Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comixtalk
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 Keep. --Tikiwont 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comixtalk
This should not be a standalone article since it literally has no content. I think it should be deleted. But the information can also merge to webcomix Chris! ct 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't assert notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-read the article, particularly the first sentence which states Comixtalk was the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics. You may not believe that makes the publication notable, but that is not the same as stating that it does not assert notability. It is helpful to the debate for people to make a reasoned argument stating their opinion. Please explain why you do not believe being the "first online publication primarily focused on webcomics" is a fact worthy of note. Hiding Talk 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the unsourced, incorrect claim of being the "first online publication primarily focused on webcomics." Webcomics have been around since the early 90s, and it didn't take like a decade for someone to make a website about them. --Dragonfiend 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-read the article, particularly the first sentence which states Comixtalk was the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics. You may not believe that makes the publication notable, but that is not the same as stating that it does not assert notability. It is helpful to the debate for people to make a reasoned argument stating their opinion. Please explain why you do not believe being the "first online publication primarily focused on webcomics" is a fact worthy of note. Hiding Talk 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A1 or A7, take your pick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither apply, and I'm worried a user of such long standing would believe they do. The opening sentence both contextualises and makes a claim of importance. Hiding Talk 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)stricken per Dragonfiend, with my sincere apologies to Andrew.- If I'm reading the time stamps right, you're worried that such a long standing user can't see the context and claim of notability in an article that reads simply "Comixtalk is a website devoted to webcomix." --Dragonfiend 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. Wasn't my first mistake, won't be my last. Keep. It's important to the field of webcomics. At worst, merge and redirect to Webcomics for the time being, but there is certainly no need to delete. There exists on Wikipedia far worse articles than this, and I know we don't count that as an argument, but more fool us. Our policies and guidelines don't dictate that we delete anything we don't have to, so let's not delete this when we have other options open to us. Hiding Talk 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the time stamps right, you're worried that such a long standing user can't see the context and claim of notability in an article that reads simply "Comixtalk is a website devoted to webcomix." --Dragonfiend 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- HANGON This article was started today as an outgrowth of a discussion at another AfD about a comic artist, where Comixtalk was being evaluated as a viable source. I'm not a comic person (maybe funny looking though), but I think this will bear out to be a notable topic, if we do some research. Why not hold on for a day or two and see what happens. Please! --Kevin Murray 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it used to be called Comixpedia. I haven't read them, but it turns up a few pages on google news.[1]. - Peregrine Fisher 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think that they are using the name comixpedia for the magazine and other uses. It is time consuming to research since my searches seem to yield mostly their site. I've asked for help from the comix project. --Kevin Murray 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Now that the article was started "yesterday", per nom (not suitable for a standalone article). - Rjd0060 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- RJD, no need to be "clever". "Yesterday" and "today" are relative to the time zones. Please assume good faith, we are all part of the same WP team, which you so recently joined. --Kevin Murray 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you are acting in bad faith by bringing up the fact that this user recently joining Wikipedia.Chris! ct 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well Chris you are entitled to express your opinion. But my opinion is that (A) his comment was snippy at best, and (B) people should get some experience at WP before evaluating other editor's work through AfD. Personally I think IP users should be blocked, and that there should be a waiting period after registration to learn the ropes before diving into decision making. Where else in the world do people walk in off the streets and jump into evaluating and administering policy. This is a topic for another area, but you expressed your opinion, now you have mine. --Kevin Murray 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Or, maybe users should first have to demonstrate that they understand Wikipedia policies. I, who has only been a registered user for about 3 months, have demonstrated my understanding of WP policy in my 7,000+ edits in that short time. Since we are pointing out irrelevant things here, you have been here for over a year and have just over 8,000 edits which could' show a lack of "experience" and understanding/knowledge of policy. All in a matter of opinoin, of course. Now, this "discussion" should obviously not be taking place on an AfD page, however I felt the need to explain myself per the above comments. Any more comments about this should be directed to my talk page. - Rjd0060 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that a huge edit count demonstrates understanding, but it sure demonstrates a lot of energy and dedication to the project. We all make our contributions as we can and in different ways. I see you as a valuable exception to my experience with newer editors involved in policy etc. Still, I think that we all need to treat AfD as a bit less routine, and show some respect and compassion. Remember, that although there is a lot of annoying spam being created here, you are frequently passing judgment on other people's hard work, and a subject that could be important to them though silly to you. Best of luck and Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Or, maybe users should first have to demonstrate that they understand Wikipedia policies. I, who has only been a registered user for about 3 months, have demonstrated my understanding of WP policy in my 7,000+ edits in that short time. Since we are pointing out irrelevant things here, you have been here for over a year and have just over 8,000 edits which could' show a lack of "experience" and understanding/knowledge of policy. All in a matter of opinoin, of course. Now, this "discussion" should obviously not be taking place on an AfD page, however I felt the need to explain myself per the above comments. Any more comments about this should be directed to my talk page. - Rjd0060 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well Chris you are entitled to express your opinion. But my opinion is that (A) his comment was snippy at best, and (B) people should get some experience at WP before evaluating other editor's work through AfD. Personally I think IP users should be blocked, and that there should be a waiting period after registration to learn the ropes before diving into decision making. Where else in the world do people walk in off the streets and jump into evaluating and administering policy. This is a topic for another area, but you expressed your opinion, now you have mine. --Kevin Murray 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you are acting in bad faith by bringing up the fact that this user recently joining Wikipedia.Chris! ct 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- RJD, no need to be "clever". "Yesterday" and "today" are relative to the time zones. Please assume good faith, we are all part of the same WP team, which you so recently joined. --Kevin Murray 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Comixtalk was formerly Comixpedia, a site which is being used as a source by scholars. [2] It is also mentioned in the book The Education of a Comics Artist. The site is also discussed in this Spanish article, [3] as being authoritative with regards independent webcomics. Hiding Talk 11:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This namechange apparently only 2 months old, seems it was done to create a distinction between the new ownership wiki comixpedia.org, and the journalistic former comixpedia.com.[4] It is the latter that receives mention in RS such as Wired[5][6], Publishers Weekly[7], to El Pais[8], and I don't believe it is custom to scrutinize notability simply after a name change. MURGH disc. 11:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- In regards to whether we ought to 'scrutinize notability simply after a name change', note that this was already deleted before the name change. --Dragonfiend 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Comixpedia/Comixtalk is a project from several notable webcomics artists, and is worth maintaining coverage on. Phil Sandifer 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic? All I see so far are the briefest of "mentions" in articles on other topics. --Dragonfiend 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- We can't write a neutral article based on press releases, which probably explains why this article has been full of ridiculous weaselly-worded PR about the "webcomics community" "screaming for a centralized hub" and "the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics." Again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic? --Dragonfiend 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- See above. Every encyclopedia article, whether this one or whatever merge target you might have in mind, ought to be based on reputable sources rather than non-neutral press releases. Does that answer your question? And again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic?--Dragonfiend 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- See above, there are third party sources mentioned higher up. But you're still not entirely answering my question. Not every statement in an article has to be sourced to a 1000 page academic treatment. Do we improve Wikipedia by deleting this article, or by merging and/or redirecting it to a relevant target? Hiding Talk 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- When I wrote "significant," I meant something more than a single-sentence passing mention, not necessarily "a 1000 page academic treatment." If we don't have some significant coverage on this topic, then yes, I think we would likely be better off deleting this article then writing about it in an article on some other topic. I could be wrong, and am of course open to you explaining more clearly where and how you think this ought to be merged.--Dragonfiend 15:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just want to be clear that we're agreeing on the frames of the debate here. We've got a website here that has been mentioned in mainstream media, one of the columns was repackaged as a book, it has featured artists of note and articles within it have been cited by academic works, and this discussion is about what's the best way for an encyclopedia to cover this site. Your stance is that there should be no mention of the site across Wikipedia. Am I reading you right? Hiding Talk 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, since we all seem to agree that only passing mentions of this site are made in reputable sources, then I see no reason why passing mentions of this site can't be made on Wikipedia. For example, one can currently find many passing mentions of this site by typing "Comixpedia" into Wikipedia's search box and hitting the search button; the first few of those results I've looked at seem fine. What I don't want to see is this topic given undue weight compared to other such web sites and I don't want to see this site's ridiculous press release claims being put into other articles. --Dragonfiend 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um, regarding undue weight, with which websites would you say this site is comparable? Hiding Talk 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- We could probably compare it to other special interest online news site topics with far more significant coverage from reputable sources like BuzzFlash or Nick Nunziata. --Dragonfiend 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- So we need to look at why afd is failing to apply guidance and policies with regards these articles then, don't we. It seems a lot of people are far too quick to delete. I can't quite think of how a list would work, but there needs to be some way we can merge pertinent information to parent articles and trun articles into redirects to leave our readers informed. Would you agree? Hiding Talk 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- We could probably compare it to other special interest online news site topics with far more significant coverage from reputable sources like BuzzFlash or Nick Nunziata. --Dragonfiend 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um, regarding undue weight, with which websites would you say this site is comparable? Hiding Talk 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, since we all seem to agree that only passing mentions of this site are made in reputable sources, then I see no reason why passing mentions of this site can't be made on Wikipedia. For example, one can currently find many passing mentions of this site by typing "Comixpedia" into Wikipedia's search box and hitting the search button; the first few of those results I've looked at seem fine. What I don't want to see is this topic given undue weight compared to other such web sites and I don't want to see this site's ridiculous press release claims being put into other articles. --Dragonfiend 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just want to be clear that we're agreeing on the frames of the debate here. We've got a website here that has been mentioned in mainstream media, one of the columns was repackaged as a book, it has featured artists of note and articles within it have been cited by academic works, and this discussion is about what's the best way for an encyclopedia to cover this site. Your stance is that there should be no mention of the site across Wikipedia. Am I reading you right? Hiding Talk 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- When I wrote "significant," I meant something more than a single-sentence passing mention, not necessarily "a 1000 page academic treatment." If we don't have some significant coverage on this topic, then yes, I think we would likely be better off deleting this article then writing about it in an article on some other topic. I could be wrong, and am of course open to you explaining more clearly where and how you think this ought to be merged.--Dragonfiend 15:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- See above, there are third party sources mentioned higher up. But you're still not entirely answering my question. Not every statement in an article has to be sourced to a 1000 page academic treatment. Do we improve Wikipedia by deleting this article, or by merging and/or redirecting it to a relevant target? Hiding Talk 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- See above. Every encyclopedia article, whether this one or whatever merge target you might have in mind, ought to be based on reputable sources rather than non-neutral press releases. Does that answer your question? And again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic?--Dragonfiend 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- We can't write a neutral article based on press releases, which probably explains why this article has been full of ridiculous weaselly-worded PR about the "webcomics community" "screaming for a centralized hub" and "the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics." Again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic? --Dragonfiend 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. If it can not be improved within a reasonable time, let's consider merging. --Kevin Murray 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep it appears to be a valuable resource for the press (see also) and, while it was created with only a sentence it has bulked up since and it should be able to grow and prove notability. Give this a month or two and we'll see how it looks then - if it is still poor then it should be put up for deletion then. (Emperor 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
- Keep and improve. Give the guy a chance! Maybe he had limited time online or had to check sources or had to go to work. Not everyone on the planet spends 25 hours a day on the web at Wikpedia. Even if he doesn't come back for a day or three, someone else can improve the article. Agree with above comments that it's notable enough to keep. I would like to see some mention of connection with Comixpedia, and why the redirect from such. CFLeon 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's also worth noting that one of the columns on Comixpedia, which became Comixtalk, was T Campbell's history of Webcomics, a column subsequently rewritten as a book.[9] This is enough to meet criterion 3 of WP:WEB: The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Hiding Talk 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The article just started, so it's premature to delete. And it looks like it might be possible to find secondary sources that can be used. T. Campbell's publication should definitely be mention in this article, since it does represent website content that's been printed. Can anyone find sources that mention Comixpedia when discussing History of Webcomics? Buspar 07:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject is notable. Deletion is premature. Article needs improvement, not elimination. Doczilla 10:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it is worth, this site's Editor in Chief has a piece on their front page called Should ComixTalk have a Wikipedia Entry? Deletion Debate Underway.... Again!. In it, they write that "Dragonfiend still has a thing for deleting it (I think s/he led the charge on deleting the original Comixpedia entry actually)." It's amazingly innacurate to be suggesting that I lead the charge on the previous deletion discussion when I was the absolute last person to join the discussion, but since I see that they are writing about me, including this fine piece where contributors call me a "rotten bitch," "unredeemable monster," "thought criminal," "Book burner," and "Enemy of human knowledge," then the closing admin needs to weigh my comments regarding the quality of sources for this topic vs. my own Conflict of interest. --Dragonfiend 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm sad to see you receiving this abuse. I don't see any COI on your part. You've expressed legitimate concern with which I may disagree, but I agree with your right to express the opinion here. Please just regard the source and their misunderstanding of our processes. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- One clarification: Xavier himself did not use those terms to describe you, the people commenting on his article did. It's not the ComixTalk editorial board calling you those names, but its readers. Important difference. I do agree that your comments would clearly suffer from some bias as a result, just as any user wouldn't be neutral to a site whose users called him names. Buspar 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. So, no, they're not just "readers" or "users." As far as I can tell their Editor in Chief hasn't written anything calling me a "rotten bitch;" he just attributes things to me that I haven't done and provides a forum for his contributors to call me a "rotten bitch." --Dragonfiend 05:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did a quick check of the person who specifically called you a "rotten bitch" (Rob Balder) and he does not appear to be anything more than a blogger on ComixTalk (any member can blog on ComixTalk; contributors are those who write for the magazine portion). If you read further on in the thread, Xaiver did tell him to remain civil and that his language was out of line. ComixTalk is mainly aimed to webcomic creators, and because you have a strong negative reputation among many webcomic creators (Kris Straub, Josh Lesnick, Howard Taylor, etc.), you are unlikely to be discussed in a neutral fashion by ComixTalk's audience. This is similar to when Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears are discussed at various news sites - they attract negative commentary for their actions and even some reporters can't help sniping at them on their news shows. But that doesn't affect the quality of the other articles posted, just as a news maker making sarcastic remarks on Spears or Lohan makes them less of a journalist. (Inaccuracies in Xavier's initial post, on the other hand, do make him less of a journalist, but don't necessarily impact notability, just reliability.) Buspar 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, again, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. That person who specifically called me a "rotten bitch" is listed on http://comixtalk.com/magazine_contributors. Then again maybe you're right and they are so unreliable they can't even get ther own list of contributors correct. --Dragonfiend 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot about that list (his account doesn't list any actual contributions, which is why I thought he was just a blogger). Still, this goes back to my newscasters example with Britney Spears: just because a newscaster makes jokes at Britney's expense, they're still a reporter and the rest of the content on their program doesn't somehow become less informative. And in this case, it wasn't Balder who wrote the original post, so he wasn't acting as a contributor, just a reader - a reader whose actions Xerexes himself said was not within the proper civility guidelines of ComixTalk. You'd have a stronger argument for defamation if Balder had published an article in the magazine using those phrases, meaning the editors had taciturnly "endorsed" such language by allowing them to be printed. But there's clear evidence Xerexes doesn't see name-calling as something people should do on his site, even if he doesn't necessarily like the person being attacked. Buspar 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for acknowledging your mistake regarding whether it was a Comixtalk contributor who called me a "rotten bitch" on Comixtalk. --Dragonfiend 07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot about that list (his account doesn't list any actual contributions, which is why I thought he was just a blogger). Still, this goes back to my newscasters example with Britney Spears: just because a newscaster makes jokes at Britney's expense, they're still a reporter and the rest of the content on their program doesn't somehow become less informative. And in this case, it wasn't Balder who wrote the original post, so he wasn't acting as a contributor, just a reader - a reader whose actions Xerexes himself said was not within the proper civility guidelines of ComixTalk. You'd have a stronger argument for defamation if Balder had published an article in the magazine using those phrases, meaning the editors had taciturnly "endorsed" such language by allowing them to be printed. But there's clear evidence Xerexes doesn't see name-calling as something people should do on his site, even if he doesn't necessarily like the person being attacked. Buspar 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, again, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. That person who specifically called me a "rotten bitch" is listed on http://comixtalk.com/magazine_contributors. Then again maybe you're right and they are so unreliable they can't even get ther own list of contributors correct. --Dragonfiend 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just noticed: Xerexes himself has rebutted your comments. You can read ComixTalk's official response to you here. He clarifies that that bloggers and contributors aren't the same on ComixTalk and addresses the other points you raised. Buspar 06:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Right, he just rebutted my comments when he pointed out how I "reference a thread that is a number of years old" when in fact I referenced a thread from March 4th, 2007. --Dragonfiend 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did a quick check of the person who specifically called you a "rotten bitch" (Rob Balder) and he does not appear to be anything more than a blogger on ComixTalk (any member can blog on ComixTalk; contributors are those who write for the magazine portion). If you read further on in the thread, Xaiver did tell him to remain civil and that his language was out of line. ComixTalk is mainly aimed to webcomic creators, and because you have a strong negative reputation among many webcomic creators (Kris Straub, Josh Lesnick, Howard Taylor, etc.), you are unlikely to be discussed in a neutral fashion by ComixTalk's audience. This is similar to when Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears are discussed at various news sites - they attract negative commentary for their actions and even some reporters can't help sniping at them on their news shows. But that doesn't affect the quality of the other articles posted, just as a news maker making sarcastic remarks on Spears or Lohan makes them less of a journalist. (Inaccuracies in Xavier's initial post, on the other hand, do make him less of a journalist, but don't necessarily impact notability, just reliability.) Buspar 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. So, no, they're not just "readers" or "users." As far as I can tell their Editor in Chief hasn't written anything calling me a "rotten bitch;" he just attributes things to me that I haven't done and provides a forum for his contributors to call me a "rotten bitch." --Dragonfiend 05:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Comixpedia or Comixtalk, whichever is most popular, is a project from several notable satire artists. So, worth keeping in my opinion, coverage of this sort of thing is important. Rudget zŋ 16:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep article shows huge improvement since this CFD got started and is noticable within the context of webcomics if its claims of being the first true publication devoted to discussing webcomics can be verified. --Martin Wisse 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep article, though it certainly needs more meat on it. A section discussing the birth of T Campbell's book from that series of Comixpedia articles would be a big boon. Putting it up for deletion a day after creation defies logic; why have stub language that encourages users to add content if we prefer to delete articles quickly? Maybe we should change the stub template to read, "This comic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by purging it before anyone else notices."Ig8887 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The "no content" argument in the nominator's argument is no longer true. The article asserts notability and has at least one major publication to prove it (History of Webcomics). 136.142.101.135 16:33, 13 November 2007 (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.
