Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Crisis

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 sources say nothing, this is original research and crystal balling. Until (1 == 2) 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Crisis

Delete stub speculating about the meaning and significance of an advertised comic that has not been explained. WikiProject Comics guidelines clearly state not to engage in crystal balling based on promotional material because too often the promotional material has been deliberately misleading, especially material from DC Comics. Wryspy 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, high in the crystalballery department. Wait until there's some more reliable sources talking about it - no prejudice to recreation at that time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 00:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball gazing. Restart next year. (Emperor 01:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The concept itself doesn't fall under crystal ball gazing, since the policy says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As far as comics go, the event that Countdown is leading up to (or at least the event that begins the same month that Countdown ends) is certainly notable, and DC giving us a release date marks it as at least reasonably certain to take place. (As certain as any other announced comic release in any case.) In the meantime it may be necessary to keep the article free of unwarranted speculation, but I think deleting it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Roger McCoy 04:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Solicitation_and_promotional_material cites specific instances in which the major comic book companies released misleading information about upcoming projects. Seriously, consider what they've been doing lately, like talking about long-term plans for one high profile superhero to keep readers from finding out DC fully intended to kill him. Wryspy 08:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Wryspy said, you can't know what Countdown is leading up to and assuming that "Final Crisis" is it. And while you may be right, nobody can say for sure what it is. There is no information in that article, only a description of what's already visible in the teaser poster. Waiting for information to appear isn't really an option, the article shouldn't a place holder. --Pc13 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Officially announced and virtually certain to happen, but I'd prefer to see some more reliable info we can base an article upon. One image isn't going to cut it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the classic "I searched for it" criteria. It could easily bloat to crystal ball gazing, but I think having editors willing to prune ought to fix that. I'm going to go ahead & say this is "notable & almost certain," & thus merits being kept. --mordicai. 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No official or unofficial information exists. The story is ten months away from publishing, and may suffer from corporate or editorial changes that may turn into something other than advertised. The article can be restarted when there are official announcements from DC Comics or any news sources. --Pc13 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting serves no purpose, and more information is certain most likely within weeks.

In fact, I would be shocked if we don't see an interview with Dan DiDio about this within a few days, or at most another week. --Roger McCoy 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your own words. "certainly most likely within weeks" "would be shocked if we don't see" You're both speculating. So I reiterate: This is clear crystal balling. Wryspy 06:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that you're quoting discussion about the article and not the article itself. I think there's a big difference between the comments in this discussion being crystal balling and the article itself being such, but whenever I try and get an opinion from the Magic 8 Ball it just says "Answer hazy; try again later". ;-) --Roger McCoy 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the option of recreation after more information is presented. All things being equal, I'd prefer that be sometime in May or June 2008, but realize that it's more likely to be this Fall. Right now the solid information generates what would be barely a Stub. Saying the stub should exist until there is more news places this as a news article, not one geared to an encyclopedia. - J Greb 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. It is a forthcoming DC project, and I searched for it as soon as I read about it on Newsarama. If it wasn't there I would have created it... why fight it? Dyslexic agnostic 06:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious crystal ball violation. There's no story to this article! It's an article about an ad with no meaningful explanation whatsoever. Shoester 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, little official info is provided.--JForget 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsarama has a picture, and only a picture as a basis of the story. There is no record of this on DCComics.com. There is no news article discussing it (even on Newsarama). In addition, the discussion on the picture is pointing at the picture being a hoax. (The copy edit of the picture's text is extremely poor.) I believe the original article creation was done with good faith, but I personally think Newsarama got hit by a hoax. Turlo Lomon 10:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tangential: If Newsaram got hit, then so did Diamond, and it's a very elaborate hoax. The last shipment from Diamond at my local comic book shop included a wall-display size poster with that image (anecdotal, I know). - J Greb 17:07, 23 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.