Sharp962 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think Sharp962 is correct, but does anyone have a verifiable source to put into the article about it? An article has to justify its notability within itself, not in the talk page comments about what could/should be in it. Spidey104^contribs 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for it breaking the record for comics sales. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good work Emperor. Thanks for your competent help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the considerable improvements. Artw (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to second the notion by Artw; though not an exemplar, this is a solid storyline article. This seems to be a fair article now, and time and ambitious editors should help it to continue to grow. I have to also agree that accolades to Emperor, Vejvančický, and even Spidey for the work improving the article. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable comic. It got ample coverage, as others have found. Dream Focus 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given significant improvements and the above discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Is there anyway I can ask for this discussion to be closed? I still stand by my reasoning (see what I wrote above) to nominate this article for deletion, because it was an abysmal article that was harmful to the topic's image as it stood. However, the article has more than quintupled in size since I nominated it and the changes you can see here prove it is going in the right direction. But it still has LOTS of room for improvement, so don't stop fixing this article. The "Plot synopsis" is still horrendous and needs to be fixed. Spidey104^contribs 13:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of, course, it isn't just about whether an article is demonstrating notability, what also counts is if it can be demonstrated (its potential) and reading round the connected articles it became clear these are some of the highest selling comics ever. Equally, as I mention above, there were problems with it being almost an orphan article, despite its pivotal role within comics in general and Todd McFarlane's career in general. Because of that it had got very little traffic and few edits, so the first step would be to link it in from elsewhere. Then before nominating flag your concerns on the article (and perhaps in WT:CMC) - there were no clean-up tags on this article before it was AfDed. This was the first time I saw it and it didn't take long for Vejvančický and I to find coverage elsewhere, as was said above "AfD is not cleanup". (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As was quote above from "AfD is not cleanup": "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." The page you are linking to is a guideline and not an absolute reference, as is illustrated by the quote. Spidey104^contribs 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That quote goes on to specify what it means by harmful - key are WP:BLP violations, but also includes adverts, spam, nonsense, etc. So even by that this doesn't count as "harmful" (expect to our sensibilities ;) ). The important part there is: "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia." Which pretty much sums up that article - it was pretty awful but not "harmful". (Emperor (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2010 (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.