Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paska Ankka

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. Petros471 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paska Ankka

I'm contesting the proposed deletion of this Internet comic. The only reason for its deletion seems to be non-verifiability. It's real, people! As the talk page says, I think I can't provide a direct link, but just go to Google, type "paska ankka", and click on the links on the first page. If you're lucky even the first one might work. That's how I verified it before translating the article to English. The Finnish version was nominated for deletion, for non-notability rather than non-verifiability, and kept. Keep. JIP | Talk 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've tried to source this, and it can't be sourced beyond primary sources, and I can't find enough information to even source this article. I don't dispute that it may be real, but that's not the point of Wikipedia, I'm real. Verifiability policy demands "facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources". I can't source these, so I prodded the article as a method of removing unverifiable material. If someone can find a definitive verifiable source which contextualises this phrase in a manner in which an article can be written I'm happy to change my vote, but it isn't enough to say this stuff exists. The whole basis of wikipedia is that the three key policies are non-negotiable. Otherwise, can I please start adding information about my Sunday League Football team, they're real. I can link to them. Notability isn't the issue, it's being able to verify the statements made. This article includes a summary of a statement from the Finnish Aku Ankka (Donald Duck) comic book. If that can't be sourced it has to be removed since I can't quantify that it's not original research. Nothing in this article can be quantified apart from the fact that some people on the internet use the term to describe what they are doing. Wikipedia is not a guide to the internet. Steve block Talk 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Paska Ankka is a real, fan-made, parody comic of Aku Ankka, consisting of a series of scanned Aku Ankka comics, with the dialogue changed to sex- and drug-related discussion, but with the artwork kept intact. That is all the original Finnish article, and the article I wrote in English, ever claimed it was. A series of scanned comics pages on the Internet. I would love to give you a direct link to the scanned comics but IANAL, so I am afraid to give a direct link to what I believe is illegal material. JIP | Talk 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't dispute your point. However, you are using the primary source as your basis for an article. On the English Wikipedia verifiability policy states that If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. If there are no third party sources, it should be deleted. A link to an example of the instance is sadly not enough, given that Wikipedia is not a guide to the internet. We need to discuss and examine such occurrences in an encyclopedic manner, contextualising their impact on society and meaning to the world around them, and we can only do that by summarising third party sources. Wikipedia has no place for original research, which at this moment this article is. I have no problem with helping to clean up this article and contextualising it for a wider audience, but at the moment no-one can provide such sources. Steve block Talk 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a gross violation of WP:V and a possible violation of WP:NOR. Find some reliable sources for verification and I will change my opinion. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is an internet comic, and therefore should be notable, just like other internet comics and articles about them. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• The notability guidelines on internet comics are covered at WP:WEB, and they rely on the verifiability policy. This article fails both, so I'm assuming you will reconsider your vote? Steve block Talk 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is quite ridiculous. An article on a comic that doesn't even have a linkable page? Haze it to the ground. Danny Lilithborne 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cybamall.com/paskafani/. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Steve Block and J.smith. We need multiple reliable third-party sources to write encyclopedia articles. -- Dragonfiend 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have translated the original Finnish discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paska Ankka/original discussion. JIP | Talk 09:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I never would have closed that as a keep. Some of the keep arguments are fairly ridiculous, "Wikipedia certainly needs more shit." The standards for writing an encyclopedia appear lower in Finland, although I'm aware I base that view on a small pool. The point of reliable sources and verifiability was never addressed. I've half a mind to learn Finnish and start articles on anything I can think of. Steve block Talk 11:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. - Hahnchen 03:30, 10 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.