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 keep. No support for deletion apart from the nominator after 2 relists. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstars‎‎[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The fictional group does not meet the general notability guideline as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information since the group does not have reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, so it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that it deserves a stand-alone article. There are is not even significant coverage for the comic book of the same name, so there is no evidence that the comic book deserves a stand-alone article either. With a single non-independent of the subject reference, I do not think that anything from the article deserves to be kept. Jfgslo (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this is something that would get noticed in comic book news. New Straits Times Jul 3, 1992 [1] in their Comic News section. Dallas News had an article entirely about them. [2] Have to pay to read all of it, but the start shows they were the main subject. Hard to sort through anything else because of all the paywalls, but that's enough to convince me. Dream Focus 01:04, 15 October 2011 (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) 00:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 01:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very much in agreance with User:Dream Focus, and convinced that the only thing this article needs is a few more citations. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having their own comic seems enough. Being a significant part of the GL universe tells us that deletion is not appropriate as there will always be some other other article into which they might be merged - Controllers, Guardians of the Galaxy, &c. Warden (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per Colonel Warden, but I note that having a major publisher give them their own title is probably sufficient grounds for presuming notability. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Should be notable, given their own comic book and being a team and so-forth, but the article desperatly needs more secondary sources and more non-plot material. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 29 October 2011 (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.