Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Nell

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 keep. Take your drama elsewhere, please. Sandstein 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Crowlike and sockpuppets I suggest you address the objective issues instead of resorting to slander and personal attacks. You have yet to declare what your interest is in editing these articles. rrcatto (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no slander. These are facts. The "issue" can not be dealt with until your underlying agenda is exposed. I suggest that Wikipedia's staff suspend your account, since you're conducting yourself in an inappropriate manner. You're even accusing other commenters as "sockpuppets" without any evidence to support your claims. Crowlike (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refusing to disclose what your interest is in these three articles? rrcatto (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to South Africa's leading online news portal, www.news24.com, you'll see Urban Trash listed in the primary navigation, under "Cartoons". The same goes for South Africa's other leading news portal, www.iol.co.za. In fact, Urban Trash is also diplayed on the front pages of the following South African daily newspapers' websites:
Cape Argus (www.argus.co.za),
Cape Times (www.capetimes.co.za),
Daily News (www.dailynews.co.za),
Pretoria News (www.pretorianews.co.za),
the Post (www.thepost.co.za),
Mercury (www.themercury.co.za),
The Star (www.thestar.co.za),

198.54.202.94 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nell's daily political cartoon, Ditwits, is diplayed on the front page of The Times (www.thetimes.co.za). Perhaps not as frequently as daily, Ditwits is also displayed on Daryl Cagle's website at http://cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/nell.asp. Cagle.com is widely recognised as the one of the largest, if not the largest, political cartoon website. 198.54.202.94 (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On News24.com alongside Urban Trash are listed two other cartoons - Stidy and Treknet - neither of which I have ever heard of. Neither of them have articles on Wikipedia. On Iol.co.za, Urban Trash is listed alongside Zapiro, Mama Taxi and Crack of Dawn. Zapiro is well known and has a WP article. The others are unknowns.

My point is that just because a cartoon happens to be published by a newspaper, does not automatically confer notability status on it, nor make it well known. rrcatto (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh, you really have it out for Jeremy, don't you rrcatto? It's pointless debating with you because anything that is presented you are going to attack. There is enough evidence given to show that Urban Trash is widely read in South Africa, and nothing you say can prove otherwise. Stop giving your opinions, and give facts. 198.54.202.94 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before discussing an article for deletion, you should be a logged in user, not an IP address. I think it is also telling how Nell and his sockpuppets react each time with personal attacks instead of addressing the issue with civility. Although requested more than once, the primary editor (Crowlike) refuses to disclose his interest in the three articles nominated for deletion.

Fact is that newspapers regard cartoon strips as filler content. Publication of a cartoon strip by a newspaper does not convey that the newspaper thinks the strip and the strip's author are notable in any way. There is only one well known cartoonist in South Africa and that is Zapiro. rrcatto (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Ha ha ha! That's a stupid sweeping statement to make. Define "well known". And once you've done that, please prove that he is the only "well known" cartoonist in South Africa. And if the editor deems a comic fit to run it on his publication's website, it means that is noteable enough in his eyes. This is obvious. Your sweeping nonsensical statements are, however, not obvious. rrcatto, you're clearly desperate to delete Nell's articles for your own personal reasons. 198.54.202.94 (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem rational to accuse me of being desperate to delete Nell's articles. I think it is more logical to assume that Nell is desperate to retain his self promoting articles on WP. rrcatto (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Nell's cartoons appear on all those newspaper websites is enough to warrant notability. It's more than enough. You'll need to prove otherwise, without Google. Crowlike (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add, Nell's cartoons don't ONLY appear on those websites. They also appear in printed newspapers, some of which are included in that website list. Crowlike (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Trash is published in the South African (www.southafrican.co.uk) too. It's a newspaper for expats in the UK, with a distribution of around 90000 copies. (http://www.southafrican.co.uk/aboutus.aspx). Urban Trash is also published in both the South African and Namibian Big Issue magazines, which are distributed around Joburg, Cape Town, and Windhoek. Crowlike (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually no "debate" here. Nell's cartoons are widely sybdicated in South Africa, and are definitely noteworthy. Your anecdotal opinion makes no difference to the facts. Over and out. Crowlike (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World famous multi--award-winning cartoonist, Jim Borgman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Borgman), who is known for his strip Zits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zits) has even acknowleged Nell here: http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/borgman/2008/05/shout-outs_06.asp Crowlike (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. COI is not by itself a reason to delete; nor would be article quality. Crowlike (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nell got a link on Borgman's blog and that is being cited as evidence of Nell's notability?

"Got a great email from Jeremy Nell who draws both editorial cartoons and a comic strip in Capetown, South Africa. Check out his stuff here."

I think that's more evidence of how Nell self promotes himself on the Internet. rrcatto (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is evidence of Nell's notability. Borgman did not have to acknowledge him, and communicating with him is not evidence for self promotion at all. If anything, it's communication with like-minded professionals in the industry. But this is silly because you're hellbent on not accepting anything given to you, and have opposed all the evidence shown. But it's interesting that you're alone in this anyway. Crowlike (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blogs link to other blogs all the time. It does not mean the person linked to meets WP:BIO. I can't find any articles on reliable sources that discuss Nell. Nell's WP article contains links only to non-reliable sources of information. In the time since these articles have been up for deletion, no significant improvements have been made to any of the articles to correct their problems. I suggest that that is because they cannot be corrected. rrcatto (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help improving Nell's articles, I suggest you read WP:HEY which shows how one article up for deletion was vastly improved so that it met the required WP standards to be kept. Also read WP:V which contains this line: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." rrcatto (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page - User_talk:Richard_Catto - was vandalised with a hateful messsage from an anonymous person using IP address 198.54.202.94. That IP address also posted a message on this page. Although I cannot prove it, I believe that the person posting this message is Jeremy Nell himself. rrcatto (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edits to Jeremy Nell are by IP address 198.54.202.94. They added a reference and removed a broken link. I think it is reasonable to put two and two together and conclude that Nell's main interest on WP is to edit his own self-promoting articles and when that is threatened to resort to acts of vandalism using an anonymous IP address. rrcatto (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments made by Richard Catto, which are still freely online. Please note Richard Catto's personal vendetta against Nell.

Jeremy Nell sux boerewors.
The little cunt boers on here can run amok saying all kinds of ridiculous kak and he will support these arseholes. Well fuck him and fuck the boers. The sooner South Africans burn all these arseholes out, the better. As I have discovered, rational intelligent discussion is impossible with the boere. They all have their heads crammed way up their dirty little arseholes. And Nell supports their racism and their general shitheadedness. I can’t wait for the day South Africa descends into open bloody civil war. On that day, the boers will die. And Jeremy Nell will join them.
Fuck you all.

- http://trashmedia.co.za/2008/05/21/a-young-great-barrier-reef/#comment-26778

I managed to crack wide open the usually unflappable Jeremy Nell.
I consider that an enormous personal victory.
Bring it on, you little pissant.
Fuck you and fuck all the dumb boere on your dumb blog.
You published slander about me on this site. Now go take some legal advice about that, before all your earnings disappear into my bank account.
And then go run crying to your mommy, you frigid little cunt.

- http://trashmedia.co.za/2008/05/21/a-young-great-barrier-reef/#comment-26804

When the HRC reads the comments of the white commenters on this piece of shit blog, they’re going to lock Jeremy up. It’s absolutely disgraceful how he allows his favourite white commenters to spew unlimited amounts of hate towards blacks. Jeremy, I am going to see to it that you are put in prison for the rest of your natural life. Also, why don’t you boast of the fact that the Big Issue syndicates your cartoons? Are you ashamed of them? All this and more will be published by me eventually and hopefully others.

- http://trashmedia.co.za/2008/05/27/pommie-chick-sells-her-vagina/#comment-27152

Fuck white Afrikaner Christians! White Afrikaner Christians suck the shit out of a dead man’s colon!
They clearly don’t know me and my absolute antipathy for white Afrikaans Christians.
I am a white English Christian. A confirmed Anglican. I attend Church regularly.
I am not so insecure in my beliefs, my faith, and my religion that I feel the need to squelch all those whose opinions differ from mine. I don’t require the people I do business with to align their religious and political views with mine. Clearly these cocksuckers do.

- http://capetownnews.co.za/2007/11/17/the-white-afrikaner-christian-a-complete-and-utter-train-wreck-fully-on-the-road-nay-highway-to-hell/ (Richard Catto has since removed this article), but you can see a copy of it here: http://www.thejesusmyth.com/a-white-christian-lashes-out.htm

More evidence of Richard Catto's hate speech: http://www.madgenius.co.za/viewblog.asp?id=859

I laugh whenever I hear about some Afrikaner bitch getting raped. ... they have it coming to them.

- http://richardcattowatch.blogspot.com/

Crowlike (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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