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. Both sides of the debate raise strong points, which I will discuss briefly. The primary reason cited for Deletion is WP:CRYSTAL, of which the first criteria is relevant to this article: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This is refuted by the noted facts that 1) there are sources, in the form of interviews and independent coverage of the event, that indicate notability, and 2) As confirmed by these sources, the event is almost certain to take place. As there is verifiable information on the project, there is some value in providing that information at this early stage, as noted by Phil Sandifer and others. I caution editors on this article to avoid speculation, and to rely on secondary sources, as it is correctly noted below that an article consisting exclusively of a plot summary for a future storyline would be justifiably deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern: The Blackest Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article lacks: notability, information, and cited sources for what information is there. Most information that like articles support with primary source information cannot be supported that way in this article as the story will not see print for a year and half, at the least. The article is a stub, the creator's protestations not withstanding (see edit summary here, that is crystal balling an unpublished comic book storyline. J Greb (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is crystal balling and, as has been discussed a lot in the Comic Project, DC can often be tricky with some of their previews. I'd suggest the creator sandbox this, it can be updated with anything that emerges (I'd imagine things will go quiet again until closer to the time) and we can return to this entry in a years time when we know this is even a proper project. (Emperor (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. The article does not engage in speculation, but instead reports the known facts about this storyline, which there are many of. The "primary source information" argument is both strained (I'm pretty sure there've been a good number of interviews on this by now) and beside the point. And I don't think anybody seriously disputes that this story is something we're going to have an article on when it comes out. In which case having the non-trivial amount of verifiable information about it in an article now seems harmless. The story already exists as an object that is being marketed, and we can discuss it meaningfully. Furthermore, an article founded now will have certain perspectives about the build and marketing that articles written after the fact rarely have in detail - that is, having an article now improves the article later. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments — First a point of clarification regarding the "information from primary sources", generally this is the stuff in the infobox which is based from the actual comic. At the moment three and a half of those items are supported: publisher, writer, scheduled release date (not a publication date until it actually sees print), and half the proposed cast. The other half of the cast is a very, very good assumption, but the rest is an "I think".
    The allusions section, aside from the quote which seems out of place here, covers the teaser sequence from Green Lantern v4 #25. There is no information there about other allusion, potential or otherwise, in Rebirth, Recharged, GL, or GLC as pointed to by Johns, reviewers, or critical discussion of the series.
    The facts section does indeed have cites, 2 of ich correspond to the 2 sentences relevant to the article. The third, and its sentence, is tangential at best.
    Is there an argument that this article is going to be need, yes, when there's the information to warrant it. What's there currently doesn't. If there is more, if there is that good number of interviews, if they provide more than just the same info over and over and over, please, lets see it added. If it is there I'd rather be shown wrong than for us to have a stub encyclopedia article just, as it appears, to have it and reads as "More news as it happens." - J Greb (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If anything, it can be said that the article (as of this writing) does a great job of avoiding speculation. It's a decent placeholder until more details are inevitably revealed over the next couple of months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it could fall into WP:CRYSTAL, the expectation of this comic is notable and verifiable in its self.--Pmedema (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominating an article for deletion a day after it was created and citing lack of sources and that it's a stub is a fool's errand. Articles don't just spring out at FA quality; they have to work to get there. Give it time. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per J Greb and Emperor. We can reasses it when more information becomes available. But pretty much all that's available about the story right now amounts to "Hey, Geoff Johns has this Green Lantern storyline coming out in 2009!" and nothing more. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Making an entry for something coming in a year doesn't seem so asinine considering the same is done for movies on this site. There's enough to go on in that article for this entry to be active. Cubzrule (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment films tend to have to have a long time in production because they have to finalise the script, get funding, cast. shoot, edit, etc. so you know it is on its way quite a while ahead of time (barring incidents). Even then starting an entry for a film possibly a year and a half away might be frowned on. We have previously discussed this issue in the comics project and given the fact that some companies have floated series as misdirection for other developments it was felt that it'd be unwise to start entries so far in advance - at least until we can be sure this is going to happen. As has been said a deletion now won't prejudice bringing it back when the publicity machine gears up closer to the launch (if there ever is one) but 15 months (at a minimum) is a long time in comics. (Emperor (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - agreed with User:Emperor. DC is noted for last minute editorial/storyline shifts (ala Monarch/Atom/Hawk). A similar argument arose with comprable topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lantern Corps which also resulted in delete. Whereas this current page focuses on the storyline and does a better job of avoid most (not all) of the orginal research/speculation, the primary issue why Black Lantern Corps was deleted, and this page should be to is crystal balling. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• I think you're having problems distinguishing between speculation and sourced speculation. Black Lantern Corps was rightfully deleted because nobody knows anything about them. But there are sources for this article, and Black Lantern Corps' deletion shouldn't factor into this discussion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note with my lead sentence, my primary objection is that of editorial shifting even after promotional material and interviews have taken place. IGN's article did point to the storyline, but over a year can create difficulties. The Corps are of a related nature and used the same sources the for that article. My recommendation, is that future comic events could be article after the solicitations are released for that event (merely a suggestion). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Any judgment of this story's significance is crystal balling. Not every storyline gets its own article. Doczilla _RAWR! 07:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's going to be more and more information with each issue in Green Lantern and Green Lantern Corps. By starting the article early, it will be a great resource of information when the event finally does roll around with a comprehensive break down of the hints that Johns and Tomasi will undoubtedly be planting. It's also received the Future class rating by WikiProject Comics. --CmdrClow (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Just for clarity, does that mean you see the article as a place speculation about what panels, pages, character actions, and events may feed into the arc should be collected? - J Greb (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NO. I see the article as a place to accumulate known facts about the event that are revealed through interviews, issues of GL, statements, etc. --CmdrClow (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Stark facts and quoted, uninterpreted hints from interviews with those with a hand in the story are one thing. Pointing to issues of Green Lantern and/or Green Lantern Corps directly is something else.
      It would be reasonable to cite statements from Johns, and quote him, such as "This or that issues issue sets a lot up", "Pay attention to this sequence", or "Keep tabs on that character." That's nice and clear cut, without any interpretations, conclusions, or deductions being made.
      Pointing to an issue, character, panel, or sequence directly is drawing a conclusion in this case. It is assuming that what is pointed out is a hint or pivotal to a story 15+ months down the road. Implicitly or explicitly positioning an article to include that is crystal balling and sounds like setting up for original research. - J Greb (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that there is so little known about the story (largely because it hasn't been written yet) that what is known can probably just be merged into a Green Lantern article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And an addendum: this edit and this one add nothing but plot summaries of current issues that are not explicitly, either in story or by way of cited comments from secondary source, identified and as moving towards the proported topic of the article. This is speculation at best, at worst it is OR, an editor using a Wikipedia article to present his interpretations of the subject. - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Needed to go to the infobox to discover what this was all about. It's a comic book? Right? Poorly presented article. 222.153.71.173 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's more of a writing-based problem than something that requires deletion. And it's fixable. And I fixed it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While I can see the arguments in favor of keeping the quotations, as indicated, this company is noted for changing things at the last minute. Would not necessarily object if the quotes were to be merged to some other appropriate location or placed in userspace if someone so desired, though. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd think that DC cancelling the highly-anticipated sequel to a highly-anticipated story would garner sufficient reaction to become notable. And if they don't cancel it, the story either meets expectations and becomes notable or doesn't meet expectations and becomes notable for being a failure. Either way, it's notable. Of course, that's all speculation - but no more so than speculating that because DC changed one storyline in the past it's going to do it with this one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will most likely be notable, but right now next to nothing is known about the story. There's been a few short remarks by Geoff Johns to the comics press about it, but there's little sustance on which to build an article on, even given it's an upcoming release. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This story is going to need an archive of related information for new readers to keep up with it, and a Wikipedia article would be a great place to go for facts in-story and from the creators themselves. --ComicsPlace (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, but right now very little is known, or even worked out. The story's over a year away, and Geoff Johns has to write all the Green Lantern issues in between first. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Emperor and WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Because WikiProject Comics has rated the article as Future class, and as long as no predictions about what happens within the story make their way into the article, WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't really apply. It's not a prediction since we know it's going to happen. As it stands, the article doesn't violate the policy. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: The "Allusions" section from the 4th paragraph down ("In Green Lantern #28,..." on) is speculation about what plot elements lead into the event. Further, classing the article as "Future" is the most accurate classification available since "Speculation" and "Far future" don't exist. Having the article properly classed is neither an endorsement or condemnation. (And this is coming from the editor that "fixed" the class and is tempted to likewise fix the infobox.) - J Greb (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The allusions are substantiated by the creators. For instance, an allusion is that Atrocitous will have a role in the event because the Red Lanterns will have a role in the event, as confirmed by Johns and Van Sciver. --!CmdrClow (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then they need to be cited back, and pared down to the creators remarks, not just on the stories or drawn conclusions. With the example above, what exactly does Johns and/or van Sciver say? Do they name the character as being important? Or do they just mention the Red Lanterns along with the other 4 new Corps? If it's the character, they, the writer and potential artist, need to be cited on it. If it's the Corps, then that needs to be the sourced statement, with the impetus points for the 6 Corps stated factually with minimal plot. An editor's logic chain about a just published plot element and its impact on a future story, cited to nothing but the just published primary source, is at the very least original research, and does rise to crystal balling. - J Greb (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (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.