Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→[[Girly]]: closing (overturn; relist optional)
Line 9: Line 9:
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
===3 November 2006===
===3 November 2006===



====[[Girly]]====
Wikipedia's deletion criteria with regards to webcomics have always been full of tension, but I don't think anyone who really knows anything about webcomics would ever agree that Girly isn't important. Many of the DELETE votes ignored verifiable facts (such has how long Girly has been on the web), and the VFD did not gain the attention of the webcomics community in general until after the deletion occurred, as a result many other relevant facts never got mentioned:
* Girly is the sequel to Cutewendy, which is in itself a spinoff of Wendy, both of which are extremely notable in webcomic history.
* Girly is notable in terms of being a major Keenspot label which split off
* Many of the applied rules (such as WP:V) have been found in the past not to apply to things like webcomics and other fictional works. A fictional work ITSELF has to be enough to gain facts from without being original research, since it's all right there on the page.
* Webcomics in general in the mainstream has a completely different. Many of the mainstream names in webcomics are largely non-notable in the webcomics world itself and vice-versa.
* Websnark is notable, it's a major voice in webcomics, but even if it is not the other links (such as to silver bullet) were. Comixpedia also has posted articles about girly.
* Girly is notable for reasons other than the number of fans it has or how many hits it gets. It is immensely influential on many other webcomic artists' works.
* Websnark's article on the deletion of Girly [http://www.websnark.com/archives/2006/10/time_for_the_ye.html] makes a lot of other good points better than I can {{unsigned|Webrunner}}

:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girly]]

*<s>'''Relist'''</s> - Taking a look around on this, I think the fact that a paper version has come out, through an established publisher like [[Radio Comix]], should have been considered more by the voters. Webcomics are difficult to deal with, but anything that's got a print edition seems to push above the line to me. Sounds like the article needs more sources, though, if it's revived. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:Changed my mind after looking at the below comments. AFD seems to have been valid (my concern about the publishing stands, however), so it's hard to overturn. However, I agree that it might be best to wait a little and get some more sources, then recreate the article. '''Endorse closure''' but allow recreation down the road. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse Deletion''' First off, please note that I voted to keep it during the AfD, and I stand by that vote. In fact, I was one of just two established users to vote to keep it. However, looking at the AfD I can't possibly imagine how it could have been closed any other way, and a sour-grapes post on a blog isn't going to reverse a strong consensus. Bottom line: I think it should have an article, but I don't see enough grounds to overturn the AfD. It might be best just to wait awhile on this and see what happens as far as media mentions and such in the future. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' - Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the close/debate on the AFD. Wow this is so wrong: "Many of the applied rules (such as WP:V) have been found in the past not to apply to things like webcomics..." (from the DRV nominator). [[User:Wickethewok|Wickethewok]] 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

** '''Comment''' I did not mean to imply that unverifiable facts are meant to be put in any article, but facts about a webcomic are by their very nature taken from a single source: the website of the comic itself. The lack of other sources cannot be held against it, unless you consider fictional works as a whole to be not unless there's other-medium books about it (like reference guides for TV series). Incidentally, in this particular case it seems WP:V was called upon regarding the -notability- of the comic, which isn't related to WP:V at all, it has to do with WP:WEB. Actually, that does remind me of another point: Girly WAS on Keenspot, if it still was, it'd be automatically notable under WP:WEB. Whether Dayfree Press counts or not, I don't know. Maybe Girly is non-notable by the rules, but there is a significant loophole in the rules if something notable can get bigger, more popular, more successful, AND less notable at the same time. [[User:Webrunner|Webrunner]] 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

***'''Comment:''' "Bigger, more popular, more successful" are not Wikipedia standards; multiple third-party independent coverage is. "Being on Keenspot" does not make a webcomic automatically notable; multiple third-party independent coverage, if sufficiently non-trivial, does. (No endorse/overturn non-vote.) [[User:Barno|Barno]] 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
****'''Comment:''' [[WP:WEB]] '''is''' a Wikipedia standard, and ''it only has to meet one of the guidelines'' to pass WP:WEB - in this case, Being on Keenspot does make a webcomic automatically notable through the third criteria - "he content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." [[User:Webrunner|Webrunner]] 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*****There is no consensus for the idea that every webcomic is notable that is hosted by either Keenspot or Keenspace, or even by more notable webcomics publishers like the [[Modern Tales]] sites. Girly is just one of several articles on non-notable Keenspot webcomics that have been deleted within recent memory. As per the footnotes to [[WP:WEB]], sites like Keenspot fail miserably, as webcomics hosted by them will not almost certainly be the subject of multiple non-trivial, third-party published works. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 09:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
******Bull. There's no consensus because the discussion consisted of you, Brenneman, and me, and you were willing to shout until you got your way. There is a consistent demonstrated consensus for keeping these articles - [[Elf Only Inn]] and [[Able and Baker]] being the two most straightforward instances of things that were kept because of their syndicate. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
******Not only what Phil said, but that's completely against what WP:WEB is actually saying. It is not trivial to be hosted on Keenspot (Keenspot and Keenspace [now Comicgenesis] are different. Keenspace is anyone-hosting, Keenspot is by-invite), so it doesn't fail criteria 3. As a result it DOESN'T HAVE to pass criteria 1. So no, not only does Keenspot not 'fail miserably' but it's an automatic pass. [[User:72.38.1.40|72.38.1.40]] 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I've started a discussion to get to the of whether Girly satisfies WP:WEB for having satisfied it at some point in the past: [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notabilty Guidelines - what happens if things change?]]
*'''Speedy Overturn''' - there is a clear track record of keeping webcomics that are members of any of the big syndicates (Keenspot, Blank Label, Dayfree, the MT family). Girly meets that. It was nominated for a Webcartoonist's Choice Award in layout. It has been reviewed on Comixpedia by Wednesday White, one of the two writers on Websnark, where it has also been reviewed. It is demonstrably the case that this is notable by standards that have been proven repeatedly to have consensus on AfD. It was clearly deleted by poor process, and does not need to go through this charade of an "appeals" process to be restored. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**Note also [http://www.websnark.com/archives/2006/10/time_for_the_ye.html], where this deletion is roundly (and rightly) condemned by one of he most notable figures in the webcomics community. This is an unequivocally bad deletion. It goes against past precedent, it goes against sense. That it happened (While, astonishingly, in the same week, [[Bruce Woodcock]] and [[Timeline skew theories in The West Wing]] survived, despite the latter actually being unverified by any source and actually being OR) is a clear sign of how arbitrary AfD consensus is, and how deeply flawed our current method of "appeals" is. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' (disclosure: I was the AfD nominator). DRV is for examining violations of AfD ''procedure'', and no actual procedural objection has been raised, nor is any in evidence. The arguments made above for the notability of Girly are irrelevant here, as they do not touch on process. On the contrary, I find the actions of Phil Sandifer highly objectionable. He just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Girly restored the article] without waiting to see how this DRV would end, with the reason of "AfD was deeply flawed, DRV is unusable, restoring due to obvious notability". Then he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girly&diff=85710325&oldid=85702262 removed] the {{tl|db-repost}} tag correctly added by another user. I've had no prior interactions with Phil Sandifer, but I find this disregard of process arrogant and unbecoming any Wikipedian, much less an administrator. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. You have a lot of nerve accusing anyone of being arrogant. Mountains of evidence from people who have knowledge in this field have been presented to you all as to why the comic is notable. You ignored it all, and clung to one rule about Third-party sources, the one rule that can be used against the comic, and a rule whose relevance has been called into question numerous times. A lot of the arguments for Girly's deletion contained blatantly false information such as Girly being a "blog" and that the comic was only a few months old... misinformation which has been corrected and subsequently ignored. Ultimately, you got your way because you subjectively bended the whole argument to your whims. Please stop trying to deny it. I tried to be nice about this. But I, and many others, are becoming more and more convinced that this process is entirely subjective, and you all are losing a great deal of respect. --[[User:SuperHappy|SuperHappy]] 20:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**Phil just happens to be an academic expert on comics. He edits an academic journal on them. If an expert says "I'm an expert, it's notable," it's notable. You're actually wrong on this one - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
***I'll have to disagree with these contentions. I've created [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Girly]] and added one comment later; this is hardly "subjectively bending the whole argument to [my] whims", whatever that may mean. Could any of you please direct me to the policy page that allows undeletion by people who say that they are experts, even against the results of a procedurally correct AfD and a deletion review? Finally, the rule on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] is established as a cornerstone guideline of Wikipedia, following from WP:V and WP:NOR, and any article that fails it merits deletion no matter what its subject is. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Expert undeletion''' - an academic expert on comics says it's notable, it's notable. Wikipedia is not in fact supposed to be anti-expert. Also, the present version of the article is considerably more substantiated than the AFDed version, so further db-tagging in the light of this would constitute an attempted abuse of process - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**Again, I have to disagree. Yes, the present version of the article has more sources added to it, but it's still the same content, and as such subject to speedy deletion -- ''until'' this DRV decides to overturn the AfD. This may be process over product, but I do think it's bad conduct to preempt consensus-building by unilaterally implementing one's "expert" opinion. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
***Er, no. Just because there is a process does not mean it is the only one. Expert undeletion counts too - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
****Which policy allows "expert" undeletion? [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*****None. But the first step in changing policy is to start doing something differently when policy isn't working. This is such a case. The better question is "What reason is there, in the face of the evidence and reasons given, to re-delete the article?" [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''I'm a [[Appeal_to_authority|Super Expert]] and I Endorse Deletion.''' No new information, no problems with the close. To address some of the above comments, there is in fact a clear, verifiable, citable track record that comics hosted on sites like Keenspot do not somehow automatically get "an automatic pass" when it comes to meeting the content policies (See [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NOT]]) of this encyclopedia. That some Keenspot comics were kept during some AfDs does not change the fact that many others have been deleted. For example, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy in Love (comic)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcery 101]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girly]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Mode]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Gender (2nd nomination)]], etc, etc. In fact, the two "straightforward instances" given as examples above have each been deleted themselves at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Only Inn]], [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Able and Baker]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker]]. Clearly, there is no consensus that articles on every single trivial Keenspot comic belongs on Wikipedia. Articles on the free-hosted 6,000+ Keenspace/ComicGenesis comics fare even worse on AfD. If there actually were a "consistent demonstrated consensus for keeping these articles," then there'd be no need to resort to a desperate unilateral consensus-ignoring "speedy overturn" and undeletion of this article. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**As an expert, you can of course point to your credentials, as Phil can. No? Then you're actually wrong. You appear to have problems with the concept that an actual expert on a subject knows more about it than you do and that twenty nonexpert "delete" notavotes can be beaten by one expert saying "keep" - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
***The fact that, yes, I can point to credentials that far exceed editing an academic journal does not change the fact that such an [[appeal to authority]] is a logical fallacy. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
****I'd go and add "Wikipedia is not run on propositional logic" to [[WP:NOT]], but I suspect that [[WP:POINT]] and/or [[WP:BEANS]] cover it. Suffice it to say that I am not acting as some detached and removed authority - I've presented historical evidence (The comic's membership in Keenspot and Dayfree), economic evidence (The comic is of sufficient popularity to support its creator, a rare feat in webcomics), and artistic evidence (Nominated for a Webcartoonist's Choice Award, reviewed by Eric Burns and Wednesday White). The reasons to keep the article extend far beyond an appeal to authority. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*****I'm a super expert on trivial blogs, and I don't like these trivial blog sources. I also keep my own trivial-award-winning super expert trivial blog on trivial internet awards, and the 125+ annual nominations for [[Webcartoonist's Choice Awards]] are so trivial that my posts about them rarely include smilies. I'd also like to point out that a large percentage of my super expert myspace friends endorse this deletion. --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 22:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
******Have you considered that you may be happier playing Nomic than editing Wikipedia? The whole thing where you pick a desired outcome and then change the rules at will to suit it plays much better there. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*******If you're truly concerned about my happiness, stop talking to me. Your history of personal attacks and incivility towards me frankly sickens me every time I see your name pop up here. --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 22:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
********Your attempts to make this into a personal conflict aside, do you have an actual response to my point? Because it seems as though you're still relying on an unfortunately skewed sense of what important and notable sources are for webcomics, to say nothing of an unfortunately skewed sense of what sources we can and can't use on Wikipedia, such that your opinion, while stated with admirable and at times amusing stridentness, has little to recommend it in terms of actual accuracy or usability. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*********If anything has made this into a personal conflict, it was your initial comments in this discussion directed to me where you characterized as "Bull" my demonstrably true statement that there is no community consensus that we should keep articles on every trivial little Keenspot webcomic. In fact, as i have shown, community consensus has been to delete many of these minor webcomics. You then attempted to write off actual community consensus by claiming it was formed because I was "willing to shout until you got your way." And then your little buddy David showed up to try and ad hominem attack to label me a "nonexpert" based on his knowing absolutely nothing about my professional and academic history. So if you'd like this not to be a personal conflict, then please comment on content and not contributors -- especially contributors that you have a well-documented history of personal attacks and incivility towards. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**********Deleting to create a good encyclopedia remains rather like fucking for chastity. As for my "little buddy" David, may I suggest that dismissing a longstanding community member and former arbitrator like that ultimately says more about you than him. Your disdain for the topic of webcomics has been made clear, as has your ignorance about it. That, despite this, you are unwilling to yield to those knowledgeable about the topic and prepared to make careful and informed decisions does far more harm to the encyclopedia than my calling you out for it has or ever will. I point, again, to the number of sources I have brought up - sources that extend far beyond Keenspot - and ask you again. We have here a webcomic picked up by two separate syndicates, of sufficient popularity as to provide its creator with his livelihood, reviewed by two of the three big sites in webcomics, and nominated for the major webcomics awards. What more do you want? Even if Keenspot isn't enough for you, even if the awards aren't enough for you, even if Websnark isn't enough for you, how on Earth is Keenspot, Dayfree, Comixpedia, Websnark, the Webcartoonist's Choice Awards AND the fact that the cartoonist is able to make a living off of the comic not enough for you? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
***********Could you stop talking to me, especially using obscene metaphors and personal attacks? Please respect that you really creep me out and make me feel sick to my stomach. If anyone else is reading this, note that my supposed ignorance and disdain of webcomics has led me to create and write webcomics-related articles like [[Gene Yang]], [[Drew Weing]], [[Lea Hernandez]], [[Raina Telgemeier]], [[Nowhere Girl]], [[When I Am King]], etc. You'll also note that all of these articles I've worked on are based on verifiable information from multiple, non-trivial reliable sources with repuattions for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than on how cool I think the comic is, how awesome I think it is that it was mentioned on some circular group of minor blogs a couple times, or that I've somehow confused an unreliable claim that someone is attempting to make a living as an artist with some sort of reliable source claiming that the webcomic is "of sufficient popularity as to provide its creator with his livelihood." (The Wikipedia article reads "fundraising efforts for the comic had been sufficiently successful that he would '''attempt''' to support himself wholly via the comic" and the self-published blog source clearly reads "It '''can't''' quite be officially declared that Josh is living solely from Girly.") So, no, this doesn't cut it. That a webcomic artist made some webcomics friends and joined some collectives, hasn't been noticed by any source other than a few blogs, and writes in a blog post that they hope to some day make some undefined amount of income (What? Minimum wage? Enough so that mom will let me crash on her couch?) equals too trivial for an encyclopedia. It's not like we have a policy that everyone who makes $X a year gets a Wikipedia article. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
************I am happy to stop talking to you if you'll do the courtesy of leaving the discussion. But I have not been discourteous to you in this discussion. I have called you out when your points have been wrongheaded and destructive - which has been frequently. You've been no less zealous to me on numerous occasions, including an open and baldfaced attack on my academic integrity. As for the obscene metaphors, it was an adaptation of the frequent pacifist adage that killing for peace is like fucking for chastity. I suppose I could have used the less-common "screwing for chastity," but I doubt it would have satisfied you. In any case, the point remains - I'm happy to engage in discussion with you, particularly when you actually do me the courtesy of answering my points. (Feel free to notice, btw, that Comixpedia is not a blog.) To openly declare your disdain for me is at best an ad hominem attack, and at worst a complete failure to engage in a good faith effort to find consensus. Either way, it has no useful place in the conversation. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 00:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*************I'm very familiar with the origin of your obscene metaphor, and I won't be bullied into leaving this discussion. If anyone else is reading this, note that Comixpedia does in fact host blogs, and that the source for the idea that the artist of this webcomic hopes to someday make a living as an artist comes directly from "joshl.'s blog" at [http://comixpedia.com/blog/joshl http://comixpedia.com/blog/joshl]. Currently, Comixpedia largely serves as group blog where webcomics artists write about themselves. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 01:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
************** Trying to stay out of this now, but I thought it'd help to clarify how Comixpedia works. It is indeed a news site, and not a blog. The "blogs" contained within it can be contributed to by anybody, but ONLY those deemed newsworthy by the editors are posted on the front page. It is essentially a more Internet-based way of submitting press releases, and that's how I treat my "blog" there. If I wanted to make a regular blog post, I'd just use my actual blog to do it. Another thing, Dragon... I make enough money from all my web-based projects to live, and Girly accounts for a significant percentage of that. I'd like you to name... twenty-five webcartoonists who've accomplished this. These are the facts, and I'll leave it at that. And don't ask exactly how much I make; that's rude. --[[User:SuperHappy|SuperHappy]] 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*************** Thanks for the clarificaton Josh (that is you, right?) but it's really unecessary -- I'm very familiar with how Comixpedia works. If you want to describe it as a news site where the publisher (Xerexes) puts creator press release blog posts on the front page, that's fine. I think it's more accurate to call it as mainly a group blog where the publisher decides which blog posts go to the front page, similar to how the blog [[Daily Kos]] works. As far as 25 webcartoonists who make a living (again, whatever that means, anyone can pick ther own standard of living), the best I can do is point you to the dozen listed at [[List of self sufficient webcomics]]. I'm sure there are quite a few others, but we need reliable sources for information we publish as an unreliable encyclopedia is useless. (Actually, I see now that one of those does not have a source, so make that eleven). -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
**************** If you know how the site works, don't try to spin it so it sounds like it's a lot less than what it is. I know it's not perfect, but it's been around a long time, and has become a much more streamlined version of itself over the years. Moreover, in the area of webcomic news, I can't think of any superior alternatives. And hell, a lot of the precious artists in the list of articles you edited have contributed to the site in one way or another. Gaerrity's art is up there right now. Also, just so you know, virtually all the sources cited in [[List of self sufficient webcomics]] are the authors' own websites. --[[User:SuperHappy|SuperHappy]] 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
**********Right, so those credentials of yours are: ________________ - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 23:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**********I think you just showed you don't have an argument. Your personal opinion of Phil has no bearing on his status as an actual expert on comics, someone whose opinion on this particular subject really truly does count for more than yours, no matter how you slice it or what mud may be thrown - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
***********I hope you'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to post my personal CV in a conversation with strangers on the internet who are fond of personal attacks and incivility including comments about how deleting articles on trivial webcomics make them feel like killing people. Since I have no intention of making appeals to my own authority, what do I gain by posting my credentials? Will the personal attacks suddenly stop? Will I sleep better at night knowing that people who harrass me know where I work and go to school? Are you going to start going around saying "Keep, Dragonfiend is an expert" and "Delete, Dragonfiend is an expert"? Really, if I actually thought it would make my life easier to give my academic and employment history to complete strangers on the internet who harrass me and talk about killing, well I'd proabably do it. But my instinct for self-preservation sort of rules that out. If David, you actually think that learning more about my academic and employment record would help you stop making ad hominem personal attacks, then maybe we could solve this through mediation somehow. -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
************If you can list the edits that you consider constitute me making ad hominem attacks on you, please do so. In the meantime, you made personal attacks on Phil in response to me noting that he is an academic expert on comics; and it doesn't matter if he were to be determined to be a thoroughly reprehensible Wikipedian and eat babies, he'd still be an academic expert on comics. He can prove it. As such, I eagerly await you proving your assertion of "super expertise," else a lkess charitable person than myself might think you were blustering to avoid backing up your assertions - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*************As this issue of "people who know nothing about me have decided I can be dismissed as a 'non-expert'" has drifted off topic, it is being continued at [[User_talk:David_Gerard#Your_asssessment_of_my_credentials]] -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
***(Edit conflict) Well, I for one have the same problems with this concept because it is alien to Wikipedia. As far as I know, Wikipedia runs on [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] and policy, not on supposed expert opinion and unilateral decisions. If you do not like this, you may be more comfortable contributing to another encyclopedia project, such as [[Citizendium]] or [[Wikinfo]]. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 21:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
****Consensus is not, however, a process of counting votes. Wikipedia is run by a process of trusting well-informed and well-intentioned editors to make the right decisions. Decisions are made based on whose arguments are best in line with principles and common sense. I've demonstrated notability in multiple ways, and staked the claims on my reputation as a scholar in the field (Or, well, David has, but I'll accept it). Wikipedia's decision making process does not give "Eh, I don't care about your arguments and credentials, I vote delete anyway" equal weight to that. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*****I'm not questioning your credentials. I'm just opining they don't matter here, because this is a coverage-based notability discussion. It requires [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] but no expert knowledge. You're right in that it's not about counting votes but about assessing arguments. '''But this assessment is for the closing administrator alone to make.''' He or she may well take your expert status into account, although I would decide based on the sources alone. ''This'' is why I object to your out-of process restoration. I'd say you're about to make a good case for the notability of Girly with your new sources, but I feel there's no need to take the law, in a manner of speaking, into your own hands. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
******[[WP:RS]] is a highly disputed guideline at this point for reasons more or less exactly like this one, however. (And I should know, since I wrote a line by line critique of it.) [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
******* Even if one disagrees with WP:RS, this is still no reason to restore deleted content out of process just because the consensus opinion in AfD and DRV seems to ''agree'' with WP:RS. We may disagree on WP:RS, but we should all respect process and consensus. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 21:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
********I have the utmost respect for consensus, and similar respect for any process through which it is actually generated. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Keenspace/Comicgenesis is completely irrelevant - it is trivial to host on ComicGenesis, therefore it's not good enough for WP:WEB. God Mode failed WP:WEB because of being co-created by Chris Crosby (and therefore Keenspot was not Independant). Keenspot is only mentioned once in the AFD for Abstract Gender, and it was extremly close. Using Girly as an example here is just.. bizarre. The point is, it's undeniable that Keenspot is both 'well known and independent' of most of the comic creators and is not trivial. As for 'no new information' - it having been on Keenspot was not brought up in the AFD for Girly. It's relevant to it's deletion. Hm ... Should votes based on demonstratively false information be given the same weight as ones backed up by proof? [[User:Webrunner|Webrunner]] 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
***God Mode was also a terrible AfD, it should be noted - the issue isn't lack of independent sources. It's a fine primary source, and if Keenspot serves as grounds for notability (it should) and if Crosby is a notable creator (he certainly is) the sourcing issue is negligible. Also, note that the comic is on Dayfree now, which is a separate notable syndicate (Having both Dinosaur Comics and Questionable Content). [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**In any case, even assuming equal credible expertise on your part ... all you've shown is that experts disagree, and that there is significant (as opposed to insignificant) doubt as to whether it should be deleted. And as AFD says, and has said for years: '''"If in doubt, don't delete."''' - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''<strike>Relist</strike> ''Undelete''''' (Used wrong terminology; sorry). Girly's notability within the field of webcomics is difficult to dispute; Keenspot (not Keenspace) invited it into its consortium, Josh Lesnic is able to make a living creating Girly; Eric Burns (one of if not the most important non-creator voice in webcomics) attests that Girly is one of the most ''influential'' webcomics among other webcomic artists. Many of those who voted delete in the original vote showed little familiarity with the field they were judging, which may not be a requirement to judge, but should have less sway than an understanding of the matter would.[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**According to a comixpedia blog post by "joshl" from August 24, 2006, "It can't quite be officially declared that Josh is living solely from Girly." -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete'''. Phil has given several credible arguments supporting notability. I don't actually care if John Lesnic is able to completely support himself on this or not, the fact that he is making signifciant income from it is enough, as is the fact that it is available in print from a non-vanity publisher. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 09:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn deletion''', '''undelete''', whatever it takes. We made a mistake. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per Guy. As for procedure, in the link given by DRV nominator two prominent webcartoonists register their astonishment that Girly should be deleted while their articles remain. If the rules say this article shouldn't be kept, in this particular case the rules are in the wrong. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*Undelete per [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] and [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]], don't bother relisting. This isn't your local high school scribble box, and it's our policies that disrespect contributions of both regular hard working good faith editors and experts alike that are flawed. There's no need to war over this any further. The degree of argument embodied here shows that this is passionately supported by a non-trivial number of contributors, another AfD would serve no beneficial purpose to Wikipedia. [[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#66CCFF">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#0000CC">focused</FONT>]] 17:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse my own deletion'''. This discussion turned into a flamewar earlier, and [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]]'s premature undeletion of the article simply because "the AfD was flawed" (before it could be known how this DRV would turn out) isn't good either. Two of the sources provided in the AfD were blog entries, and blogs are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Also, from my interpretation of the awards page, Girly did '''not''' win the award. It was nominated, but it did not win. I think the AfD was valid, in that case, because there isn't much else that vouches for notability. Also, longevity does not notability make. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User talk:Coredesat|at]]''' 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
**[[WP:RS]] is a fatally flawed page that is labeled as disputed for good reasons - among them being its declaration that blogs are a priori unreliable. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
**Isn't much else.. except again, that it was distributed by the most well known webcomics publisher there is. And Comixpedia, which is not a blog despite how much people seem to think it is (Dragonsfinest called it a group blog, but if that's the case then so is Slashdot). If you can go through the guidelines and say "yes, this is notable" and then delete it for non-notability, what good are the guidelines? [[User:Webrunner|Webrunner]] 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''': [[Fans!|Fans!]] doesn't meet the listed requirements for a page. Neither does [[Evil Inc.|Evil Inc.]]. or [[Questionable Content|Questionable Content]]. or [[It's Walky!|It's Walky!]]. or [[Melonpool]]. Others, such as [[A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible]] use the WCCA as a reliable resource for determining importance. I think a few things are shown by these facts:
1. The Girly Deletion was an unfortunate event, and obviously incorrect, since it has receved a WCCA nomination.

2. If we are going to use the narrow standards by which Dragonfiend is offering to determine importance scarce few would be included at all.
Webcomics are still pretty new, and only a few resources such as websnark, comixpedia, and the WCCA exist to give some verification about their importance. Why wouldn't we use all three of these to determine the importance of a webcomic? --[[User:Arthurbarnhouse|Arthurbarnhouse]] 4:56 pm, 5th November 2006
**'''Comment''' - Look at the [[WCCA]] page, look at all the absolutely trivial webcomics and categories there. The WCCA is just an online poll, not a major web award, I'd rank it next to the Ursa Furry community awards and below anything offered by the [[Independent Games Festival]]. Just being nominated for one of the WCCAs does not mean it is notable. Webcomics might be pretty new, but we're not going to lower standards for them (like we have done in the past) just because they fail all the other indicators of encyclopedic inclusion. Lowering inclusion criteria for the webcomic community would just be like lowering the inclusion criteria for farmers to anyone who has ever appeared in such valued trade publications such as [http://www.georgiapeanuts.org/patriot.html Peanut Patriot]. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*** Yup, with you on that. But if the creator is verifiably making good money from it, and it's been published by someone other than a vanity press or print-on-demand, that would probably be good enough for me at this stage. That or syndication in non-trivial treeware. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
****I'm quite familar with the WCCA. Now, are you? The WCCA is a fairly big deal in the webcomic community. More to the point, why are the webcomics nominated there trivial? Or the catagories for that matter? They have a practiced methodology for determining which webcomics to nominate, read their mission statement. I'm not suggesting "lowering standards" just recognition of what is important reading and websites for the webcomics community. Websnark, Comixpedia, and the WCCA are those. We should be using those as our huristic for determining inclusion. -[[User:Arthurbarnhouse|Arthurbarnhouse]] 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete, obviously'''. Having been silly enough to read all the flamage above, and having no personal interest one way or another in web comix, it is obvious that the case for '''undelete''' is very strong and the case for delete is nonexistent. [[User:McKay|McKay]] 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*Just for the record, I don't think anyone who'd list ''Checkerboard Nightmare'' for deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Checkerboard_Nightmare]]) has any business portraying themselves as an expert on webcomics. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
**Dragonfiend is a sober and perservant contributor, but I don't think she has a concept of a counterproductive rule. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm still thinking about this (because I'm trying to see the arguments for both sides, and because popular culture is always a sticky subject in regards to sourcing). But I have questions: if Girly were a [[indie comics|indie comic]] or (even worse) a dojinshi instead of a webcomic, would this discussion even come up? On the flip side, if Girly were a band instead of a webcomic, would it have been an automatic keep? What if it were an underrepresented topic in [[WP:CSB]] terms? [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Dragonfiend's idea of 'notability' is pretty out-there, and Mr. Sandifer's points strike me as entirely valid. [[User:Blacken|Blacken]] 18:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. I'm not going to claim expert status, but I'm going to claim the article as it stands at this timestamp meets [[WP:WEB]]. ''Sequential Tart'' and ''Comixpedia'' are good sources, Eric Burns is someone I would listen to as an expert, and Phil may not always be right but I think he is here. I'm not going to criticise the closer, I can see how the decision to delete was reached and it's also worth bearing in mind how the article looked then. But the article has improved, and does what has been asked for. I don't think we need to be slaves to process to the extent that we delete this again, today. When we're discussing current events or fields with little academic history, there's going to be a fine line to walk, and I think perhaps instances like this, we have to assume good faith and trust our descendants to weigh it all up. I don't think we stray from the line at all in keeping this, and I don't think it hurts. That said, we should source claims that this is immensely influential on many other webcomic artists' works or we should not use it as a justification to keep, and we should also remember our conflict of interest policy. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' (relist if necessary). I'm willing to accept Sequential Tart and Comixpedia full reviews as sources here, even if they're not the most reliable (of course, sourcing in popular culture is still under heavy debate. But fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view, we err on the side of keep). [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:18, 8 November 2006

< November 2 November 4 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

3 November 2006

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_3&oldid=86522820"