Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone with the Blastwave: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→[[Gone with the Blastwave]]: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#WP:POKEMON_redirect_issue, replaced: WP:POKEMON → WP:Pokémon test |
||
(37 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''delete'''. No reliable sources = no verifiable notability, which is the applicable policy here. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]]</small> 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Gone with the Blastwave]]=== |
===[[Gone with the Blastwave]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} |
|||
:{{la|Gone with the Blastwave}} <includeonly> — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone with the Blastwave|View AfD]])</includeonly> |
:{{la|Gone with the Blastwave}} <includeonly> — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone with the Blastwave|View AfD]])</includeonly> |
||
Previously deleted at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone With The Blastwave]]. Back then it was on its 17th strip and the forum had fewer than 150 users. Now it's up to 29 and the forum has nearly 220 users. Taken to [http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Gone_With_The_Blastwave Comixpedia] after a this deletion, I think. |
Previously deleted at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone With The Blastwave]]. Back then it was on its 17th strip and the forum had fewer than 150 users. Now it's up to 29 and the forum has nearly 220 users. Taken to [http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Gone_With_The_Blastwave Comixpedia] after a this deletion, I think. |
||
Line 8: | Line 16: | ||
{{afdnewbies}} |
{{afdnewbies}} |
||
*'''Delete |
*'''Delete <s>and salt</s>''' - purest OR spamvanitisementcruft. No assertion of notability in the slightest. Die, die, die. That bad, really. No reliable sources, no verification. Yuck. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletionism|Deletion!]]</sup> 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - still no reliable sources added to the article, little assertion of notability, [[WP:RS]] is important and [[WP:V]] is non-negotiable. Being about to be published - [[WP:NOT#CRYSTAL]] - is not an indicator of notability - plenty of books that sold 1 copy have been published. Well, a bit more than 1, but you get the point. I have struck "and salt" as it seems as though there is an argument that this should be deleted without prejudice against further recreation, if and when this becomes notable and gets multiple non-trivial references to it from multiple reputable sources. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletionism|Deletion!]]</sup> 17:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete <s>and salt</s>''' per above.--[[User:Drat|Drat]] <small>([[User talk:Drat|Talk]])</small> 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete <s>and salt</s>''' per above.--[[User:Drat|Drat]] <small>([[User talk:Drat|Talk]])</small> 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
**'''Note:''' I have struck out my salt request. I still vote delete at this time.--[[User:Drat|Drat]] <small>([[User talk:Drat|Talk]])</small> 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
**'''Note:''' I have struck out my salt request. I still vote delete at this time.--[[User:Drat|Drat]] <small>([[User talk:Drat|Talk]])</small> 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 46: | Line 55: | ||
:::*'''Comment''': Please refrain from making accusations to other users. It is unproductive, and does not help meet consensus. None of this has anything to do with the standards required to make an article notable. Again, I must ask that you focus on the standards under [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::*'''Comment''': Please refrain from making accusations to other users. It is unproductive, and does not help meet consensus. None of this has anything to do with the standards required to make an article notable. Again, I must ask that you focus on the standards under [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::* I am trying to focus on those standards because they are the reason this AFD page exists, but what annoys me is that throughout this page, Guy has misrepresented facts, wrongly inferred things, misused the SPA tag, and appears to be ignoring most of the evidence. From a newbie who isn't aware of protocol around here that kind of stuff is acceptable, but from an ''experienced'' admin, it is absolutely terrible.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 09:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
::::* I am trying to focus on those standards because they are the reason this AFD page exists, but what annoys me is that throughout this page, Guy has misrepresented facts, wrongly inferred things, misused the SPA tag, and appears to be ignoring most of the evidence. From a newbie who isn't aware of protocol around here that kind of stuff is acceptable, but from an ''experienced'' admin, it is absolutely terrible.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 09:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak keep''' per 7 and perhaps 8. The Swiss newspaper is available online for paying subscribers, so it's verifiable, but not yet verified. The Polish magazine isn't verifiable without the name of the magazine, that ''really'' needs to be known. [[User:Secateur|Secateur]] 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Weak keep''' per 7 and perhaps 8. The Swiss newspaper is available online for paying subscribers, so it's verifiable, but not yet verified. The Polish magazine isn't verifiable without the name of the magazine, that ''really'' needs to be known. [[User:Secateur|Secateur]] 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Secateur|Secateur]] ([[User talk:Secateur|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Secateur|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
||
:*'''Comment''': Again, a single reference, which may or may not be verifiable - we do not know, since no one has access to the newspaper archives online - does not qualify the article for inclusion under [[Wikipedia:notability]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment''': Again, a single reference, which may or may not be verifiable - we do not know, since no one has access to the newspaper archives online - does not qualify the article for inclusion under [[Wikipedia:notability]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::The article can be found on page 24 on the Nov 23, 2006 issue of Tages Anzeiger, available online on pressdisplay.com . It's in German, though, so I can't read what it says, but other editors should be able to verify what it says. However, you certainly have a point regarding the Polish magazine, which isn't verifiable. I thought the name would surface eventually, but maybe not? [[User:Secateur|Secateur]] 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
::The article can be found on page 24 on the Nov 23, 2006 issue of Tages Anzeiger, available online on pressdisplay.com . It's in German, though, so I can't read what it says, but other editors should be able to verify what it says. However, you certainly have a point regarding the Polish magazine, which isn't verifiable. I thought the name would surface eventually, but maybe not? [[User:Secateur|Secateur]] 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 52: | Line 61: | ||
:::Apparently you need an account to view this article, even with pressdisplay.com. That's very unfortunate - do you have a clean screenshot, or transcript of the article. I know several people who read German who could translate for us. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 05:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::Apparently you need an account to view this article, even with pressdisplay.com. That's very unfortunate - do you have a clean screenshot, or transcript of the article. I know several people who read German who could translate for us. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 05:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::While Darkcraft might have a clean screenshot, I don't. Because pressdisplay.com charge for their services, it might very well be against their rules to take a screenshot, I don't know. [[User:Secateur|Secateur]] 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
::::While Darkcraft might have a clean screenshot, I don't. Because pressdisplay.com charge for their services, it might very well be against their rules to take a screenshot, I don't know. [[User:Secateur|Secateur]] 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', I don't see why this is such a big issue with everyone. This comic is notable and quite popular as outlined in previous comments. Why is it such a big deal to wish for it do be deleted? It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space...[[User:Dooster|Dooster]] 16:45, 4 January 2007 -5 GMT |
*'''Keep''', I don't see why this is such a big issue with everyone. This comic is notable and quite popular as outlined in previous comments. Why is it such a big deal to wish for it do be deleted? It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space...[[User:Dooster|Dooster]] 16:45, 4 January 2007 -5 GMT <small>— [[User:Dooster|Dooster]] ([[User talk:Dooster|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dooster|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
||
*'''Keep''' You begin to wonder what makes a comic notable. Whether or not the author goes on a hiatus should not be taken into consideration regarding the '''notability''' of the comic. This has been confirmed to have been in one newspaper. You'd be better off trying to find other webcomic articles that have no notability at all. According to the notability guidelines, it has to have been the subject of multiple published sources. We currently have one newspaper and one magazine. If I'm not mistaken that's multiple. [[User:IndecisionV|IndecisionV]] 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' You begin to wonder what makes a comic notable. Whether or not the author goes on a hiatus should not be taken into consideration regarding the '''notability''' of the comic. This has been confirmed to have been in one newspaper. You'd be better off trying to find other webcomic articles that have no notability at all. According to the notability guidelines, it has to have been the subject of multiple published sources. We currently have one newspaper and one magazine. If I'm not mistaken that's multiple. [[User:IndecisionV|IndecisionV]] 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[User:IndecisionV|IndecisionV]] ([[User talk:IndecisionV|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/IndecisionV|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
||
:* JZG (or Guy) I noticed you added three SPA tags after the above messages. In my opinion, one was done rightly so, but the other two accounts were created before this page existed and have had a fair number of edits.It clearly states in the SPA guildines that inappropriate use of this tag can lead to action being taken against you. [[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
:* JZG (or Guy) I noticed you added three SPA tags after the above messages. In my opinion, one was done rightly so, but the other two accounts were created before this page existed and have had a fair number of edits.It clearly states in the SPA guildines that inappropriate use of this tag can lead to action being taken against you. [[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 64: | Line 73: | ||
*'''Comment''': I tend agree with the placement of the SPA tag after [[User:Dooster|Dooster]]'s article, but would probably not agree with the others. Fans are allowed to vote in [[WP:AFD]] discussions. However, I strongly urge anyone here with a previous interest in this article - you know whether or not this applied to you better than I - to set aside their personal opinions of the quality, or popularity, of the comic in question and instead focus on whether or not it meets guidelines under [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Currently, I do not think it does, and believe the evidence so gathered has not been sufficient to meet these guidelines. Remember - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and foremost - and standards need to be met in all instances. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''': I tend agree with the placement of the SPA tag after [[User:Dooster|Dooster]]'s article, but would probably not agree with the others. Fans are allowed to vote in [[WP:AFD]] discussions. However, I strongly urge anyone here with a previous interest in this article - you know whether or not this applied to you better than I - to set aside their personal opinions of the quality, or popularity, of the comic in question and instead focus on whether or not it meets guidelines under [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Currently, I do not think it does, and believe the evidence so gathered has not been sufficient to meet these guidelines. Remember - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and foremost - and standards need to be met in all instances. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I agree, standards have to be met, but what this string of comments is discussing is Guy and how he, in my opinion, is doing something he shouldn't by placing SPA tags on the comments of 3 people, whilst two of those people have accounts with a fair amount of edits and have existed since before this artical. It says in the SPA guildines that by placing an SPA tag outside of the guildines, action can be taken against you, so clearly he was doing something wrong. I would like to see him remove those tags asap or give a good reason why they should stay. [[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
:I agree, standards have to be met, but what this string of comments is discussing is Guy and how he, in my opinion, is doing something he shouldn't by placing SPA tags on the comments of 3 people, whilst two of those people have accounts with a fair amount of edits and have existed since before this artical. It says in the SPA guildines that by placing an SPA tag outside of the guildines, action can be taken against you, so clearly he was doing something wrong. I would like to see him remove those tags asap or give a good reason why they should stay. [[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' Darkcraft has answered any reservations I would have. [[User:Brendan Alcorn|Brendan Alcorn]] 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
*<s>'''Keep''' Darkcraft has answered any reservations I would have. [[User:Brendan Alcorn|Brendan Alcorn]] 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)</s><small> ← See [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager|checkuser request]] on this user. [[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Keep''' - Per above <br /> |
*'''Keep''' - Per above <br /> |
||
<blockquote> |
<blockquote> |
||
Line 88: | Line 97: | ||
::::::'''Comment''' - [[WP:NOTE]] is inclusive, not exclusive. It specifically outlines what is required to meet the standards - it does not list things which do ''not'' qualify it, because there are an endless number of those. Alexa ranking are not mentioned, therefore they do not qualify to make an article notable - it does not matter if the material is ''objective'' or ''unbiased''; that really has nothing to do with [[WP:NOTE]]. Again, your use of an alternative argument is flawed - it does not meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]], and it does not meet standards under [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]]. In fact, [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]] ''specifically'' mentions webcomics in describing the standards laid out. Webcomics are not permitted more "leeway" in the guidelines, and that is made explicitly clear. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
::::::'''Comment''' - [[WP:NOTE]] is inclusive, not exclusive. It specifically outlines what is required to meet the standards - it does not list things which do ''not'' qualify it, because there are an endless number of those. Alexa ranking are not mentioned, therefore they do not qualify to make an article notable - it does not matter if the material is ''objective'' or ''unbiased''; that really has nothing to do with [[WP:NOTE]]. Again, your use of an alternative argument is flawed - it does not meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]], and it does not meet standards under [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]]. In fact, [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]] ''specifically'' mentions webcomics in describing the standards laid out. Webcomics are not permitted more "leeway" in the guidelines, and that is made explicitly clear. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' for failing the [[WP:N|notability guidelines]] for [[WP:WEB|web-based material]]. The article does not cite multiple, non-trivial, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] indicating notability. In addition the lack of accessible third-party sources makes the article [[WP:V|unverifiable]]. In response to Darkcraft on the point of other articles being in the 'pedia, [[WP:INN|inclusion is not an indicator of notability]], nor is the [[WP: |
*'''Delete''' for failing the [[WP:N|notability guidelines]] for [[WP:WEB|web-based material]]. The article does not cite multiple, non-trivial, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] indicating notability. In addition the lack of accessible third-party sources makes the article [[WP:V|unverifiable]]. In response to Darkcraft on the point of other articles being in the 'pedia, [[WP:INN|inclusion is not an indicator of notability]], nor is the [[WP:Pokémon test|Pokemon defense]] a strong argument. '''[[User:Zunaid|<span style="color:red;">Zun</span>]][[User Talk:Zunaid|<span style="color:green;">aid</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|<span style="color:blue;">©</span>]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|<sup style="color:orange;">Review me!</sup>]]''' 12:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:<s>I very strongly disagree with your decision and it seems as though most of the community agrees with me. In my opinion, I was not using the 'Pokemon Defence' as I was drawing no parallels between this artical and 'Chugworth', but I was trying to make people look at the decision process behind deciding whether an artical on a webcomic exists or not, and why it differs from Chugworth to Gone With The Blastwave. As for the inclusion not equaling notability, I could find many other webcomics on Wikipedia from which I could use a similar process to invalidate the WP:NOTE arguement. In general, I believe that Wikipedia is too hard on webcomics because it is so difficult for them to fulfill those criteria. I would have liked another day of debate because I would have liked to have seen a rebuttal to my post just above yours, and I believe 'Guy' was not acting as he should have.</s> |
:<s>I very strongly disagree with your decision and it seems as though most of the community agrees with me. In my opinion, I was not using the 'Pokemon Defence' as I was drawing no parallels between this artical and 'Chugworth', but I was trying to make people look at the decision process behind deciding whether an artical on a webcomic exists or not, and why it differs from Chugworth to Gone With The Blastwave. As for the inclusion not equaling notability, I could find many other webcomics on Wikipedia from which I could use a similar process to invalidate the WP:NOTE arguement. In general, I believe that Wikipedia is too hard on webcomics because it is so difficult for them to fulfill those criteria. I would have liked another day of debate because I would have liked to have seen a rebuttal to my post just above yours, and I believe 'Guy' was not acting as he should have.</s> |
||
Line 137: | Line 146: | ||
::::::::"What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms" |
::::::::"What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms" |
||
::::::::VG Cats is an independant, published, notable work, so therefore it should be acceptable under WP:NOTE.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::VG Cats is an independant, published, notable work, so therefore it should be acceptable under WP:NOTE.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::*'''Comment''' - there's really no reason to request a close on this - it expires in a couple of days, at which time an admin will make a descision. You are misreading the guidelines under [[WP:NOTE]] and [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]]. Alexa/siteviews ''do not'' fall under the purview of those sections, in the same way that Ghits do not. Look at the criteria for inclusion. '''Nowhere''' are this mentioned in it - thus, it does not qualify for inclusion. It really cannot be anymore singlular. There have been no [[WP:V | Verifiable]] sources which meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]] presented, and thus this article does not meet standard. Again, a link from VGCats does not count. Two sentences of "check out this comic" do not count. The webcomic community routinely engages in this kind of tit-for-tat recognition, and it does ''not'' qualify as a '''non-trivial''' published works. You seem to believe that because a source is notable, everything they write is qualifiable for inclusion under [[WP:NOTE]]. This is not the case - if the [[New York Times]] wrote an article about webcomics, and included [[Gone with the Blastwave]] in a list in that article it would '''not'''qualify - it doesn't matter that the New York Times is one of the most reputable and notable newspapers in the world. It still does not meet standards. In order to qualify under [[WP:NOTE]] a source must meet ''every word'' of ''has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself'' - not some of them, and certainly not just the parts that apply to the particular purported source under consideration. Again, you seem to harbour grave misunderstandings about [[WP:NOTE]], and I strongly urge you to re-read the guidelines therein. You are attempting to retain an article based on notability, without having any sources or references which conform to standards. I find this unacceptable - it is nothing against the comic (I very much enjoyed reading it) - but rather a belief in the guidelines which help improve Wikipedia. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I did not request that an admin closes this, I said that I am content to wait for an admin to close this, because neither of us are bringing anything new to this debate. Gone With The Blastwave is mentioned 4 times on that page, but due to that sites lack of a search feature, I can't find anymore references to it from that site. These mentions are small, but together they must count for something. Sorry I will continue my rebutal later, I have to go now.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:(Continuing from above) Yes, I know that Alexa and siteviews do not fall under WP:NOTE. WP:NOTE says editors should use common sense, and my common sense is telling me that it's Alexa rank is high enough for it to have some weight as to the deletion of this artical, and so do it's site views (having an Alexa rank of below 100,000 is a proposed addition to the WP:WEB guidlines anyway). I don't understand why you choose to follow these '''guidlines''' to the letter, when really they are just guidlines, and they themselves ask editors to use common sense. You didn't explain why being featured on VG Cats doesn't count under WP:NOTE. My interpretation of WP:NOTE is that it does. Gone With The Blastwave has been linked to by several webcomics, and even if somehow none of them fit under WP:NOTE, it should still hold some weight. |
|||
:WP:V is irrelevent unless we are sourcing material from the newspaper into the artical. Surely you will agree with me about that. The newspaper artical/image fit in under WP:NOTE because, and I will repeat this as many times as I have to, whatever the context, artwork from the webcomic was featured in a national, independant newspaper. Your analogy about it being featured as a list in The New York Times makes little sense, if this image and artical were featured in The New York Times, I would still believe that it fit in under WP:NOTE.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' per [[User:Haemo|Haemo]]'s thorough rebuttal above. — [[User:TKD|TKD]]::[[User talk:TKD|Talk]] 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' per [[User:Haemo|Haemo]]. This is original research on a topic with no claim of notability. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't understand how it is violating WP:OR. Most of this information can be found on the website, and the deductions about the greens were confirmed by the author. Considering this is a very new artical with few contributers so far, I think it is doing fairly well.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 11:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''', although the article needs to freshen up. The easiest thing to do would be to reimport the olsd article from Comixpedia and bring it up to date, rather than fixing the current one (which seems a little bit amateurish - no offense). Send an email to that swiss paper about a screen on behalf of wikipedia - it might get fixed, and we can have the screen on Commons. Basically, the newspaper article is a short review of the webcomic, describing what it is about, mentioning the creator and so on. Together with the fact that the comic is going into print, and that it has throned the webcomic rankings, I believe that it is notable enough to have it's own article here. But as I mentioned earlier - the article has to be freshened up. [[User:Brainman|Brainman]] 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Note: I found the blogpost that led to the printing in the Swiss newspaper: [http://bellevue.kaywa.ch/default/beitrag-zur-tristesse-der-welt.html]. In the comments there is also a rough translation. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Brainman|Brainman]] ([[User talk:Brainman|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Brainman|contribs]]) 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
::Wow you found a translation? You are my hero! I agree, this artical is substandard, but I don't believe the Comixpedia artical is suitable in it's entirity for use on Wikipedia, but if other people think otherwise, then I don't mind replacing this artical with the Comixpedia one(I didn't write most of the Wiki one anyway).[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::*'''Comment'''- Excellent work, Brainman! With this translation, we can see that this source probably does qualify under [[WP:NOTE]]. As a result, I would change my !vote to '''Weak delete''' - we really only have one source, and [[WP:NOTE]] requires several, but the addition of only one, or two, other non-trivial sources could bring this article up to standards. However, I agree with the sentiment that the article needs a clean-up, regardless of the outcome. Again, though, I would point out that Alexa ranking, etc, and promises of future publication do not meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]]. I would suggest, though, that even if this article is deleted, that someone retains a copy of it, and continues improving it locally, so that if and when it is published, it can be restored. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: I don't see any reason at all under WP:NOTE for it to matter whether it were in print or not, yet clearly we all agree that if it were in print, it would affect it's notability. This is an example of using common sense when it comes to use of those guidlines. The artist was approached by the publisher who asked him whether he wanted it to be printed, so clearly both the publisher and artist want this webcomic to be printed. If there is a promise that this webcomic will be put in print in the near future, then why should we disregard this? especially seeing as being in print doesn't meet the WP:NOTE standards anyway.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::*'''Comment''' - Again, you are misreading the standards under [[WP:NOTE]]. Not only is publication a sure-fire way for there to be multiple non-trivial articles written about it, and thus is a good "rule of thumb" for such content - it also does, however, also meet standards. Quoting from the web section, '''The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators'''. This would qualify as such. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*"The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators." I interpret that to mean distributed by an independant source, such as it being published as a weekly comic in a newspaper. Being put to print as a book of comics is not independant of the author, however if it were publised weekly in a well-known newspaper, then it would be published through a "well known and independant source". I understand that being put to print would be a rule of thumb, but being put to print itself, unless I am mistaken, does not meet the WP:NOTE guidlines.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 07:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*'''Comment''' - I'm afraid that interpretation makes no coherent sense. The creator of a work, like a webcomic, will invariably be involved with the publication of his works to the degree you have outlined - it is illegal, in most jurisdictions, ''not'' to be, since he retains copyright on it. What the guidelines are actually stating is that the ''medium of distribution'' is independent of the creator of the content - for instance, a previously established publisher, or magazine. It is designed to exclude self-publication - that is, when a creator also publishes or distributes his work - being printed by a publisher who is independent of the author, and not a self-publication house, counts. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::* You are most likely right, but still I am not convinced that your interpretation is correct. I could draw up some artwork, run off to a publisher, offer them money, and have my work published. It is not independant because they are just taking money from the artist, and turning it into printed images. However a newspaper will have certain standards. A newspaper is independant of the artist, but a publisher is not. Maybe my interpretation is incorrect, but that section from WP:WEB you have quoted is fairly vague. What does it mean by medium? A medium as in print, radio, or television, or a medium as in a specific newspaper, specific radio station, or specific tv channel. (I don't think I am explaining my self very well.) How would you define one medium 'well known'? "Print is a well-known medium, but radio is not." Or is it more like "NBC is a well known medium through which it could be published, however Fox is not." My interpretation is that by 'medium', it means, in this case, a specific form of print. A well known, specific kind of print would be the New York Times, however spending your own money to put your own material to print would not be because the medium is not well known. Sorry if this is a bit confusing. |
|||
::::::: Anyway this artical is going into print fairly soon. If the closing admin did decide to delete this, someone would probably remake it as soon as it went to print, and then it would go through this whole AFD process again, and then still could be deleted. Ask yourself "If it were in print right now, would I still be voting delete?" If you answered no, then I think you should rethink your stance on whether or not this artical should be deleted. This webcomic is going to print. The chances of one of the two suddenly backing out of the deal is very unlikely, so I treat this webcomic as though it is already in print.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::* '''Comment''' - the thing is, a publisher has to approve you for publication; I mentioned that pay-for-print houses are not considered independent of the creator - as the medium is produced at the behest of the creator. However, agreements wherein the publisher and the creator split the payment ''do'' qualify, since the medium is independent of the creator. The section is intentionally vague - it is meant to be broadly applicable to all kinds of media, without restriction. However, there are generally specific sections for certain media - radio can be notable, but being aired, say, once a week in small-town Texas radio is probably not. The same is true for other media. Nonetheless, we are still discussing a future event, and notability does not inherit from the future. When it's published, it will probably be notable, as per the guidelines - when, not a "promise" or "very sure thing". --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::* Ok I accept that. Though I stand by my argument for the inclusion of this artical in Wikipedia. We have short articals at www.nma-fallout.com that have been verified, and images from the comic are in print right now: http://www.deviantart.com/print/378534/ |
|||
::::::::: I have mentioned other reasons for it's inclusion above. Even if these other arguments do not meet WP:NOTE, seeing as there are so many references to the webcomic, these references should be collectively taken into account in the final decision making process.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 11:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::*'''Comment''' - Again, the articles on NMA are too short to constitute non-trivial publications. The fact that there are lots of them does not make them notable as a group - a bunch of things which individually do not meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]] does not meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]] as a group. This, really, seems to be the heart of your argument - that, though you admit that each source does not meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]], you argue that a group of them does. This is contradictory to what is outlined under [[WP:NOTE]], and I cannot support inclusion of an article on this basis. Furthermore, Deviant is ''specifically'' designed not be independant of the creator - it is like saying that because I got my art printed by CafePress, it has been "published". That is contradictory to standards. I too stand by my argument that this article does not meet standards under [[WP:NOTE]] and thus should not be included in the encyclopedia. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Haemo|Haemo]] ([[User talk:Haemo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haemo|contribs]]) 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
::::::::::* Here is an image from the magazine: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=1658 and here is a rough translation of it: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=296261&sid=9665fc1f980a56827ce63d012f284660 (Thanks a lot Altnabla) |
|||
::::::::::* I continue to stand by my previous arguements as well. All the small things should be taken into account in the final decision making process.[[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::* And if you scroll down this page (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/news.php?i=1133) you will see an image painted by the artist of this webcomic which was sent to CAD. Maybe not completely relevent, but it shows that two of the largest webcomics in existance have recognised Kimmo Lemetti as a great artist. [[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::* Sorry one more thing. I don't know what this is, but I think it may be a transcript of the magazine text. Altnabla tells me it is relevent, so I might as well post a link: http://www.wzl.be/fun/index.asp?par=f_post&ID=2163&y=2006&m=7&d=26 Thanks again Altnabla![[User:Darkcraft|Darkcraft]] 04:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |