Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Nell

Jeremy Nell

Jeremy Nell is not noteworthy enough to have an article. Article was self-authored. rrcatto (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the page serves merely as an advertisement for Jeremy Nell's non-noteworthy blog and it is also another self authored article:

rrcatto (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this related article because it is of low quality, self authored and describes a non-noteworthy cartoon.

Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. COI is not by itself a reason to delete; nor would be article quality, though this one looks fine (maybe a touch-up for PR tone). I personally would redirect Ditwits to Nell's own article, because in my (US) experience, editorial cartoons don't have separate notability or even generally titles, and in particular the article content is almost identical (across all three articles). I have no problem with a daily strip having separate notability, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this article has been around for long enough, and Nell is established enough as a recognised cartoonist, to warrant this article. To delete this article simply because one comment (above) has suggested it, is not good enough. Crowlike (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditwits can be moved into Nell's article, but it is still a daily comic, just like his other one Crowlike (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crowlike, please respond to the following, quoted from WP:AFD:

Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.

rrcatto (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because a visit to Jeremy Nell's "trashmedia.co.za" site will reveal that rrcatto has started a personal vendetta against Jeremy and his blog simply because Mr Catto's crude, vulgar language and hate speech could no longer be tolerated by several TrashMedia fans/visitors. They requested that Jeremy "moderate" Mr Catto who is unable to control himself, it seems.

And Mr Catto should know better than to try (ab)use Wikipedia in this way! DavidPetros (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the accusation is unfounded and unsubstantiated! Mr Nell did not write this article. It was originally created by a fan!

Also, one could ask "Zapiro" whether he feels Jeremy is a nobody in the field. I was at a cartoon book launch last year where Mr Shapiro referred to Mr Nell as one of the rising stars in the industry.

So, Mr Catto clearly doesn't know what he is talking about! DavidPetros (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DavidPetros could be another sockpuppet of Jeremy Nell's. Editing history shows that he has only made two edits to the Urban Trash article. The personal attacks are unneeded. rrcatto (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this comment, left by rrcatto, under one of Jeremy's posts: http://trashmedia.co.za/2008/05/21/a-young-great-barrier-reef/#comment-26778 You will immediately see that this catto person is heavily abusive and cant be taken seriously. If you read further down in that same thread, you will see that rrcatto is under investigation by the Human Rights Commission of South Africa, for his inappropriate hate speech and veiled death threats. He clearly has it out for Jeremy Nell. Crowlike (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Nell is guilty of nothing but being an objective cartoonist with a brilliant sense of humour. Catto didn't get his own way on trashmedia.co.za and had his ego bruised when people turned on him after his rancid comments. You are absolutely correct when you say that he shouldn't be taken seriously, Jeremy has done no wrong here and as such his wiki page should stay as is in my opinion. My question is, will these comments be deleted after this "inquest" is over? I don't feel they hold any purpose in ruining Jeremy's wikipage. 41.208.50.176 (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]