- Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
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. Sim (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Questions can you clarify a few points for me. For your point (1) I've done a search within the page linked and can't find the name of the comic. Your quote from the GNG seems to be a bit too selective of a quote, try starting one word earlier with "significant". Can you point me to what on that page is significant (GNG - "address the subject directly in detail") in that article. For your point (2) Are we looking at the same deletion discussion? I can see three people opining for deletion, how can it be "literally unanimous keep" when there two people other than the nominator opining for deletion? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion- The source upon which the notability of this article apparently hinges does not mention the subject as far as I can see. Reyk YO! 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural endorse because the initiator of this review did not follow the instructions above: "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly." Sandstein 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) It seems that discussion took place at User talk:Fram#Deleted page. Sandstein 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleting administrator appears to have made a total of seven edits since February 2009. He's also performed ten administrative actions since that time, all of which involved deleting material in his own userspace--including his own talk page. It's reasonable to assume that there's no point whatsoever in talking to the deleting admin. Since the original deletion was more than three years ago it's also reasonable to create a page that overcomes the original reason for deletion, although the one source we're seen is not sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response 4. From http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm, which was originally linked from my NYtimes link: (See Web_Cartoonists'_Choice_Awards for details).
'Dan & Mab's Furry Adventures by Amber M. Panyko nomination for OUTSTANDING ANTHROPOMORPHIC COMIC.'
http://www.ccawards.com/2005ceremony/anthro.htm
Tangents did a more in-depth article, which I believe fits the significance criteria:
http://www.tangents.us/?s=dmfa
Also other sources in the article, which I don't remember off-hand.
5. Also, apparently, yes there was an additional delete given at the last second. So is 'Delete, lacking reliable sources.' sufficiently persuasive an argument to countermand the remainder of "keep"s otherwise mentioned, with reasons given? Point known, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this would imply that there needs to be an eloquent argument by the dissenter against the remainder of consensus for keep. The delete recommendations are all just base statements, while the keeps have several substantial arguments. How could that possibly be a deletion consensus? Never mind that new notability sources were added since. Sim (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse The Web Cartoon award is not significant enough to overcome the complete absence of detailed sourcing. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award. Try finding some sources and writing a userspace draft. Spartaz Humbug! 03:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that link. I didn't see a detailed consensus there, either. This is despite the fact that I did find more sources for the userspace draft, which was summarily deleted virtually immediately upon publication, without further chance for update or consideration. I felt that a newer, stronger article should have a change to grow with an additional four+ years of references, without someone saying it can never ever be notable ever.
- I felt the NYtimes chain of notability was the strongest notability link, but if there are further variables to be considered, I would be willing to search for them. I feel incensed that the newer article was never given its fair chance. Sim (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't such a thing as a notability link - A reliable source may find a given set of awards interesting enough to write about and that may contribute to the notability of the awards for wikipedia - however it isn't a chain, that doesn't mean that anything associated with those awards (or an award winner from those awards) is automatically notable. What we are really saying is the NY Times believed the awards as a whole to be of interest to it's readers, but didn't find the individual entrants/winners to be of the same level such that they'd write about them directly. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion but allow re-creation if notability can be established. Since the original deletion was over 3 years ago, it is certainly possible that consensus may have changed as to this comic's notability. However, the evidence submitted in this DRV is far from convincing. I don't see any reference to this comic or its cartoonist in the New York Times link cited at the start of this DRV. Furthermore, the AfD was not a unanimous keep except for the nominator; it was 6 "keep"s to 3 "delete"s. I would advise anyone wishing to re-create the article to keep the article's focus on establishing notability for the comic overall rather than describing the characters and plot in detail. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim of the DRV nominator is not that the comic is mentioned in the NYTimes article, but that it is mentioned in one of the links given in that article. This is stretching our notability guidelines beyond most people's interpretation. I redeleted the article as being basically the same as the one deleted through AfD a few years before, without any additional indication of notability added since. A truly improved article, with more claims to notability, would have deserved its own chance and at worst its own AfD. But this was a quite straightforward G4 redeletion. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have temporarily restored the article for purposes of providing context for this deletion review, based on a request at my user talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
