Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic Book Haters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Bobet 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Book Haters, The Comic Book Haters

Non-notable podcast; vanity article. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Come on- deleting a legitimate comment about your policies? A little Hitleresque, don't you think?

Anyway, my point is that this entry is just as legitimate as many of the other entries on wikipedia. I figured you, as a self appointed protector of the Internet, would agree. I guess not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.246.179 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete While I love the podcasts and listen to them when I can, this does not pass the "no original research"policy. It also fails the Verifiable guideline. Where are the sources? What claims are their from multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources? Blogs and discussion forms do not count.--Brian (How am I doing?) 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    Brian- I appreciate the fact that your heart is in the right place, but I think you may be in a bit over your head. You make an exceptional amount of grammatical errors in just about every posting, and as such really shouldn't consider yourself an appropriate editor of others' work. For example, you misued the word 'There' in your above comment. That's ninth grade English stuff, buddy! On your personal wiki-page, you said I am an Deletionist. Read that sentence aloud to yourself, and then tell me if it makes sense as written. You start your entry off with the following statement: I am have a college degree in Computer Network Administration. That one is almost laughable! Read that aloud as well, and see what you think. I stopped reading after that one. If you want someone to take your thoughts seriously, take a little extra time to carefully write them out beforehand. You'll notice a world of change awaits you!
    I suggest you brush up on your basic writing skills, take a month or so off from Wikipedia, and then come back fully recharged. You'll thank me for it later. Hang in there, pal; it'll get easier as time goes by! Don't think we don't appreciate your efforts! -DJ Sloofus
    Comment: the preceding comment was made by the author and subject of the article, and he/she has been warned against personal attacks. -- Merope 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So because I made a mistake on my user page during editing and because you didn't look at my userpage's history where I removed what college I went to and the degree I received (not relevent and un-needed) my opinion in this matter is to be ignored? Farix is right. Personally attacking users is not going to sway an AFD consenus. Instead, provide proof of how my argument in itself is wrong. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, nonnotable, vanity and WP:HOLE. May even be a violation of WP:AUTO. I'll also remind Sloofus about Wikipedia policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Sloofus's only edits are here, the article in question, and Johnny Ryan which also may warrent an AFD of it's own unless some verification can be made. There are no sources or cited. Just getting off break so I can't set up the AFD for that page right now. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as nonnotable, and author's lack of cooperation doesn't help either. I'm not a native English speaker, I probably drop off an article here and there and so on, but I know that without a shred of proof of notability, this thing just won't stand in Wikipedia. =) I suggest the author to come up with some, and fast, please. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, I see you guys like to play hardball. Let's get down to brass tacks here. How much is this going to cost me? To be honest, this is the last place I'd expect to get 'hit up' for a bribe. Just email me your Paypal accounts and we'll call it a deal. -Sloofus
    • Are you serious or is that a sick joke? --TheFarix (Talk) 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Keep your money and just cite some sources instead. --Brian (How am I doing?) 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • lol --Golbez 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Incivility and attempts at bribery will only hurt your cause. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 03:21Z
    • by "some", I was referring to the "proof of notability". Last I checked, that was free of charge in case the notability is legit. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom (should AfD fail, please send payment via address on my user page, now where's my bottle opener?) Pete.Hurd 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. If I am offered a bribe, I guarantee that I will change this vote to a "weak delete". --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 03:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Author's lack of cooperation? Where's the wikipedia entry for "sense of humor" or maybe "sarcasm?" Check out the external links provided in the article. You guys seem to be filled with self-importance. You know this isn't a paying gig, right? Sincerely, a concerned CBH fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.246.179 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment From CBH blog: "The Wikipedia people approached us about joining forces," said series Co-Host DJ Sloofus, "and the cash was right, so I figured 'what the hell?'" It's not very helpful when he lies on his blog. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Since only half of you accepted my 'business proposition,' I've decided to seek alternate sources. Good news everybody! I found a link that can verify all of this information. Sure, I've got the information, but it'll cost you. It looks like the shoe is on the other foot, now, boys. I'm listening... -Not DJ Sloofus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.107.232 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment We're not interested. Now stop with this BS. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Farix, I'd like to remind you about Wikipedia policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Let's try to get along, here. -DJS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.107.232 (talk • contribs)
        • Comment I know all about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. But calling two different bribery attempts as BS is neither uncivil nor a personal attack. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Pay-to-use sources are fine by WP:V and WP:RS (otherwise, using books etc. as sources would be pretty questionable), but freely available citations are pretty much needed, obviously. Sorry, requiring to pay money for the citation for claim of notability does not bode well, especially if that's the sole claim. All the more reason to say this is a non-notable subject if there's a single source and you have to pay for it to boot... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I accept your apology. How much 'hush money' should I put you down for? -Mystery Man (Sloofus? Perhaps) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.107.232 (talk • contribs) .
  • I think that was a... wait for it... a... [dun dun dun] A JOKE! Does anyone here have a sense of humor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.246.179 (talk • contribs) .
    • Yes, we do. We just leave it on the door when we discuss AfDs. This is supposed to be a serious somber occassion. In theory. Practically, I'd say 90% serious, which is still pretty high. Uncooperative people with vested interest in article stopped being funny years ago. Doesn't stop me from finding this debate amusing though, though probably for reasons different from yours... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am truly sorry. I had not realized what a serious, somber occassion this was. I realize that I was out of line, and we should all be mourning rather than celebrating at this juncture. Please, accept my apologies and my hush fund money. -Sloofus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.107.232 (talk • contribs) .
  • I would like to apologize. As a fan of the CBH, I was hoping that this article would be deemed righteous by those who are holy and wise. Please forgive me- I am a sinner. I am sure that you find this funny for different reasons than me. You are right- AfDs are most serious and somber. I hope someday to take the Internet as serious as you folks. I'm going to go read some douchebag's blog about Wikipedia to purify myself. Thank you for showing me the Way and the Light!- A Concerned CBH Fan (and Wikipedia-ite) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.246.179 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: By all means, keep. The only thing I hate more then police brutality or fat free mayonnaise is unnecessary Wikipedia deletion. It's the book burning of the 21st Century. Though it lacks the huge pile of smoldering books and empty cans of kerosene found at most book burnings, it still involves the act of withholding information from others. Only a lot less smoke and your clothes don't stink so much afterwards. If we are to delete the entry for The Comic Book Haters, what's next? Huckleberry Finn? Catcher in the Rye? No thanks! I find the timing of all this to be more then a little ironic. I have recently gone back to school to earn my GED and I was thinking of writing a term paper on the history of The Comic Book Haters. I wanted to concentrate my paper on the early years. The only problem was where to turn to for my information? Ask Jeeves? I will have you know that the friendly English man servant of knowledge no longer exists.RickRottman 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: RickRottman (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
    • A few things to keep in mind:
      1. We're not nuking facts, we're determining whether or not the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion in an article of its own. Suppose I wrote a book about wikilawyering. I'm not notable enough for an article of its own. My book wouldn't be, probably. But an article about various aspects of wikicommunities might have a factoid that reads "Newbies often use repeated, outlandish proposals, often failing to convince the established members of the community. For example, User:Wwwwolf wrote a book "Wikilawyer for Hire" (2008, O'Ridley & Patrons), where he states (pp. 42-43) that melodramatic polemic is 'the oldest trick ever in Wikipedia AfD debates' and won't win you any friends." See? Facts can exist even when they don't have articles of their own. Ergo, comparing this to book burning is slightly silly at least.
      2. We're not a publisher of original information, it says so in policy. We're not a free webhost either, so says the policy too. If the history of the website in question is available here but not on the site in question (or some other website that has researched the background of the site), then that's kind of backwards. We're supposed to cite someone who can present us pre-chewed pieces of information, and condense that to something that tells the uninformed people with one glance on what this stuff is about.
      3. A hint: teachers hate it when you only cite encyclopedias. (If they don't, change school ASAP.) You probably want to cite something else. Like the actual website you're writing about. We're not here to do anyone's school work for them, you know.
    • Hope this helps. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was with you until you actually used the word "Ergo". RickRottman 08:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Whywertfore? I could have threatened to say "'erefore". Be glad I didn't. (Disclaimer for random passers-by: The above ramblestuff probably reads like something posted around 4:17 AM. The reason for that would be that it was.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I realize you have better things to do such as constructing a bonfire of copies of A Raisin in the Sun, so I will try to be short. What you are trying to do is to stifle the flow of information. The very fact that you refer to the act as "nuking" tells me that you equate it to be on par with something overly masculine. That you will in a sense show how powerful you are by deleting a Wikipedia entry. I say don't do it. Instead, try to do something that would truly demonstrate your manliness. Go lift some weights. Attempt to kiss a pretty girl. Bend a piece of metal. Chop down a big tree. Do something - anything - instead of deleting a Wikipedia entry. Also, on a personal note. I have made it a point to never trust anyone that uses the word "ergo" in a sentence. It's up there with never trusting someone that wears plaid pants or someone that listens to jazz. It's a rule that has served me well. RickRottman 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rick, none of your arguements are going to sway this AfD. You are making personal attacks and are not being civil at all, while making completly silly statements that have nothing to do with refuting the questions posed against this article. A rule that serves me well is "deal with the serious, then deal with the silly". You wish the article to stay but in no way provide anything to refute the statements that it fails two out of three pillars of the Wikipedia standard for articles: WP:OR and WP:V. I believe you know that this article fails them, will be deleted in the next day or so, and are now just having a bit of fun. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I will have you know sir that I don't make personal attacks on the Internets. I use the Internets for knowledge. I have only come here seeking knowledge. Things they wouldn't teach me of in college. RickRottman 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do we need the humor link again, Brian? I think we went there already. I think the self-appointed wikipedia "guardians" need to loosen their sphincters. Not too loose. Not enough to turtle-head or anything. Just enough to stop being so damn annoying. Are your day jobs so frustrating that you come here to unload? Try a bar. Or maybe a girl. Whatever. But you aren't actually making sensible arguments yourselves. Have you seen the Keith and the Girl page? Or any of the other podcast articles? So YOU are the judge of whether something is "worthy" enough to put on Wikipedia? That's really a shame. Participatory culture will never become viable as long as there are people like you guys putting up roadblocks. Conrgats on killing the medium.- A Concerned CBH Fan
      • Brian, don't listen to him. You feel free to keep your sphincter as tight as you want it to be. RickRottman 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What you should be adding are sources. Please cite sources to show that this podcast has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are independent of the authors/creators.--Brian (How am I doing?) 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantagraphics advert for Johnny Ryan interview

Pete Bagge interview as reported on Wikipedia

Jason Crane (radio personality)link to CBH

2 CBH fans on some damn forum or other- come on, this shit counts.

Somebody put CBH up on some other pod thingy or other. Lots of these. Many by people, not bots

  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.246.179 (talk • contribs) .
    • Okay, now that you've seen Cite sources, let's discuss Reliable sources. Regrettably, "2 CBH fans on some damn forum or other" would be more than a bit weak as a source - demonstrates lack of depth ("2 CBH fans") and source of questionable worth ("some damn forum or other"). Forum posts specifically aren't reliable primary/secondary sources (unless they demonstrably are from people involved in the subject, for example, official developer comments on official forum of some production). "Somebody put CBH up on some other pod thingy or other" also demonstrates one small problem: If it's a source that anyone can set up, it's weak. Everyone can spam, not just bots. Peter Bagge page demonstrates exactly what I was saying above: You don't need to be notable in itself to be considered a source or be worthy of an external link. Bar for being worthy a reference is lower than bar for having an article of your own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:31, 17 August 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.