Scion (comics): Fails WP:GNG , WP:V .  If nobody can rescue this, potential redirects targets per WP:ATD-R : [[	Mark Alessi]] (co-creator), CrossGen (publisher).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Literature ,  and United States of America .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - Looks like Publishers Weekly reviewed the third , fourth , and fifth trade paperback collections of the series.  Those were the best sources I was able to find, though, and per the WP:GNG , would collectively count as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 02:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I found a good source in the Daily Oklahoman that mentions it was nominated at one point for two Harvey awards.  Nominations aren't something that would give notability on their own, but this is a major enough award to imply that there is likely more coverage out there.  I'll keep digging.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is frustrating - I found some sourcing but it's kind of light and a lot of it is reviewing it in relation to the overall CrossGen universe.  The Harvey noms suggests that more coverage exists but what I can find doesn't really do a great job of backing all of that up.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps a good alternative would be to create a page on the entire Sigilverse?  There's enough info and general coverage to justify pulling that info out to its own, particularly as I note that this isn't the only title with some issues with sourcing.  Of course someone would have to make this and I'm not really flush with time like I used to be.  If the choice is to create the page then this could redirect with history to the main company page until someone does that.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that's the same issue I was running into looking for sources - there are a number of sources discussing CrossGen as a whole, but the only coverage in them on Scion, in specific, was usually only very brief mentions.  If not a whole article on the Sigilverse, perhaps expanding CrossGen#Sigilverse to be more than just a list of the titles included in it could work as well?  Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've nominted this on pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:03:11:Dziedzic (komiks) ).  One editor there found a source: [69] / [70] which has a passing mention of this, which I'l quote fully - it is just two sentences, but it has a bit of analysis/reception: One of the most intriguing epic fantasies was CrossGen’s  Scion , which began in 2000 and ended abruptly in 2004 with the demise of the publisher.  Th e story combines  romance and politics, as a prince and princess from opposing dynasties fall in love but also fi ght for the freedom of the “lesser races.” .  Perhaps we can save this?  Nomnation, passing assessment in SIGCOV but relible source?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe the secondary sources listed here and in the article in total allow to write a reasoable article and therefore fulfill the notability requirements.  The Publishers Weekly reviews can complement the relatively brief referenced reception section we already have.  Daranios ( talk ) 11:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would help if those editors commenting in this discussion offered their opinion on what should happen to this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In order to help build a consensus, I am going to go ahead and recommend a Keep for this current discussion, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion for any potential Mergers.  While the sources are still pretty scarce, there is enough that outright Deletion is out of the question, and simply redirecting without some kind of Merge would not really be appropriate.  The series might still warrant being merged to a broader topic about CrossGen or the Silverse, as discussed, but that possibility can be decided outside of the current AFD.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus