Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatbag

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 DELETE. TigerShark 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatbag

This is a contested PROD. I tagged it for PROD because it's a webcomic that doesn't assert notability. Basically, the article doesn't tell us why we should care or why Wikipedia should have an article on it when it's already on the web. Erik the Rude 01:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Pokémon test. I can't find any claims of notability either. Cheers --Starionwolf 01:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 614 hits on Google, most not relating to the said webcomic. nn. yea. Adambiswanger1 01:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. DVD+ R/W 01:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no notability whatsoever. SubSeven 02:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete concur with the above. Gwernol 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks much better than many other AfD candidates but lacks notability. The author get a B for making a good-looking stub, but it needs more encyclopedic merit to last. Maybe in a year if it gets more Internet readership. Interlingua 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat 03:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable —Mets501 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have copied this article to Comixpedia: Comixpedia:Hatbag. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, has been expanded with more detail and better organization. Pumpkinshirt 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been improved and makes claims of notability now. Ace of Sevens 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There's a version of the page at Comixpedia, but it's older than this one. If the closing admin could transwiki the latest version there, that'd be helpful. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. I can't find any claims to notability or any sources other than the website. Eluchil404 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been improved. sirshrek 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:ENC - Hahnchen 11:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I understand the early votes to delete the initial stub-like entry that I posted, and I've worked to correct those issues.

Since then, it looks like the votes have been more divided, but, since I'm not entirely sure how the final decision is made, I wanted to respond to some of the issues. Please forgive any wiki-ignorance ("wikignorance"?) I may be displaying: With all due respect to the person who took the time to write a five-letter argument for deletion without even specifying the relevant points, none of the reasons on that page seem to be non-subjective reasons for deletion. 1) Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information -- Basically, as I understand it, this is the notability argument, which has been referenced before. First, Wikipedia does include entries about webcomics, which means that at this point any decision about the notability of any given webcomic is purely subjective. There does not appear to be any hard and fast rule as to what makes one webcomic notable and another not. Second, I believe that the inclusion of the information about the strip's "Hippie and the Black Guy" origins do add notability to the article. While the initial relevance cited in the entry regarding its controversial nature at UM may have been largely local in nature, Wikipedia includes numerous entries that are largely local in their relevance, and it also informs the current webcomic, which, by nature of being a webcomic, is not geographically limited. Further, regarding the reference to the Google count, "Hippie and the Black Guy" had much larger presence on the web at the time, including being named in top humor site on the web lists and being reviewed by Excite.com Reviews, but, as is to be expected, many of these lists and materials created a decade ago are not online. (Which I felt meant they should not be included in the entry, but does not mean that they should not be taken into consideration in regards to notability.) Arguably, the strip might have been a better candidate for an entry at that time, but obviously the fact that it predates Wikipedia by six years would preclude that. In fact, the fact that the webcomic has been online continuously for 11 years is arguably somewhat notable (though I'm saying that it just one factor in its notability -- I'm not arguing that in itself is enough).

2) Wikipedia is not for uncited material -- Granted, the entry does not include a references section; but many, many Wikipedia entries do not. In addition to the obvious citation to the Hatbag homepage, the article also refers to the three collections, which informed the entry; The Daily Mississippian, which published materials about the comic; and Web sites which reviewed the strip.

3) Wikipedia is not a place to publish your point of view -- The entry cites both positive and critical views of the webcomic.

4) Wikipedia is not a place to publish your new ideas -- If this "rule" is meant to be relevant to the Hatbag entry, the only connection I can see is regards to citation, which I addressed under point two.

5) Wikipedia is not censored -- This is why it would have been nice if the five-letter voter had explained his reasoning. I don't see any way in which this "rule" applies in this case; so am assuming it does not.

6) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- Ditto.

7) Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Ditto, other than that I hopes that means that when the time comes for a decision on the article, those who make the decision will consider these factors and judge objectively.

8) Wikipedia is not a blog service -- Ditto five and six.

9) Wikipedia is not a message board -- Again, ditto.

10) Wikipedia is not a free advertising space -- I was about to say ditto, but would note that this entry is not simply a brief note about Hatbag, with the additions made in response to early "delete" votes, it is now the single most definitive resource on the strip, as befits Wikipedia. It combines information from a variety of sources into an article more informative than anything anywhere else.

I hope this addresses the issues that have been raised about this entry. Thank you for your consideration. Pumpkinshirt 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, there are hard and fast rules for what makes a webcomic notable. WP:WEB is where you can review the criteria. It should also be noted that creating articles about yourself and/or your own exploits is strongly discouraged as per the WP:AUTO guideline. SubSeven 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for pointing that out. While those rules do not necessarily seem to be universally applied, by those rules, then, yes, as noted above, the entry does meet the qualifications for notability on the basis of newspaper coverage.

Also, the entry covers not only the web comic, but also its print predecessor, which would not fall under the WP:WEB guidelines.

And, yes, I was unaware of WP:AUTO when I started the entry, and did not realize I was committing a faux pas. That misstep taken, however, the policy does not appear, in and of itself, to be grounds for deletion, it just frequently leads to violation of other rules which are. Thus far, there seem to have been no allegations of violations of those rules, but, if any problems are cited, I will be glad to correct them. Thanks for the feedback.Pumpkinshirt 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I apologise for not taking time in explaining my vote. I don't use the WP:ENC argument normally, but I like the page and it's straight forward. But my general point is, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, I don't think an encyclopedia should include an entry on Hatbag. Every webcomic has origins, it doesn't make it a notable entity. - Hahnchen 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - That just seems very subjective. Wikipedia already includes entries on comic strips, so one can't make the argument that comics strips don't belong in Wikipedia. Certainly, Hatbag probably won't make it into Britanicca or World Book anytime soon, but if Wikipedia limited itself to things that would, it would be, well, Britanicca or World Book. As it is, there are many things on Wikipedia that are probably not in many other encyclopedias -- I doubt, for example, that Britanicca has an entry on Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend, which you do seem to believe belongs in an encyclopedia, or that World Book has much to say about SiN Episodes. 68.62.201.74 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It is not subjective. The notability guidelines for web content have been linked here repeatedly. SubSeven 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Indeed. And had I been talking about the notability policies, that would be a relevant point. Perhaps I could have been more clear -- I was responding to the statement "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, I don't think an encyclopedia should include an entry on ..." and, regardless of what replaces the ellipsis, that is a subjective statement. It is also one that is obviously belied by any number of Wikipedia entries that would not appear in any traditional general-interest encyclopedia. 68.62.201.74 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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.