Deletion of Source (comics)

Comment: due to insufficient coverage in third party sources, thus failing the . There are only s in the context of coverage about the authors or universe. Would not object to a merge/redirect as per Rorschacma
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TRIVIALMENTION)

Comment: Insufficient sourcing to fulfill  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Didn't find any coverage about ''the subject'' either.  And the sources above?  Is this some sort of joke?  That Paste Magazine piece mentions ''the subject'' in all of two sentences.  The Daily Beast pieces mentions the subject in just ONE sentence.  So does the New Republic piece.  So does the Hollywood Reporter piece.  So does the LA Weekly piece.  This kind of namedrop coverage is the very definition of "trivial mention," and doesn't come remotely close to meeting .  Like GizzyCatBella, I'll pay attention if any valid keep rationales do show up, but unless I've been misreading deletion policy all these years, insulting the nominator OR the intelligence of AfD participants are not among them.  Did Hullaballoo Wolfowitz think no one would ''check
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Another cookie-cutter, cut/paste, drive-by nomination in which there are precisely no specific details about the topic in question.  The nomination claims to read the article and searched for sources.  How come they haven't noticed the extensive coverage out there about Jack Kirby's ''The Source'' as an influence on George Lucas' ''The Force''?  The nomination's claims are not credible.  And where is the consideration of |alternatives to deletion?  It's just  + 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:IGNORINGATD)