Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 25: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Sim~enwiki (talk | contribs) Deletion review for DMFA |
Move to correct date |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Dan and Mab's furry adventures]]==== |
|||
:{{DRV links|Dan and Mab's furry adventures|xfd_page=|article=}} |
|||
1. It is silly and preposterous that you can click a link in this New York Times article: |
|||
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html and see the comic, and her name, and yet somehow this is not notable. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state if an article has had 'coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.' it has had coverage in the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (among other sources), a source that must be reliable if it has been featured in the New York Times of all things, independent of the subject. The article is therefore notable. |
|||
2. The original deletion was literally unanimous keep excepting the original nominator, while I was there. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, a unanimous keep is hardly a "consensus" to delete. |
|||
3. Originally, the deleter stated that a single reference could not save the article, so in requests for undeletion, the deleted page was user-fied to add a number of other references. The resulting page was submitted for feedback along the proper channels, begging absolutely no concerns for several days, and then upon being properly moved to mainspace, was summarily speedy deleted. |
|||
During a discussion with the speedy deleter, I was told 'the new references are not reliable.' However, the number of them were posted as counterexample to the first deleter's accusation of too few references, and when including the original New York times linkway, the new set of references AS A WHOLE are definitely enough to establish notability. Even if a few are knocked out as reliable sources, the NYtimes link must, at least, remain, along with other sources, and since they have their own articles on Wikipedia, and have for some time, this means that they must be notable in turn: |
|||
'Establishing notability in Wikipedia is somewhat similar to establishing a high PageRank in Google ... the notability of a subject is measured in part by the notability of the sources which talk about the subject. In other words, the most notable of businesses, such as Microsoft, are notable because they're being talked about by the most notable of sources, such as the Wall Street Journal.' |
|||
Since DMFA's nomination for the web cartoonists' choice awards, which was mentioned in turn in the NYtimes (among other available references) it necessarily must fulfill this reliability chain for inclusion in Wikipedia. [[User:Sim|Sim]] ([[User talk:Sim|talk]]) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||