Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Student Bodies

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 Naconkantari 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Student Bodies

Associated Student Bodies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prodded by NeoFreak with reason "Article fails to assert any real notability and provides no reliable sources. Seems to be published by a non-notable and probable vanity press." Prod seconded by Serpent's Choice with reason "No independant coverage outside of a scant few forum posts; no distribution via major national distributor Diamond".

Although I suspect this AfD to go through, my opinion is still Keep. ASB is as influential, within the fandom, as any other adult comic - certainly more than Circles or Katmandu. 9240 Ghits for "ASB furry". But, I agree that it's not well-known outside the fandom and its detractors - the decision is yours. Tevildo 12:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep not sure I'd agree with it being as influential as Katmandu, but it's definitely a long-running paper comic and notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: I proded this article because, while some people might find this notable to their specific and small community it is not to the general populace. This is the definition of cruft. The article is even unable to prove that it is notable to the gay furry community as it has no reliable sources and so fails verifiability. This is a non-notable amateur comic book that claims to have a very small niche and it is unable to support an encyclopedic article. The place for this is a personal website or private wiki such as wikifur. NeoFreak 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not able to support or refute claims that this comic was influential, or even known. I'm unable to find any review of it online outside of forums posts. It was never offered in Diamond Comic Distributors's Previews, virtually ensuring it had no national distribution to US comic stores (indeed, while experience is not a measure of verifiability here, I worked in the comics retail industry for almost a decade and no distributor we worked with ever offered this for shipment or sale). Even things like Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur saw Diamond distribution. I have no doubts this series was important to some people; I have no doubts that it inspired later works. But my doubts or lack thereof don't matter -- verifiable references from reliable sources do, and ASB doesn't seem to ave those. Serpent's Choice 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is highly subjective. It wasn't a highly distributed comic, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't notable or was extremely obscure. Amazon has it listed [1] with a rank about 130,000th, and even if there are many books around there, they're not as unique.
  Besides, Wikipedia is not paper, and if "each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy," and I only know three kinds, then I think something like this can have its own page. What it does need is some more research; perhaps the people at Wikifur can help. I think it gets its own page though. There is much much more less notable stuff floating around on Wikipedia, and while that statement itself does not make this any more "notable", I say we keep it. 65.43.85.113 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability has a very straight forward criteria that this article fails to meet. Also notability is not subjective. Please see the notability policy section Notability is not subjective. In the future it would be helpful if you read the policy guildlines before making any assertions about their contents. NeoFreak 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If every last extension to the X Window System in the past 20 years, and every last obscure broadcast network isn't subjected to this kind of scrutiny, then why is what many furs consider a classic of the anthropomorphic comic genre given the boot? Simba B 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not being considered for deletion due to content. It is being considered for deletion due to the verifiability in reliable sources requirements of Wikipedia. This hurdle is not inherently biased against the furry community; many furry fandom comics can and do meet this standard. I have looked on this title's behalf, but I am unable to find the references necessary for it to do so. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason for retention. If references exist (outside of blogs, livejournal, and other self-published web content) for this comic that apparently saw no formal, professional distribution, please provide them; nothing changes the course of an AFD like a good reference or 3. Serpent's Choice 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:The aformentioned content is both verifiable due to independant third party coverage and notable due to usage. This article is not. Even if those articles were not notable other violations are not a precedent for this violation. NeoFreak 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, because of the nature of the comic as furry pornography, it's very unlikely to have references beyond self-published web content. Again, I accept that it may go because it's not notable outside the fandom - although the same could be said of the vast majority of Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek and anime articles here. I would, however, be disappointed if it goes merely on the legal technicality that it hasn't been in "Previews". Tevildo 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be Previews. It just has to be independant, reliable coverage. I do understand that certain subjects (obviously including gay-themed adult furry fandom products) have a harder time garnering that coverage. But it is not an impossible hurdle, and there are other titles for which ample references exist. They just do not seem to be there for this one, although I'm more than willing to be proven wrong if possible... Serpent's Choice 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "usual" indicators of notability cannot be applied in every situation. In this case, with its notability being debated, I believe in a "When in doubt, don't delete" type of policy. It's not a very-well supported article as of now... perhaps it can be. 64.108.90.40 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

and do the works that were inspired by or make references to this comic give any evidence as to its notability? Can somebody look into works that reference, parody, or were inspired by ASB such as Circles and ISB? If there are many references to ASB in other works, then it would assert something about its importance. 64.108.90.40 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One non-notable comic being influenced by another doesn't do much for anybody. I'm planning on taking a much closer look at circles as well, along with some other NN furry comics, and there is a very good chance you could see Circles AfD'd in the near future. NeoFreak 06:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't get too aggressive with your deletionism. 68.250.100.129 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? NeoFreak 13:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong, strong delete - this is completely ridiculous. No sources, no reliable sources, reads like an advert and a piece of cruft, only 810 Ghits does not impress, no assertion of notability from reliable sources, or indeed from any sources at all. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the problem with this one is localized notability. There are a total of 11,000 ghits for this thing, 90% of them scattered across furry or gay themed websites, blogs, forums, and the like. (Ghit searching is science, young padawan.) There is VERY SLIGHT coverage in a couple of college newspapers but I can't find an online source to link to. Rabbit Valley, at the least, is not exactly self-publishing either. I'm really not sure where to draw the line on this one. Strictly speaking, it fails WP:RS and WP:V, and it isn't going to pass WP:BK by any stretch since I don't think it's listed in any library or has an ISBN number. Sold worldwide (US, UK, Germany). Finally, keep arguments based on the inclusion of other comics do not set a precedent, see WP:INN -- we're discussing ASB, not Circles. Circles I've heard of. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Good points, Elaragirl. Just a couple other comments about it, the collection has an ISBN number, it's on the Amazon page that was listed above. If I understand WP:INN correctly, it means that articles similar to ASB does not support notability; does that only apply to similar articles that have no connection, meaning that similar work that are related to it (derived, make references to, etc.) can have an effect on notability? Just wondering. 68.248.144.218 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me it cuts both ways. Just because Article A got deleted doesn't mean Article B can be deleted out of hand because it's similar to Article A. OR, if Article X is non notable, and gets deleted, just because you don't think Article Y is non-notable and yet is still here isn't a good reason to keep Article X. In this case, Circles has a connection to ASB, but Circles is better documented. The user who compared a furry comic book to X Windows is making a connection in notability that doesn't exist. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:12, 19 December 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.