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 Delete, article is almost empty of content and doesn't explain why book is notable. No prejudice to recreating if those problems can be fixed. NawlinWiki 13:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfist[edit]

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

Crystalballing, unreferenced and unverifiable. east.718 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't agree with crystall ball assessment[1] That page has content description, release date, number of pages, etc. Won't put down 'keep' yet in case you want to go for non-notable CitiCat 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll reluctantly agree with you. However, the article itself still needs sources. ⋲east.718 07:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article does not contain a reliable source. the_undertow ^talk 08:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, per undertow (not that many ghits either), although may become notable in the future and would allow for a recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's being sold this month and you can preorder it on Amazon.com. I don't agree that all mentions of future events should be automatically deleted. —Tokek 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all future events should be deleted. However, articles without sources should be. the_undertow ^talk 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hence CitiCat provided a link to prove that it's genuine. Unless you are looking for something else that might be difficult to find? Both the author (Jhonen Vasquez) and publisher (Slave Labor Graphics) have articles on Wikipedia and appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia, so it automatically inherits some notability. Also, it seems that most Japanese cartoon articles are automatically accepted, so I wouldn't want to see a double standard on Wikipedia where there is automatic acceptance for manga but an arbitrary criteria for cartoons from other countries. —Tokek 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it exists. Nobody would deny that. However, articles cannot be unsourced. Even those items which are obviously in existence, such as the sun need 3rd party, reliable sources. Amazon is not a reliable source, which is why it is not used in the article. the_undertow ^talk 10:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with dismissing Amazon as a non-reliable source. I think that Amazon is one of the best known and relied upon online sellers of books, and they're accepting pre-orders, which is a strong indication that this is a real book. There's also a press release from SLG Publishing, again, a publisher deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article since July 2004. I think it passes WP:SOURCE. —Tokek 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How about the artist's blog? http://chancrescolex.livejournal.com/ First entry confirms it... Doceirias 21:11, 11 July 2007 (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.