Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neverland - Crônicas do Fim da Inocência (Fanzine)

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, not notable --Step hen 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neverland - Crônicas do Fim da Inocência (Fanzine)

Non-notable self-published comic/manga. No wikilinks to the article except from disambiguation page. Article seems to have been created by the publication's creator. Most of the handful of Google hits are for mirrors of this article. JasonAQuest (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images included in the article should probably be deleted as well. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we transwiki to ~~foreign~~ other language versions of Wikipedia? Hiding T 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doubtful this would qualify for an article on the Portuguese WP either. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly we need an article on Portuguese comics where a mention could be made of this, but whether it merits a whole article... Hiding T 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even mentioning it within an article would require establishing more independent notability than we can for this. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it wouldn't. An overview of fanzines and the like would allow mention of this by name sourced to primary source. Hiding T 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Only if it were a significant example or an instance that happens to illustrate the essence of a "fanzine" (and this is neither). Otherwise any number of people would remove it as a vanity link (and this article is that). Just because something exists doesn't mean it warrants mention in an encyclopedia article, which seems to be the standard you're arguing. Creating an article just to house a link to something that will almost certainly be removed from that article as a trivial example is a bad idea. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly not the standard I am arguing for, so please don't imply otherwise. I believe my words speak for themselves, possibly and could aren't the definitive absolutes you appear to be portraying them as. I'd rather attempt to point possible editors to more productive areas. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for wasting it with your hypotheticals. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made a fast search, it was pretty unsuccesful in finding anything reliable.--Aldux (talk) 14:56, 30 December 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.