Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Japanese Beetle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 was - delete - the rebuttal of the keep advocates, to which the keep advocates often did not respond to the notability question, as well as one vote, push this over the line. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Japanese Beetle
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Japanese beetle. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd argue against redirecting as we'd be setting a bad precident for having articles for The Lion, The Zebra, etc. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Qiszxo 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: It seems notable enough. Graphic Smash is a fairly major service. Adam Cuerden talk 10:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment By using the rational that the hosting sites conveys its notability to the hosted site, then we'd need to have articles for every site hosted by Geocities, Tripod, etc. Hosts do not convey notability. It may "seem" notable enough, but you have to present evidence that it is, in fact, notable. --Kunzite 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Very well structured and detailed article about a fairly notable webcomic. Do not redirect to Japanese beetle as it has nothing to do w/. -- Szvest 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
- Comment I can write a very well structured and detailed aticle about my pet cat. Well written and well structured articles do not convey notability. You don't mention how it's notable. --Kunzite 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. I can't find even an assertion of notability in the article. Also, no reliable sources are cited, so it goes down the WP:NOR drain as well. Sandstein 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Detailed and well-structured unverifiable original research. Graphic Smash is hardly a "fairly major service." Digger (webcomic) is probably their most notable comic, the rest are mostly ridiculously trivial. -- Dragonfiend 04:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think the now-concluded Fans (webcomic) is probably more notable than Digger. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm basing my idea that Digger is the most notable Graphic Smash comic on Digger being discussed in The New York Times and Ursula Vernon being nominated for an Eisner Award. Unless I've missed something, minor webcomics like Fans are far from that level of achievement, and this webcomics is even farther still. -- Dragonfiend 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've added an assertion of notability: It picked up a nomination in the Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards in 2001 for "Best Superhero Series". Ordinarily, WP:WEB requires multiple nominations, but considering that the majority of the comic's run (including its salad days) occurred before the award had been founded, I think that can be reasonably waived in this case. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure if this would be a case in which we'd want to follow past precedent, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Dementia was deleted despite having an award nomination. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing that example. I would've pulled to have that one kept as well, though. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Winning this award is not a notable achievement. If it were, reliabel sources would cover the award winners. Being simply nominated for this trivial award is definitely not an indicator of notability. It's just an award some people made up one day on the internet. My high school perfect attendance award is more notable. -- Dragonfiend 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with this viewpoint, since I believe that the WCCA awards are the most prominent awards within the field of webcomics. If you are able to provide a more prominent example, I would of course be willing to re-evaluate that position. Furthermore, WP:WEB states that the award may come from either "a publication or organisation", which demonstrates that the award need not have a connection with print media. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned the much more prominent Eisner Awards; the Ignatz Awards are also much more prominent. The Lulu Blooker Prize is also more well-known. There are probably several more, like the Webby Awards. What WP:WEB requires is that the site or webcomic win a well-known and independent award. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are neither well-known (that's why we have a dearth of reliable sources about them and their winners) nor independent ("The WCCA started in 2001 being hosted by ... Keenspace"). Also, this webcomic has never won this award. It's just an award some non-notable webcomic artists decided they were going to give to each other, and reliable sources have largely ignored it. The awards themselves are dripping with non-notability, and their 125 nominations a year (over 25 categories, 5 comics nominations in each category) are no sign of notability at all. -- Dragonfiend 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Eisner Awards are exclusively for print comics, and as such, would not apply here. The Lulu Blooker Prize is no more notable than the WCCA awards, and if you're concerned about conflicts of interest, you may want to consider that Lulu Press is pretty much the printer of choice for print-on-demand bound collections of webcomics. The Ignatz awards seem significant, so I would accept them as evidence of notability, in addition to the WCCA awards. I'm also having trouble understanding your rationale for rejecting the award based on the voting body. Many of its members, such as Jeph Jacques, Lee Adam Herold, Eric Burns, and Paul "Pablo" Taylor are notable within the field, but even if they weren't, that still wouldn't be enough to discredit it. Participants in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game are determined through voting by fans, a group of non-notable individuals with no tangible connection to the industry whatsoever, but status as a starter in the All-Star game is still quite highly regarded among baseball players. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Eisner Awards are not "exclusively for print comics." For example, "In 2003, Justine Shaw was the first webcomic artist to be nominated for an Eisner Award when she was nominated for 'talent deserving of wider recognition' and her Nowhere Girl was nominated for 'best new series.'" This was covered by reliable sources, including daily newspapers in Oklahoma, as referenced in the article. Other webcomics have been nominated and have won Eisner Awards since. Nominations for non-notable awards like "Japanese Beetle has been nominated for a WCCA," are not covered by reliable sources, which is probably why there are no references to sources in the Japanese Beetle article. Your comparison of the WCCAs to a major sporting event makes little sense to me, and I'm not sure what your list of "members" is, as it includes no one listed on their committee roster [1]. And again, WP:WEB has a criteria for sites that have won well-known and independent awards. You seem to believe that these WCCAs are well-known and independent, but surely we can agree that this comic has never won one. If you're still trying to make the case that being nominated for a WCCA award is a notable achievement, then just please cite a reliable, third-party source saying so, as I did with Nowhere Girl's Eisner nomination. -- Dragonfiend 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Eisner Awards are exclusively for print comics, and as such, would not apply here. The Lulu Blooker Prize is no more notable than the WCCA awards, and if you're concerned about conflicts of interest, you may want to consider that Lulu Press is pretty much the printer of choice for print-on-demand bound collections of webcomics. The Ignatz awards seem significant, so I would accept them as evidence of notability, in addition to the WCCA awards. I'm also having trouble understanding your rationale for rejecting the award based on the voting body. Many of its members, such as Jeph Jacques, Lee Adam Herold, Eric Burns, and Paul "Pablo" Taylor are notable within the field, but even if they weren't, that still wouldn't be enough to discredit it. Participants in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game are determined through voting by fans, a group of non-notable individuals with no tangible connection to the industry whatsoever, but status as a starter in the All-Star game is still quite highly regarded among baseball players. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned the much more prominent Eisner Awards; the Ignatz Awards are also much more prominent. The Lulu Blooker Prize is also more well-known. There are probably several more, like the Webby Awards. What WP:WEB requires is that the site or webcomic win a well-known and independent award. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are neither well-known (that's why we have a dearth of reliable sources about them and their winners) nor independent ("The WCCA started in 2001 being hosted by ... Keenspace"). Also, this webcomic has never won this award. It's just an award some non-notable webcomic artists decided they were going to give to each other, and reliable sources have largely ignored it. The awards themselves are dripping with non-notability, and their 125 nominations a year (over 25 categories, 5 comics nominations in each category) are no sign of notability at all. -- Dragonfiend 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with this viewpoint, since I believe that the WCCA awards are the most prominent awards within the field of webcomics. If you are able to provide a more prominent example, I would of course be willing to re-evaluate that position. Furthermore, WP:WEB states that the award may come from either "a publication or organisation", which demonstrates that the award need not have a connection with print media. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure if this would be a case in which we'd want to follow past precedent, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Dementia was deleted despite having an award nomination. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --64.12.116.9 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is a debate, not a vote. Present reasons why you think the webcomic is notable, not just add another keep vote to the list. --Kunzite 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article provides useful information to Wikipedia users, with no downside whatsoever. Verifiable, encyclopedic, notable, not a copyvio, and so on. Again, having this useful information does not harm the quality of Wikipedia in any way. Factitious 10:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it notable? I can declare an article on my pet cat and it declare it, useful, notable, verifiable, etc... but it doesn't make it so. As someone who is advocating to keep the article, you must show proof of its Notability. Finally, on "harm".... it dilutes the value of other articles on the encyclopedia. To quote Wikipedia's founder: "Notability is important because we exist here to serve our readers. We want to give them useful, relevant information, not just a complete data dump.... It serves to give readers a quick essential summary of what they want and need to know. In order to do this effectively, we must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" --Kunzite 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that we want to provide useful, relevant knowledge. This article provides useful, relevant knowledge to people looking for information about The Japanese Beetle. Therefore, I think we should keep this information. Factitious 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- How do we know that it is useful or relevant information? Because someone declares it so? What reliable third party sources do you have that indicates this as relevant or useful? --Kunzite 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know what sort of information it is because I read the article. I don't think you could with a straight face claim that the information in it is not relevant to its topic. Factitious 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Look at it this way: Suppose you had heard of The Japanese Beetle, but didn't really know much about it beyond the fact that it's a webcomic. When you type its name into Wikipedia, what sort of results should you get? An article about the subject you're interested in, or no information? Is there any advantage at all to giving users no information about the subjects they want to learn about? Factitious 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not meant to be a collector of all human knowledge. There are many items that fall into this category of thing that usually do not meet notability requirements--fan-fiction, most web forums, the vast majority of self-published books, unrecognised web-comics, the majority of doujinshi titles, amateur movies, internet memes, game guides, your neighbor's garage band, etc. These things are relevant to a limited number of people. Including an article on every piece of fiction ever written would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia determines what should kept by its very loose notability guidelines. i.e. Has this work been recognised and written about by someone other than the creator or people affiliated with the creator? If there are multiple, non-trivial sources of recognition then, yes, we should have an article on the topic. No one has presented any information in the article or in this AFD that the subject of the article merits keeping other than the "I like it" or "It's useful" defenses. --Kunzite 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- How do we know that it is useful or relevant information? Because someone declares it so? What reliable third party sources do you have that indicates this as relevant or useful? --Kunzite 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that we want to provide useful, relevant knowledge. This article provides useful, relevant knowledge to people looking for information about The Japanese Beetle. Therefore, I think we should keep this information. Factitious 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it notable? I can declare an article on my pet cat and it declare it, useful, notable, verifiable, etc... but it doesn't make it so. As someone who is advocating to keep the article, you must show proof of its Notability. Finally, on "harm".... it dilutes the value of other articles on the encyclopedia. To quote Wikipedia's founder: "Notability is important because we exist here to serve our readers. We want to give them useful, relevant information, not just a complete data dump.... It serves to give readers a quick essential summary of what they want and need to know. In order to do this effectively, we must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" --Kunzite 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB. One nomination for an award with questionable merits does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion of web content. --Kunzite 06:27, 6 November 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.
