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. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are of a high enough quality to provide notability, which means that we keep the article by default.  Sandstein  06:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Earth[edit]

Higher Earth (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)

No notability. This is a comic series of which only a single issue has been written and whose creators are also not notable (Except perhaps for Humphries who seems to have a degree of notability - maybe this article should be merged with his biography when it is created). The few reviews is only what would be expected for any newly published comic book (I for example once published an amateur fanzine that got comparable coverage) and do not by themselves constitute notability. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The comparison with movies doesn't work. A movie on general release gets orders of magnitude more coverage than almost any comic book, immediately establishing its notability. When something is announced as the first of a series, it is legitimate to question whether the series will become established; in contrast, most movies are stand-alone creations with no suggestion or expectation that a series will result. Dricherby (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to compare it to a book the comparison doesn't hold. A couple of reviews does not establish notability for a book - as a rule all books published by professional presses are reviewed. That does not make all books notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every single AFD for books I've been in over the years, and everything else, has shown that a couple of reviews does in fact establish notability for anything at all. I'm surprised to suddenly hear not one but several people saying otherwise. Dream Focus 08:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Dricherby, my point was many different types of things get covered the same way, and that coverage is one of the ways we can prove notability. And it doesn't matter if it becomes an established series or not. That isn't a requirement for having an article on Wikipedia. Anything at all, be it a comic book, a movie, a book, a brand of toothpaste, a food product, anything at all that gets reviewed like this, is notable and gets it own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 08:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC),[reply]
Several of the added sources do not work towards notability since they only give passing mention not substantial coverage - for example the Trinidad & Tobago Newsday article which is about the author not this particular work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the T&T source summarises multiple previous sources which were entirely entirely about this topic, one of the hallmarks of a noteable subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it summarises. It states that it has received "rave reviews" it doesn't summarise the reviews or indeed refer to which reviews that might be. A quite gratuitous statement I would say.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its admitedly a very brief summary, consider again the use of the very powerful word "rave", by which T&T concisely characterises the findings and nature of the multiple reviews. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"whatculture.com" is not a reliable source but appears to be reader generated - it advertises for readers to become writers/reviewers. I am not really able to evaluate the quality of the rest of the sources, but they really don't seem like anything out of the ordinary for a newly published comic book by a well known author.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of highly reliable sources advertise for writers among their readership - e.g. the Guardian. Whatculture.com appears to retain editorial oversight, you have to go through an appliation process and its not open for any to contribute, so possibly it can still be considered reliable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources currently in the article are not, contrary to the above claim, sufficient to meet WP:GNG:
  1. [1] is a user review, per the URL so fails WP:RS;
  2. [2] is a reprint of a press-release from the publisher so fails WP:RS;
  3. [3] is a fan-site run by a comic distributor so fails WP:RS;
  4. [4] is a shopping page on the publisher's website so fails WP:RS;
  5. [5] is an interview with the publisher's CEO so fails WP:RS;
  6. [6] seems to meet WP:RS;
  7. [7] is reliable but only a passing mention so does not establish notability;
  8. [8] I'm not sure about;
  9. [9] is a user-contributed review so fails WP:RS.
Dricherby (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a solid argument, except you admit comicsalliance is a RS and concede youre not sure about newsarama. Considering this is a comic, theres no need for us to insist on top tier sources like Financial times or Harvard University press. Newsarama would seem to be a highly reliable source for current purposes, and with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, GNG is met. Think Ive said enough now, will be intesting to see what others think. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, mass media doesn't tend to report much about comic books nowadays, for whatever reasons. It's likely unprofitable for corporate news media to provide significant coverage about comic book titles, because comic books are less mainstream nowadays, and hence less popular. In the age of infotainment, hopefully Wikipedia won't lose a bunch of worthy articles due to the intrinsic profit motives inherent in corporate mass media, in which less popular topics receive less coverage due to profit motives that favor popular topics in order to promote higher readership/viewership numbers, which correlates with higher advertising revenues. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY is determined by coverage, which this serious has gotten. WP:CRYSTAL is not valid since its already released, and getting reviews for its first issue. Dream Focus 10:59, 2 June 2012 (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.
More