Talk:Marvel ReEvolution

Improving Article

Hey hi I have created this article and will need you help in improving this article. Provide good sources and edit article as good as possiblr .Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that this be merged as a section in Marvel Comics, without the table. This article has been created by what appears to be Marvel marketing, and it's WP:UNDUE to have an entire article about a publishing company putting its magazines into digital format. The topic is notable, but minor. Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

i don think it would be great. and yes i'm not a marvel representative i'm just a normal wiki user and editor . reevolution is constantly seeing new things like this year in march 5 new initiatives will be announced by marvel as we just heard yesterday. so i thin we should have separate article for this thing. because its not just digital initiatice .Marvel NOW! is also part of this initiatve and more things like AR app,Infinite Comics are also. and now 5 more things are about to be unveil in march 2013. so i think its good to have separate article for this very notable and oftenly increasing initiative. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

and yes one more thing there are 42 ongoing series which has got a reevolution banner showing that they are part of this reevolution or are affected by this initiative . out of these 42 we 28 new Marvel NOW! series and 5 other Marvel NOW! series and there are also more 9 ongoing series which are not part of marvel now! but part of this reevolution these are

• Dark Avengers (starting from issue #184)
• Hawkeye (starting from issue #6)
• Scarlet Spider (starting from issue #13)
• Avenging Spider-Man (starting from issue #16)
• Captain Marvel (starting from issue #9)
• X-Factor (starting from issue #250)
• Gambit (starting from issue #8)
• Venom (starting from issue #31)
• Winter Soldier (starting from issue #15)

and not to forget one mini series and one one-shot also. so to provide this much information and information about infinite comics,AR app,Free digital copy,Reevolution video series and 5 new thing which are yet to be announced in ever increasing Marvel Comics article will not be a good thing because then marvel comics article would become too large. so i think its good for it to have a separate article.--Shoxee1214 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And "Marvel ReEvolution" isn't even an imprint — it's a marketing initiative, and a barely notable one. A case could be made for "Marvel NOW!, which is an imprint, to have its own article, but this article is nothing more than the few pertinent, neutral sentences that are left after all the marketing jargon has been removed, and a list of titles with nothing in common except that the publisher has chosen to promote them with digital add-ons — making this article little more than a sales catalog or a collector's checklist. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So if I'm reading the article right it's not like a brand, its an online alternative to comic book stores? I can't see it, at the moment, requiring it's own article it seems very much like something that should be a subsection in the Marvel Comics article or equivalent, sans the table which seems to duplicate a lot of info from the Marvel NOW! article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae: "The topic is notable, but minor." I'm not even convinced that it's notable. At the very least, it lacks secondary sources for notability, as all three of the citations currently in the article are from Marvel, directly or indirectly. One is a page from Marvel.com. Of the two CBR citations, one just Marvel's press release, and the other is written by Marvel's Editor-in-Chief, Axel Alonso. Unless secondary sources can be added to establish notability, this doesn't merit its own article. A mention of it in the 2010s section of the Marvel Comics article would be sufficient. Nightscream (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully, I'm not convinced it's notable either; I was just trying to be good-faith generous in my assessment. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

First, I have had many encounters with Shoxee1214 and I can vouch that he is not a Marvel representative as evident by his horrendous spelling and grammar. He is just a very single-minded editor. But I agree with Tenebrae, the topic is worth mentioning in its parent article (Marvel Comics) but is not notable enough to have his own stand-alone article per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

horrendous spelling and grammer??? where did that come from. look you want to merge then merge but nobody have given you a right to offend someone. Its clear now and it shows that you are a completely and 100% idiot and ego maniac (sorry to say but its true) and regarding spelling and grammer then listen not everyone is like you (american or english).--Shoxee1214 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Look at what you have written here and elsewhere, it is bad and I believe you know it is. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or blog. Britannica or World Book would never publish something in this state. There are over a dozen other Wikis in other languages that need contributors. I suggest you edit the one in your strongest language. However, if you insist on continuing to edit here then you should seek help before creating another article. WP:AfC and WP:COPYEDITORS can help with this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing the notability here, seems like it should be a paragraph in another article at most. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the notability either. The CBR sources linked in the Marvel ReEvolution article don't help. One doesn't mention Marvel ReEvolution and the other is Marvel's own press release. Kill it now! Doczilla _STOMP! 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What with every editor except the page creator, including at least two admins, agreeing that at the most this deserves a few sentences at Marvel Comics, I'll volunteer to cull the material and move it over on, say, 2/14, which would give this debate a week, if no opposite consensus emerges. Or is this a case of WP:SNOWBALL? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)