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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is poorly written and the subject isn't notable enough for it to be improved. Vader13289 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a plot summary with a reception based solely on some niche resource Comic Book Roundup. Seems to fail WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBR is not niche -- it is the most prominent comics review aggregator. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: WP:COPYVIO - The text itself is not in violation, but several of the citations are sourced to a piracy website. That is not acceptable. Sorry for the creator since the links were added by an anonymous IP, but it unfortunately propagated to further use by future editors. I have tagged for rev del, and perhaps when done, I'll adjust, but I'm not opposed to this being WP:G12 just to clear the slate. It has potential for notability given that the roundup links have several reliable review sources with editorial oversight, but that can be dealt with later. -- 2pou (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the rev del has now been taken care of. No need for G12, now. New !vote below. -2pou (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If this wasn't so poorly constructed, this would be an easy keep because publications from DC can almost always pass GNG. A basic search turns up coverage that could be used to craft a publication history section (per this and this, it was planned to last two months but was compressed to five weeks). This talks about its broader impact. The "niche" resource CBRU is a review aggregator that acts as Rotten Tomatoes for comics. I can't support the way it's used in the article currently, but it's an excellent resource for locating reviews of the comic from reliable sources and making sure there's an accurate representation of the reviews. Still, WP:TNT may apply here, as I don't have the time to implement any of these improvements. If another enterprising editor does, please ping me. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided not to wait. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lawrencekhoo: I wasn't aware EVENT applied to works of fiction... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete maybe speedy considering the WP:COPYVIO. No claim for notability in secondary independent sources per WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Argento's points are valid, and the specified sources satisfy GNG. Speedying for copyvio doesn't make sense as the offending edits have been revdel'd. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ArgentoSurfer. Now that the COPYVIO has been taken care of, there are enough sources that WP:NEXIST to satisfy GNG. Not the best article, but it can be improved without deletion. -2pou (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All of the delete votes provided a vague statement about the topic failing WP:GNG, but none have explained how or why the existing or potential sourcing available for the subject topic fail to demonstrate the subject's notability. With the WP:COPYVIO issue taken care of by ArgentoSurfer, speedy deletion is no longer a valid outcome. Haleth (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (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.