Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Sheep8144402 (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 15 September 2022 (fix linter errors (33x obsolete HTML tags)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 of the debate was, after due consideration of all comments and evidence, keep. – ABCDe✉ 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected Mario Characters

[edit]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. SPKx 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I am a fan of the webcomic, but it is Not notable vanity. (see comments) Delete. -Sinatra Fonzarelli 02:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored large parts of the comments to the talk page to aid readability and so that people browsing the full list can skip it easily. This is not an assertion that the moved comments were less valid and I would urge reading them before you make a vote or comment. Stifle 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless evidence provided that this comic has been mentioned in unprejudiced sources as the first sprite comic and that this does in fact have historical relevence, this does not comply with out policies on verifiability. Inclusion of this article in the absence of such would violate our policy on bias as there exist many many other similar webcomics that are not included. As there is clear consensus on notability demonstrated on AfD and in the various guidelines that support it, including all other webcomics is clearly not a viable way to redress this bias. There is no other conclusion than but that this should be deleted based upon the facts in evidence.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there are sources which cite this as the first web-comic. T. Campbell, whose webcomics history is coming in the summer, has cited it as such,[1] as does the article at 1UP, [2]. 1UP, going by it's entry here, seems to be a reliable source. On that basis, I urge you to reconsider your vote, Aaron. Hiding talk 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup on grounds of historical interest. Yes, the article is too long and too detailed, but someone with the appropriate time and knowledge of the subject can easily trim it. Neglected Characters is still, as far as anyone knows for sure, the first widespread (even if not originally notable) sprite comic, and it certainly has grown to notability (even if not major notability) by now. Just fix the page (and shorten it. a lot.) and all will be well. CaptHayfever 14:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CaptHayfever. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is notable as the first sprite comic, and has inspired many spinoffs. GeoWeasel, a flash toon, was originally a sprite comic, and its motto was "the best thing to happen to sprite comics since NC." Google scores and Alexa ranks are not the only determiners of notability, guys. This article passes all three of Wikipedia's tests for inclusion. The sources are verifiable (read the comic and the 1UP article), the research is not original, and even if it is vanity, it can be edited down. The last thing I want Wikipedia to do is to claim that Bob and George was the first sprite comic and ignore NC completely. Its forum contains roughly 5000 members (the VGF forum contains 15000 members, and it's very possible that most of its members came to VGF via NC)Crazyswordsman 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard of GeoWeasel. It's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Although the sources are verifiable, (although the source to the only claim to notability, that it was the first sprite comic, is absent) the research is not original (although earlier edits of the article read like advertizements) and it may not technically be vanity, (the guy who runs the website that hosts the comic made it instead of the author of the comic) it is not notable according to these guidelines. I will need empirical evidence of 5000 members of this webcomic's forum, and even then, when a comic like Achewood gets several hundred thousand mentions in passing on Google, I really don't see how that helps your case.Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those guidelines are merely suggestions, and are the opinion of those forming the page (it says so at the top of the page), not policy. And if you're so concerned about these matters, why don't you go look for verification yourself? Crazyswordsman 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're being a tad immature. Wikipedia is an attempt at a verifiable, usable encyclopedia. By creating an article about a comic that's only notability is the shaky clame that it innovated a minor style of webcomic, than you need to back this claim up. Being a Wikipedia editor is about verifiability. The burden of proof is on you. If you do not wish to take responsibility for the burden of proof, stop arguing against the deletion of the article.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and comment) "No claim to global importance"!? It was the 'beginning' of sprite comics! I may not know exactly what 'global' importance is, but I'd say it has a lot of normal importance!LIII 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neglected Characters is a relatively unclever, unamusing and sloppily made webcomic. It's claims of being the first sprite-comic are entirely unsubstantiated, and to my knowledge this is the only pillar it is standing on to claim it deserves a space in an encylopedia. The article was as sloppily made as the comic strip. Remove. -- Griffinfuhrer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.90.69 (talk • contribs) .
    • You're personal opinion on something does not prove it does or does not belong here. I hate probably about fifty percent of what is on here. Do you see me nominating stuff like that for deletion? No. Stop being such an elitist. Crazyswordsman 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now now, just because it's bad, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Otherwise, I'd purge the Top 40 list from Wikipedia right now. However, it's also painfully unnotable, and should be deleted. Sinatra Fonzarelli
    • I never said it should be deleted just because it's bad. I inserted my personal opinion on the comic itself as well as my reason why it should be removed; the only claim to notability is the fact that it is allegedly "The First Sprite Comic", in an encylopedia, there should always be a plethora of facts to back up any claim made. There is absolutely none for NC Comics, so it should be removed. -- Griffinfuhrer
  • Comment In other words, you're saying it is in accordance with the deletion policy...because you hate it? LIII 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the first sprite comic ever, aswell as a very good comic. remember that if this is deleted, it will eventually be forgotten, which is bad because it links to many other good sites. plus it not only a comic website, it also is like the meeting place for Nintendo Fans. Besides, it is not a dead site. it was last updated 10 days ago. Keep, I beg you. -User:Tannotron the Real 010:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole internet isn't going to forget this supposedly "monumental" comic if one Wikipedia article is deleted. Besides, there's a reference to it in the sprite comic article and it's supposedly fully replicated on Comixpedia anyways. Pandaman87 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be rude, but isn't expression of concern that without this article, this webcomic will go forgotten somewhat of an admission that this webcomic is not very well-known? Regardless, you seem to misunderstand the cause of Wikipedia. This might be a useful link for you. Especially this, this, and this. Just because you enjoy something, even profoundly, doesn't make it encyclopedic. I don't have to make a Wikipedia article about the wonderful feeling I get when I walk through Old High Street, hang out with old friends at my beloved stomping grounds, or watch that one cell-phone commercial I really like for some reason to appreciate them. Just because an article brings Mario fans together, doesn't mean it is encyclopedic.Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only claim to notability, "first known sprite comic" is unproven. Pagrashtak 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, the above Archive link shows that NC existed before Bob & George, which was previously believed to be the first sprite comic. Now unless someone can show us an older sprite comic, the claim is true. CaptHayfever 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I stated above, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion. I believe your claim that NC existed before Bob & George, but the claim is not that NC existed before Bob & George; the claim is that NC existed before all other sprite comics. Proving that NC existed before one particular sprite comic does not prove that it is the first. Pagrashtak 15:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, you start looking at one end of the Internet; I'll start looking at the other. The reason we "Keep"ers keep bringing up B&G is that it was called the first sprite comic until people saw the NC timestamps. What's it called when you're before the "first"? The real first. If someone finds an earlier sprite comic, then I very well might change my tune, but until then, this is the kind of claim that can stand in good faith until it is disproven. Besides that, NC is easily the longest-running sprite comic, as any that may have been started before it are completely lost and could safely be presumed dead. CaptHayfever 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can see, we have has a long and heated discussion about the merits of whether or not NC should have a Wikipedia article. I say there have been good arguements on both sides. Yes, NC has not and probably will not be as notable a spite comic as Bob and George and 8-bit Theatre. However, you can't ignore the fact that NC is, if not the first, then at least the longest running sprite comic. When I first created the NC wiki page last May, I only wrote it as a short little history of NC (look at the archived page in the history for proof). I never intended all the bells and whistles that were added in the next 9 months. I did not ask for there to be a separate page created for cultural references. I did not ask for a wikiquote page. These were added by fans of NC, who felt like they should be part of the article. Me and CaptHayfever have been trying to clean up the page, so it will be a good median between the simple article I started with and the overblown article it had become. Yeah, there are better webcomics out there, however NC still has a history can not be ignored. Please consider this when decided to keep or delete the article. - SPKx 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When people want to know about something, they should have a Wikipedia article to look at. It was apparently the first sprite comic and it is apparently popular enough to start a debate far too long. Shouldn't that be enough for an article?Glyph Phoenix 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no way to say this without being rude, so I apologize if this sounds too frank: The vast majority of the argument for keeping the article is being done by SPKx (the webmaster of the site the comic is hosted on) and Crazyswordsman, his friend. with the occasional contribution from meatpuppets, including the creator of the comic. Part of the length of this discussion page is due to my engaging, if not provocing them, in a flame war, (and I was uncivil at times) and for that I apologize. I just want to illustrate that there is not a mandate. There's a close-knit group of fans of this unnotable comic. And it's not just people wanting to know about something. There are other websites that serve as directories, excellent ones. On Wikipedia, the subject must be encyclopedically (is that a word?) notable.Sinatra Fonzarelli 00:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a meatpuppet now? Interesting. As long as that gauntlet is thrown down, I'm going to explain that not only do I not work for SMBHQ and am not close to any of the staff, but I've read NC maybe a grand total of 3 times in my life, all of which were long after I had begun hearing about it. CaptHayfever 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to point out List of Cultural References on Neglected Mario Characters, I know it's been mentioned already, but I'd like to make it explicit. Neglected Mario Characters has an entire article about it's "cultural references", every strip that mentions Spock or Cheesy poofs has it's own particular mantion and link. It was not deleted following the nomination, quite wrongly in my opnion, someone should take a serious look at that. I might nominate it later, but if the comic itself is barely notable, then a link farm to it is obviously not. - Hahnchen 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say the site should get to keep a scaled down version of the article. Something branching off an article made for sprite comics in general. - Alph 1:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    This actually left by User:71.40.191.2 . --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a link repository. I don't see much indication of significance. Friday (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This shows how pathetically easy it is to establish that NC goes back at least to October, 1999, and there is no reason to doubt the claim on that page, by the originator of the comic, that July 1, 1998 is the date "when NC was first given to my total control." The arguments based on unverifiability seem very strained indeed. While comparisons with Bob and George seem also to be overegging the pudding (the latter has been continuously sprite-drawn since April 1, 2000, with only 17 missing days), it does seem that NC featured regular sprite-based strips before 2000. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rides on the back of an extremely dubious claim to notability - that it was the first sprite comic, which has no reliable source and relies on original research such as that done by Tony Sidaway above - how do we know there isn't another sprite-based comic, possibly drawn before NMC, that we haven't checked on archive.org? Because the voters here say no such comic existed, ever? We're writing an encyclopaedia and we're not qualified to make those sort of assertions. --Malthusian (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have this right? You are actually claiming that the act of verification of a fact by obtaining information from archive.org is original research? --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All it verifies is that NMC is older than Sprite Webcomics X, Y and Z, for any given value of X Y and Z which you ran through archive.org. For us to call NMC the oldest sprite comic would require us to know that there is no Webcomic W which is even older. Now, if an independent, authoritative source, the sort we usually insist on when it comes to non-fancruft, says that there is no Webcomic W and NMC is the oldest sprite comic, then it becomes a verified fact, but when a Wikipedian presents himself as the source by saying there is no Webcomic W, that's OR. --Malthusian (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Until an alleged "Webcomic W" is found, you have absolutly no proof. LIII 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing vote to abstain, as the sources given elsewhere seem reliable. I'm still not convinced that being the first webcomic to copy and paste sprites from somewhere is a particuarly great artistic achievement, hence not a keep. --Malthusian (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: even if it's true, so what?! To me, the main claim to fame sees to be that it's a website that's been up for several years. I don't personally see that this makes it significant. Friday (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on Sinatra Fonzarelli's analysis. In particular, I find his comparison of webcomics of various levels of notability persuasive. Nandesuka 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The thing I keep turning over in my mind is this: We've got sources which state the strip is the first sprite comic:[3], [4]. Now in an article on Sprite comics we've got to note that. So we create a red link if we delete this. Now sure, the article can redirect, but there's enough sourcable info here to have a perfect stub. I agree the article as it stands needs a heavy rewrite, but that isn't the debate. The debate is, should there be an article on this strip? If we take it as given that mention of it should be made in an article on Sprite comics, then I think it's taken as read that we should have an article, it's Wikipedia:Build the web, isn't it? I'd add I find the nominator's blog entry regarding this troubling too. [5]. Hiding talk 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The Wikipedia article was created on May 24 2005 saying "Nelected Mario Characters (also known as NC) is the world's first (if it wasn't the first, then it was at least the first well documented) sprite-based web comic." On Nov 7 2005 1up.com says "Neglected Mario Characters, the first sprite comic." This doesn't look trustworthy. Isn't it possible Wikipedia was there source? That promotional claims made in wikipedia arrticles are being picked up by other web sites? HotWings 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That line about NC being the first sprite comic was on NC's about page long before the wikipedia page was created (in fact, a good bit the original text of the wiki article was paraphrased from this page). - SPKx 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this verifiable, referenced, notable, encyclopedic, and in all other ways worthy article ➥the Epopt 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator: I would like to know why proof that NMC was the first sprite comic is still being demanded in the face of this edit. —Phil | Talk 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never demanded proof that NMC was the first sprite comic. I demanded that defenders of the article offer proof that NMC was the first sprite comic to those on this page who demanded it. And they did. I think they've offered sufficient proof that it is the first sprite comic. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: my ability to AGF is getting bent all out of shape by this nomination. —Phil | Talk 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this mean that you're specifically not adressing the question of this article? Or is there an already stated rational that you're agreeing to? If it were presumed, for example, that was that this was the first sprite comic and it was then found not to be the closing admin might lend less weight to your recomendatins. For this reason it's always a good ides to explain yourself more rather than less. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to vote, but I have some thoughts:
    1. Being the first sprite based comic would seem to confer a certain de facto notability on the subject.
    2. Can we deem something notable ourselves in this way, by looking through the internet archive and comparing dates? Is this original research? I'm not sure what I think about that, but it is a point that stands out to me. How does this mesh with the idea of direct observation?
    3. Is it reasonable to expect that if the strip is truly notable, we would have some decent sources to inform us about it? At present we seem to have only a brief mention in a VG website article about the early history of webcomics. I am confident that, if we decided to keep this article, this would probably be one of the very least notable topics we have officially approved for inclusion on Wikipedia.
    4. I am impressed by the commitment involved in writing the article and fighting to defend it. Sometimes, when I am on the borderline between voting to keep or delete, that will push me just slightly onto the keep side. I figure: you know, I really don't want to be wrong about this, if we have somebody here wanting to develop our content on this subject, and committed to it. I would at least like to put off the decision for a while, or let people on the article talk page reach some decision on their own. Everyking 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Probably fancruft, but seems just barely notable. Stifle 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure how strong the precedent is, or even if it counts, but List_of_Cultural_References_on_Neglected_Mario_Characters was not deleted. If this page was deleted, wouldn't it be a bit odd for that one to still exist? This website is, in my eyes, more of a pioneer than some super-notable site these days. Back in the day it could have had the notability you site; however now this is in historical interest. The page could always be compressed a little, though. (Edit: I guess that page was changed to a redirect. Regardless, my vote still stands.) --Metal Man88 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: being the first work of any genre is notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if we agree that that cannot be demonstrated as per WP:V and WP:NOR you'll support delete, right?
      brenneman{T}{L} 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr Brenneman, it's already established verifiably and through a process very much not original research. I would hope the closing admin will take a note of that. Webcomics historian T. Campbell has cited it as the first, as has a column on a major publishing companies website. It seems redundant not to note those claims, which are verifiable and are not original research. Since those claims are citable, it is now up to those seeking to disprove those claims to cite otherwise. The burden of proof is with those disputing the sources. Any decision on those sources should be made consensually, not by a closing admin. No-one as yet has addressed those sources in great detail. Hiding talk 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no idea how notable or nonnotable this is, not being a big webcomic buff (I collect comic books, the old fashioned kind printed on paper, but haven't looked very much at the Web-based kind). I'm rather frustrated with the degree of histrionics that occur whenever a webcomic with a fervent fan following gets nominated for deletion, which often spills over to the wikien-l mailing list as well as discussion pages within Wikipedia itself. People, it's not the end of the world if this gets deleted, or kept. The AfD process makes mistakes sometimes, but the eventualist position holds that, in the long run, notable stuff will get articles and non-notable stuff will fade away, no matter what happens in the short run. There's no need to get all pouty and start screaming about how you're starting a forked site and abandoning Wikipedia... go ahead and start specialized sites on different topics if you want, but Wikipedia will stay around no matter what happens elsewhere, and bashing and sniping at it does no productive good. *Dan T.* 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great job with the cleanup. I don't mind if the article gets deleted anymore, (although I prefer it be kept, thus my vote stays at keep). However, if it IS deleted, I'd like the Sprite comic page to still contain links to the Comixpedia article and the site itself. Crazyswordsman 04:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I would like to keep this discussion going on forever, this AfD has been up for nearly a week now. I think we should be getting to a verdict soon. - SPKx 21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page has been changed so much it wouldn't matter if it was deleted. LIII 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morass

[edit]

This is making my eyes hurt. This all seems to come down to the "first" thing, so could we have the evidence laid out nice and neat here? - brenneman{T}{L} 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is the first

Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is not the first

Other evidence that this is the first

Other evidence that this is not the first


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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neglected_Mario_Characters&oldid=1110442228"