Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Cannabis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.62.7.22 (talk) at 06:45, 2 May 2007 (Whoops! revert to previous version (already closed), duhh.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cannabis

Captain Cannabis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is about a comic book and was created by the author of said comic book. There are no independent reliable sources demonstrating the notability of the subject. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)Wikipedia:Notability. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect:
Verne Andru 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask what you are basing this off of? The amazon listing, the copyright certificate or the screenplay that has not yet been made into a movie? All three of those do not require any notability to attain. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is ironic that an article with the name Canabis was nominated for deletion on 04/20. That being said, the subject is not notable enough to warrant its own page. The sources do not verify notability as pointed out by HighInBC. --Cyrus Andiron 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried for awhile and could not find any source to verify notability. Even mildly obscure comics you can ussually find somehting, I found nothing, suggesting this was probably self-published origonally with very little circulation. As for the screenplay, being registered with ScreenWriters guild is pretty meaningless, 10s of thousands of screenplays are registered and never made into a film. Now if there was an actual deal in the works to make a movie, thats something else, but there is no evidence of that, as well as if there was an active third party fan site for the comic, but that does not exist either. Not at all notable. Russeasby 15:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "fan" forum recently created for Captain Cannabis at ProjectFanBoy.com. Both ProjectFanBoy and the forum are both relatively new. My sub-forum was only created a few weeks ago and I have not had time to put any attention to it. Their introductory topic thread states, "Welcome to project fanboy Verne, as you can see we've added a forum for you to discuss the ongoings of your character Captain Cannabis." which absolutely ties Captain Cannabis to it, even though the forum is titled "Verne Andru." Verne Andru 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion forum that you have created and you are the moderator of does not qualify as a "fan site", it is in no way a third party reference to the notability of Captain Canabis. Russeasby 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this is immaterial to the matter of determining notability as per the policy cited, for the record I was invited to that forum by the owners and made a moderator by them. They had seen chatter of the Captain Cannabis character on another forum and approached me. They are independent and arms-length. Verne Andru 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article goes into lengths on the 420 movie/screenplay which is the Captain Cannabis origin story. Verne Andru 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the words "Captain Cannabis"(the name of the comic) are not in it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the comic book and the movie which features the Captain Cannabis origin story is "420" as you will see on the Amazon.com page. The article is correct. Verne Andru 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no policies or guidlines precluding this as long as the article is done from a NPOV, is properly cited and notable Verne Andru 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it suvives this AFD, I agree that 420 (comic) would probably be a more appropriate article for it and I would support this move, but as of yet my vote for delete above still stands. Russeasby 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least until some kind of widespread recognition is gained and it is written up by some reliable accessible sources. Plus, comment, it was not agreed by consensus as notable on Talk:420 (cannabis culture), it was agreed by consensus as relevant. Relevant things can still be non-notable and unsourced. Sorry Verne, this whole thing is going through the wringer somewhat. Jdcooper 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons are both subjective and based on popularity - 2 criteria specifically precluded from the policy for Wikipedia:Notability which has been cited. That policy is very clear in that it precludes any discretion. Once the threshold tests in that policy have been passed - as I submit they have - Captain Cannabis must be deemed notable and the case presented here must fail.

Some of the early nominations in favor of deletion may not be valid. HighInBC changed his original charge from Wikipedia:Notability (books) to Wikipedia:Notability, and additional citations have been added which brings this article in line with Wikipedia Notability criteria. It is unclear to me what the time lines for these events are, but submit all voices prior to these two additions must not be given any weight in the final determination. Verne Andru 16:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize this action is being taken against Captain Cannabis, the following links citing the author [Verne Andru/Verne Andrusiek] may help some editors comfort-level. The citations are available when you know what to look for and where. This list is not exhaustive, just what is easily available through a few quick google searches:

As a point of interest, the article Playback - B.C. reps explore Singapore treaty, Nov 30. 1998 is the first published account of the 420 story. While it does not make specific reference to either 420 or Captain Cannabis, the oKee story and character form the basis from which the 420/Captain Cannabis movie/comic book were derived. The oKee character is pivotal to the 420 story and makes an appearance in a subsequent chapter. Verne Andru 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to show your notability or the notability of the subject of this article up for AfD? None of these seem to have anything to do with Captain Cannabis. Russeasby 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, this is merely supplemental data. The notability of Captain Cannabis must stand on its own merits. Verne Andru 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.
  • Notability is not subjective
  • Notability is not popularity

This policy makes clear that if the article is able to pass these tests objectively, as subjectivity is precluded, it is deemed "notable." It is insufficient to make a claim that you believe the article deleted and give no explanation. In order for your position to be given proper weight you must address the Wikipedia:Notability policies and prove where the article fails these threshold tests, just as I have had to prove where it has passed them. I have provided multiple citations that meet all criteria to satisfied Captain Cannabis to be deemed "notable" according to published Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

For the sake of completeness, the Talk section of that page explains:

I encourage editors to read the section on dealing with non-notable subjects in these guidelines again. Deletion is not the only way to deal with non-notable subjects. Nominating zax (tool) for deletion in order to make a point was poor form. The problem with that article was that no-one had yet written an article with a broader scope into which it could be merged. It is only as of today that we even have an article about the trade of slater. The zax is discussed in published works in discussions of slater's tools as a whole. The guidelines say very clearly to rename, refactor, or merge articles where the subject is discussed in published works as part of a broader scope, and to create any necessary broader-scope articles if they don't already exist. Stop treating deletion as if it were the only tool in the toolbox! You are Wikipedia editors. You can write articles, too, as well as deletion nominations. Please follow the guidelines. Uncle G 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Verne Andru 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Does anyone have access to the print sources that are being given, because I cannot find any mention of this character(which pre-dates the comic book "420") in the only online source given. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 420 Movie Citations I would like to add that proper citations are made to the 420 movie in the following independent sources:
  • Delete per nom and as COI. I'm unimpressed with the so-called cited sources which don't come anywhere near making this comic the primary subject of multiple nontrivial published works. The Playback thing is just a short blurb, the High Times piece sounds similar, and the QsHouse "radio" interview is a podcast which is a dime a dozen. 75.62.7.22 07:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is subjective. The citations comply fully with the policy which states:
  • In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
  • In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
You people have to abide with your own rules. The decision is a binary one - either the citations comply in being done independently, at arms-length and state the subject specifically or they do not. Length, breadth, popularity, etc. are not determining factors. Read the policy and follow it. All discretion is precluded from your deliberations. Those are Wikipedia rules that everyone is expected to follow, even Wikipedia editors. Verne Andru 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion To Dismiss I submit the article under review fully complies with Wikipedia policies. There is no consensus for deletion, it is written from a NPOV and is notable with multiple independent citations. Dismiss this matter and let the article stand. Verne Andru 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dismiss? An admin will look at the discussion and close it soon, but we don't dismiss debates here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it gets deleted you can appeal at WP:DRV though it looks to me like a delete consensus, SqueakBox 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that people can ignore the Wikipedia policies with impunity? The policies are very clear in stating the determining factor for notability must not be subjective, yet that makes up the reasons for those seeking deletion. It wouldn't be an issue if they could point to where the article/citations run afoul - even a singular instance - of the Notability policy, but not one has done so. Frankly this process resembles a lynch mob more than a scholarly pursuit of encyclopedic knowledge. I argued at bar for 10 years and this motion would have been tossed out long before now. Verne Andru 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I am saying exactly the opposite, that if an admins decision is considered wrong we have DRV to appeal that decision. I think we should let a closing admin make up his mind before commenting further, s/he will, I am sure, take your views into consideration, SqueakBox 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Where does it run afoul with the Wikipedia:Notability policy that has been cited as the reason for deletion? Verne Andru 19:19, 25 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Captain_Cannabis&oldid=127625125"