Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorry to be Safe

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doduf (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 20 March 2014 (→Sorry to be Safe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sorry to be Safe

Sorry to be Safe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a group nomination for all one-page Calr Barks Disney comics that so far have recieved an article. They are all adequately covered in List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (which shows the potential for further similar articles as well).

None of these subjects has sufficient notability, as they have not received considerable attention as a separate subject in reliable, independent sources.

They have been reprinted (in English, and in Disney magazines and books in many languages), but apart from being noted in comics databases, they are not the subject of the necessary coverage. E.g. a book like Carl Barks and the Disney Comic Book pays no attention to any of these.

I have not included articles on longer stories, since these should be considered on their own merits, and some of those have clear notability. This AfD also doesn't mean that if some one-pager did have a claim to notability (e.g. A Hole in One (comics) being the very first Carl Barks DD comic), it can't be created. But for these now nominated, and most sim!ilar redlinks, I don't think there is a future on Wikipedia (or at most a redirect to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks).

Also nominated are:

Fram (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Barks is a major American satirist. His notability has been established. All his works are therefore notable according to WP policy and guidelines about Notability Books.

The gag stories have been reliably sourced to a third party with commentary and analysis written by published comics scholars.

WP does not ask for multiple sources to establish notability, one is enough. Anyone can contribute additional sources to these articles. I don't own them.

I am appalled that WP would consider deleting articles about the work of a major American satirist. Please read the WP policy and guideline about WP:Notability. Doduf (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "third party" being short commentary inside a reprint book, hardly an independent source, and not really significant coverage either. Of course, in most cases not a lot can be said about these comics, which may be the work of a major American satirists but are hardly in themselves major satirical works. Oh, and have you really read the guideline WP:N? "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So contrary to what you claim, WP does generally ask for for multiple sources and doesn't consider one to be enough. The source you e.g. now added to Sory to be Safe can hardly be seen as the "depth of coverage" that would remove the need for multiple sources, even ignoring its debatable independent status. Fram (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to check WP:Notability on "significant coverage". It is not widespread, in depth coverage provided by an exclusive circle of academecians. From the GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." While WP expects multiple sources (to avoid charges of plagiarism), it does not require them. If WP did, there are thousands upon thousands of articles at WP that would need to be deleted. Doduf (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While WP expects multiple sources, it does not require them for publication. These notes in the book are similar to notes at the back of a classic. There is no policy excluding the use of such commentary. Fantagraphics is a reliable source. Doduf (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I missed this, but there has been an AFD for one of these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee for Two, with the closing statement "The result was no consensus, but extremely close to delete. I would expect this to show up at AFD again in the next few months unless serious effort is put into it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)" (and no prejudice against a speedy renomination then added). The only change to the article since then was this. Fram (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was up for deletion, but there were only two responses and both were from Toronto I believe. The "Coffee" article adheres to WP policy and guidelines. "Coffee" is probably as close to complete as possible at this time. Barks died in 2000. Scholars are just getting around to commenting on his work. I invite anyone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source. Doduf (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not argued that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source, obviously. I have argued that a Fantagraphics reprint edition is not an independent source. Fram (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe a lot of the essays in the Barks Library books are reprints from non-Fantagraphics sources (they're all by different writers{{subst:emdasah}}it's not one person annotating the stories), so in this case I think the Fantagraphics books count as an independent source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (if needed) and for those without disambiguation, keep as redirects as valid search terms. Nowhere near complete sourcing to support per GNG. The claim that because Banks died in 2000 and sources will come soon both violates WP:CRYSTAL and that 13 years out we haven't seen anything strongly hints nothing much is forthcoming. Doduf's claims about what notability guidelines allow for are are very much mistaken, as GNG requires significant coverage in independent and secondary sources, none of which these articles meet presently. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've looked over these articles before and don't see any possibility of independent notability for any of these one-pagers. Aside from Coffee for Two, the articles themselves are basically just a plot summary and the sort of basic info that fits more conveniently into List of Disney comics by Carl Barks. They aren't even likely search terms; in the unquestionably rare event that someone has the desire to look up one of these individual strips, it's unlikely that they'll think of the strip's exact title. Again, List of Disney comics by Carl Barks is more serviceable in that respect.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think Fantagraphics is a reliable source, but not an independent source. What evidence do you have that Fantagraphics is it not an independent source? From WP:Notability: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." What does "significant coverage" mean to you? Here's what it means to WP: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Maybe some people have different ideas about what significant coverage is. Please point me to the WP policy page on this (no essays or opinions). Thanks. {Doduf (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a more appropriate page that consolidates all these. Fantagraphics is a reliable source, that's really no the issue, and so much has been written on Barks's stories in various languages, but you really have to think about what makes a good article. The articles on these one-pagers simply aren't good articles. Please think of the readers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carl Barks was writing for children. It was they who spent their dimes on the several Disney titles Barks written by Barks. WP is not kid-friendly, but these articles can easily be read by those for whom Barks was writing. Please, don't bite the children. Doduf (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorry_to_be_Safe&oldid=600424494"