Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvel Tales

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Tales

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with no significant mention in reliable sources. The refs used appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unlikely that we will delete any article on a Marvel publication that can be verified to have existed and would instead suggest merge/redirect to an appropriate target article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, it can become a disambiguation page, one of the potential targets can be Timely Comics which seems it may possibly be notable (though it is shaky right now). There does not seem to be anything to merge however, that is not minutia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timely is absolutely notable, despite the current fan-POV state of the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything RS on a cursory search, but given the profile of Marvel and the age of the oldest setting, I'm reasonably sure there exists RS coverage somewhere. So, while I suspect it should be kept, I can't fault the nominator for an inadequate BEFORE; this appears to be a topic name with a lot of false positives. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I'm reasonably sure there exists RS coverage somewhere " Not necessarily. Vol 1 lasted 8 years, but it seems to have published one-shot stories and had little lasting impact. Even dedicated Marvel websites feature little information about it. Vol II lasted 30 years, but it was a reprint title and there is little to say about it beyond that. Volume 3 lasted 2 years, and was also a reprint title. Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless good sources are found (in which case please ping me so I can reconsider my vote). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my votes to weak delete. The article has been improved, but I still don't see any assertion of significance. Sources appear to confirm that this publication (or three) existed, but do we have a single sentence saying why we should care? Did anyone call even a single one of them important or such to the history of comics? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: An issue from the first series was displayed (with others) in the US Senate as an example of a horror comic cover. The second series contained one of Steve Ditko's earliest published works with Marvel (may be the first, but it was published with the same cover date as other Ditko work). Both claims have been added to the article with citations. I'm not sure either of these claims rise to your standard of being "important" in the history of comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first section, on the title from Atlas Comics, to ‘’Marvel Mystery Comics’’ — that comic was titled ‘’Marvel Tales’’ for part of its run and there’s no need to treat it separately, though a dab page entry should point there. No opinion yet for the other two sections; like others above I suspect there are sources for them, but I think they should be separate articles if they survive. Just because the title is the same is no reason they should be in the same article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mtminchi08 has added enough sourcing to make it clear that there can be an article about one or more of these comics. I think there's no reason to keep all three comics on a single page, but that's not an issue for AfD. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Mystery Comics is also of the same dubious standalone notability, and is probably also headed for AfD. And Timely Comics already contains and explains the information, which suggests having this page isn't necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you’re going to AfD it then we can figure that out then, but if the Atlas Comics part of this article is found to be notable it should go in that article which would automatically mean that article is notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added four print citations to the article - three books and one journal. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence that the print sources are WP:SIGCOV and not trivial mentions? I was unable to see a real preview of the first book on Google Books, but it doesn't seem like there is a massive amount devoted to it. One sentence mentions are not significant whether they be in a book or a piece of news. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Back Issue! articles have the greater amount of detail. The books cited are to verify the article's content, something which had needed improvement per your statement above that "The refs used appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources."
Even more citations have now been added. The stories reprinted in the early 1980s issues were "revised" which resulted in a bit of controversy at the time. I have found additional sources for this and expanded the paragraph accordingly.

As for the addition of the Nick Caputo quotes, I generally avoid reading, let alone citing to blogs. However, per WP:SELFPUBLISH "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Nick Caputo has had his comics history published in magazines and books related to the comics field. If the Caputo quotes are a problem, I will remove them.

And ... now I think I'm done. This article had only five citations as of January 27, 2022 and four of those were to the Grand Comics Database. There are now an additional 13 citations to support the article including ones which show Marvel's willingness to retroactively alter the contents of one of its foundational works (the Stan Lee/ Steve Ditko-era Spider-Man).Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources added by Mtminchi08. BOZ (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With publication history and some societal discussions about that series of magazines being based on secondary sources now, I think it is ok with regard to notability now. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2022 (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.