Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLA versus Predator

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JLA versus Predator

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Unref'd stub, no indication of notability." Removal rationale was "it may not be notable, but creator has not been given enough time to show notability - a regular AfD would allow that". I made cursory search for sources before PRODing (Google books, Google news, and plain ol' Google) and found nothing to indicate notability or build this past a 1-sentence stub. The EL in the article merely gives the publisher, date, and language. I didn't find any reviews or anything behind-the-scenes details (writing, drawing, sales, impact)...basically anything you'd need to build even a B-class encycloepedia article. IllaZilla (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I tried Googling JLA versus Predator, it produced "about 22,200" hits. Are you sure there's not evidence of notability in there somewhere? The first hit was a review. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did the same thing, and I looked through the first 10 pages of hits. All were blogs, messageboard forums, other wikis, fansites, or just listings that confirmed that the comic exists. And zilch from Google News or Google Books. Like I said, nothing reliable or of the nature that you'd need to write an encyclopedia article. The review you get on the first hit is a random internet person's personal blog. WP:GHITS seems apt. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's pretty clearly a crime against information to delete an article about a real book from the world's most inclusive encyclopedia. What seems to be the case here is that you're not willing to do the research (buy the book, etc.) to write the article you nevertheless feel is needed here. That's fine, but the article's creator already contributed more than you have, and erasing that work won't serve Wikipedia. 174.99.110.64 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because something exists does not make it suitable subject matter for a stand-alone encyclopedia article (see WP:EVERYTHING). Wikipedia has inclusion criteria, specifically that the topic has been discussed by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so that we actually have something encyclopedic to say about it. That doesn't appear to be the case with this comic book. I'll thank you not to be so dismissive in declaring me "not willing to do the research to write the article you feel is needed here". I tried to research it, as explained above: I performed a basic search for reliable secondary source coverage and came up empty-handed. If you want the article to remain, the onus is on you to find sufficient sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 February 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) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I find IllaZilla's analysis convincing. The reliable secondary sources just simply aren't there. My searches turn up only blogs and forum posts and the like. Reyk _YO!

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.