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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Crusaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Non-notable comic. No independent refs. I've found two things that come close to in-depth coverage: [1] is a user-contributed review (and thus not reliable) and [2] which appears to be a review of the technology platform used to deliver the content (which is not mentioned in the article), I'm also reasonable confident that most of the illustrations in the review aren't of this comic. So I'm seeing nothing in the way of in-depth coverage by independent third party sources, as required by the WP:GNG. PROD removed by WP:SPA creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that reviews on Comic Book Resources are not user-contributed. Doug Zawisza is a regular writer for CBR (indeed, he's got a bio page there where he even describes his work there as a "journalistic gig"). But if you don't like CBR for some reason, New Crusaders has gotten attention from just about every major comics review site out there, as Google happily shows. Also, the distribution format is important (as many of the reviews note), so if that's not in our article, that's an editorial shortcoming on our part and not the fault of sources like the Comics Alliance article you linked or this one at Comic Attack. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My understanding is that CBR (the site, naturally, not the forums) is generally considered reliable. If that is indeed the case, here are a few additional articles [3][4][5]. More coverage exists at Newsarama [6][7], MTV [8], and the New York Times [9]. There appears to be enough material on this series to satisfy WP:GNG.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gongshow - it seems to satisfy the GNG. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per provided sources. A deeper WP:BEFORE could have avoided this discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, appears to have good secondary source coverage of topic. — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2012 (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.