Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and Happiness

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 complex.

The deletion nomination was a very poor one. Much of the lengthy (but commendably cordial) debate below could have been avoided by a well researched deletion nomination. No biscuit.

The issue of verification was raised, and is the critical discourse here. Of the sources tendered as reliable sources, only the The UTD Mercury is without debate. Thanks to the fantastic research by ImmortalGoddezz, most would concede Brand Republic as a reliable source as well.

But not a very good one in this case. A source's reliability is not uniform. The Times is not the best resource on itself. Brand Republic can probably be counted on to get it's big stories factually correct, but a little one-page lacks the editorial oversight required of a secondary source.

An article with only one reliable source is standing on very thin legs.

However, another positive argument was presented, that this was "notable." Many editors did not provide a reasoning beyond "it is." No biscuit for them, too. Evidence of notability was given as number of Google hits, an on-line poll, least common denominator, and the previously mentioned Brand Republic/Orange marketing piece.

Google hits are not a reliable source when demonstrating notability. On-line polls except in very special circumstances are not even a reliable source of their own existance. Working upwards from the lowest bar in the form of "if you've kept foo we must keep bar" fail to understand that Wikipedia isn't perfect yet. Thus we must again fall back on the Brand Republic/Orange piece, like a dog returns to its bone.

Getting picked up by a major retailer for an ad campaign does not count as "independent distribution"as the web material guideline discusses. Questions of inclusion at this level defer to consensus, both as measured in this small sample and as demonstrated over time.

There was no consensus to delete this article at this time.

brenneman ^{L} 12:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyanide and Happiness

I deleted this page yesterday as a repost, but since the last AFD had been a while ago, I'll see what others think. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep: its notable, damn it!!! -ruolin59
• Strong keep: what once got 144 google hits now gets 327,000 (with 501 unique out of the first 100, similar to microsoft). Distribution by an outside company adds notability. The article was deleted and protected for too long, the comic is now deserving. --Daniel Olsen 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Distribution doesn't affect notability in the slightest. Something is notable if it is noted. What matters is whether people independent of this subject and its creator(s) have written about it. Uncle G 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually WP:WEB #3 mentions quite specifically that independent distribution by a notable entity is a criteria for notability. The Orange Wednesdays promotion fulfils this criteria [1] [2].--TexasDex 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's bad. Very bad. But it's notable. Go figure. - Richfife 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. And funny. Not that that matters. Vizjim 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Daniel Olsen as well as the large amounts of evidence on the talk page. Wikipedia has a large number of articles on webcomics that are less notable than this one. Since this article was deleted there have been many people on the talk page complaining and preparing evidence to take it again to Deletion Review. Please note that there is a better article here that was written while this was deleted. --TexasDex 11:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and happiness (webcomic), deletion review, this has been deleted at Cyanide and Happiness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Cyanide and happiness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Cyanide and happiness (webcomic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and it was re-created within 24 hours of deleted-protected status being removed. Guy 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep G-hits look like it is popular, as a benefit of the doubt weak keep. I have seen this before, although some are pretty bad. I agree with Richfife. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and strong improve per above. --Masamage 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vote changed due to lack of solid references. Which isn't an insult to the comic; it may be hilarious or common knowledge, but we can't prove it's historically relevant enough to go in an encyclopedia. Those who are fans don't need to worry--if it's that important, it'll be written up somewhere soon enough, and then we'll undelete it. --Masamage 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, per ImmortalGoddezz below. Last time I'm switching sides. :) She convinced me. --Masamage 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:V or WP:RS as article's only third-party source is college newspaper. "Notable" comics receive far better criticism and media coverage than this. Counting google hits is meaningless for encyclopedia writing. WP:NOT an internet guide; we need multiple reputable third-party sources to discuss a topic's historical importance. -- Dragonfiend 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Improve Notable enough for Wikipedia but the article could be better.--Nimrod1234 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per Daniel Olsen. Additionally while this might not meet WP:V or WP:RS as has been pointed out, a majority of the comics on wiki do not even have references besides their own page, so I think this page is at least making the effort which is commendable. This article can definitely be improved more but from what I've seen in the edit history the effort is at least being made. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • An argument that the article cannot satisfy our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is an argument for deletion, and a strong one, no matter that it may be preceded by the word "keep". If you wish to make an argument for keeping, instead, please cite sources to show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied by the article's subject. Uncle G 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually what I am saying in a round about way is that if the article could be edited to include more (amongst other things) citation (thus my improve) then it should be kept. Since it has been in a constant state of editing lately I state keep in hopes that an article with appropriate citation will form. It might be putting the cart before the horse but I've seen people vote keep with less. Additionally if this article does not meet criteria for notability then I think all of the comics should be re-evaluated per WP:V or WP:RS since when viewing the Category:2000s webcomics a great deal of the articles have no citation. Examples being Queen of Wands, After Eden, Carpe Diem (comic), and Greeneyes all of which have very few outside sources or citation. I do not bring this up to start an argument (and frankly my plate is too full to get into an argument like this online) but only because I see variation in how webcomics are being handled and believe that if one is handled in this form that all of them should be given the same consideration and critiqued in the same manner. --ImmortalGoddezz 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, only source citation is to a student newspaper and to the website hosting the comic. No references provided that attest to the importance of this web comic. To all those saying this web comic is notable, let's have some source citations meeting the reliable source guidelines that say that it is notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:RS says nothing to specifically exclude college newspapers from being cited. In addition it allows "self-published sources" as long as the information found on them is reported to be the point of view of the publisher, which this article generally adheres to. --TexasDex 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think it's time to give this webcomic the article it deserves. It has shown merit as a webcomic that people actually enjoy on a daily basis: it's not some unnotable nothing. It's linked all over the internet (especially on social networks like myspace and livejournal) and its forums have gained thousands of posts over the last two years. Some have commented that they find the humor of the comic lacking: that should have no influence on the significance of Cyanide and Happiness! Just like many things on TV (The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Futurama, etc.), the humor may not be to your taste, but that doesn't mean that the topic isn't significant... bernlin2000 ∞ 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Give some proof that it is frequently linked, please. --Masamage 18:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Every comic provides the HTML and forum code to leech that comic, providing a link back to Explosm. Underneath each hotlinked comic, if the leecher copies and pastes the code given, is the text "Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net". A Google search of this exact phrase gives 230,000 results. --RobDenBleyker 03:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend.--Peta 05:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You have got to be joking. Since Dragonfiend's statement, two external sources have been added, Readers pick best webcomic and Orange unveils cartoon stick man print campaign. -24.1.140.128 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • To reiterate, what I wrote above included "WP:NOT an internet guide; we need multiple reputable third-party sources to discuss a topic's historical importance." Simple "externality" is not our sole concern when determining the reliability of a source. Fan blogs, online polls, press releases, college newspapers, the Digital Bulletin article which doesn't contain the words either "Cyanide" or "Happiness" -- those are not reliable sources for much of anything, let alone for determining that a webcomic is of some historical importance. I like to think of wikipedia as having standards for verifiability and reliable sources that are at least as high as a junior high school research paper rather than a place for my original research about my favorite things on the internet. -- Dragonfiend 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The source in fact does mention "the Explosm team", the authors of C&H.--129.25.30.59 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You bring up a good point in determining the reliability of a source. I do understand where you are coming from, I personally have used the WP:V and WP:RS recently myself, though I might comment on the links. I see no fan blogs anywhere, a blog by Kris Wilson one of the editors of the strip yes, fanblog? No. All it is doing is establishing the fact that another book is being self published. According to WP:V Self Published It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability, It is not contentious, It is not unduly self-serving, It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject, and There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it. Joystiq is a notable video gaming weblog, notable enough to have it's own wikipedia article, given the fact that it has established notability for itself it would, I hope, establish notability for any polls, articles, etc it publishes. But the main point of inserting that citation is to point out the fact that it has gotten word about about Cyanide and Happiness and does have a reader base. Additionally if you look through the 'what links here' a few articles do use Joystiq as a reference. The "Press Release" I assume you're commenting on the Brand Republic article is not a press release and Brand Republic has been cited before (in a featured article) without comment, additionally while it does not have "Cyanide and Happiness" it mentions 'web-comic team Explosm'. According to Haymarket Publishing, Brand Republic is UK's leading website for news and jobs from the advertising, marketing and media industries. It is also the home of Campaign and Marketing magazines online. [3] The Marketing Society says With over 150,000 articles from 12 leading industry magazines, Brand Republic also contains more than 1,000 jobs, book reviews, industry data and reports. [4]. A not for profit company ABC Electronic has audited BrandRepublic for traffic and it has established that it is indeed a high traffic site with over a million page impressions over the period of 30 days. [5][6] To me it sounds as if this is an established UK marketing website. Not only that but the writer is on staff at Brand Republic so it has not been imported from another article, sounds notable enough to me. College Newspapers might be toeing the line, but featured articles such as Cornell University, Duke University, and Michigan State University all use their own newspapers as sources and citation for themselves not only have they been used like that but college newspapers have been used in several other articles (not just it's associated school article) , I don't see a problem here as college newspapers have been accepted as reliable sources in the past. Not only that but I believe that it is held in good regard in not only the community but the state as evidenced by [7]. It has been established for 25 years and has an established record having won at least 32 awards for journalistic excellence in state along with the National Pacemaker Award [8] amongst others. As you've said Masamage It's not featured. Its flaws are acknowledged, and it's a work in progress. If I might say so this article is not defining jargon, publishing original material (what is on the page has been cited and sourced verifiable to some and not to others), propaganda, a repository of links, personal home page, indiscriminate list of info, or a crystal ball. Granted when you go do a google search for this you don't come up with much unless you dig because most of the links are hotlinks to blogs, which is the main goal of the site, which I suppose they've accomplished. I'm personally of the thought of just leaving the page alone for the next few months and see how it develops. I guess what this really boils down to on here are people's opinions (or the closing admin) on whether it deserves to be on an online encyclopedia. Many people keep saying does it show historical importance?, but when you look 50 years down the road I can't see User Friendly being a paragraph in an encyclopedia, nor can I see Ctrl+Alt+Del being in their either, neither can I see how they have been important enough in a historical sense so far but that's just me. As I said before I have far too much on my plate to be arguing about this (except for obviously this past weekend), and I hope that those who read it take it in a kind tone as I mean no offense. I'm just stating what I think/feel/have researched in regards to this article. I'm sure some will find my reasoning wrong/skewed/whatever else you can come up with, quite frankly you're entitled to your thoughts as am I. I am just stating plainly for all to read and have no intention of debating this particular section further as I have stated all of my thoughts and ideals about it. (aka I have no intention of starting an argument, continuing to argue, etc.) --ImmortalGoddezz 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Wow. I think my mind has just been changed. --Masamage 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, ImmortalGoddezz, that's a really long paragraph ending with your agreement that this topic doesn't come close to meeting WP:NOT, as this is website of no historical significance. And, yes, college newspapers are used as sources for colleges like Cornell University, but a single college newspaper is not good for determining that a webcomic has any sort of great impact or achievement. If we're talking about "notability" or not being an indiscriminate collection of information, then we're looking for sources like The New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, and The Wall Street Journal. All of which are used as sources in the Cornell University article, of course. If our only sources for Cyanide and Happiness are still a single college newspaper, a marketing website that doesn't mention Cyanide and Happiness, and an online poll, then delete. -- Dragonfiend 19:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete having reviewed this again I find that numbers of hits evaporate rapidly when subjected to any kind of reliability test. Yup, plenty of "heard it on the internets" type stuff, but WP:NOT an intern et directory and those are not reliable sources. Absent multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent external sources, it has to be delete. Guy 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There seems to be a double-standard here, which ImmortalGoddezz pointed out quite nicely. Because this subject might be controversial or distasteful it gets intense scrutiny while massive numbers of articles flagrantly violate WP:OR, but remain completely unchallenged because people like them. I don't care all that much either way, but I wish wiki would be consistent. It would be a bit of a shame to delete so much material though. --129.25.30.59 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I hugely object to this. I've never read C&H; I have no idea whether it's controversial or not. I did relevant thing and checked around for notability. I certainly would never vote 'delete' on something just because I didn't "like" it, and not a single person here has given any reason to delete the article not solidly rooted in WP guidelines. From what I can see, the only mentions that it's lame or unfunny were accompanied with a 'keep' vote. So I don't see how your complaint has any relevance or fairness. (Your examples don't make any sense either. What on earth is OR on this page? There's barely any content. And are you honestly suggesting Monty Python is non-notable? Sure, it's only a B-ranked article, but doesn't that speak for itself? B rank! It's not featured! Its flaws are acknowledged, and it's a work in progress. Isn't that the point?) --Masamage 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't claim that people were voting delete because it's controversial. I said they were selectively applying standards, and setting a much higher "burden of proof" because it's controversial, whereas less controversial articles survive AfD with a few blog links and a link to the page the article is about. Stuff like the articles that I suggested (although some of them may have been bad examples), or especially ImmortalGoddezz's links don't get that type of scrutiny, and are held to a much lesser standard. I don't see anything wrong with having standards, I just have a problem with selectively applying them as seems to be the case here. --129.25.30.59 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I feel the same way, and I deal with it by tagging things that need citations, and when I know how, finding them myself. Rather than grumping about it, why not be the one asking for proof on those other pages? The fact that no one has done it yet only means that someone needs to, and there's no reason that can't be you. --Masamage 04:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Other crap exists therefore this crap must exist" has never been a persuasive argument for inclusion. You are free to nominate other crap for deletion, or tag it for cleanup if you feel there is a chance it might be verifiable. Guy 07:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • In this case I have a problem with the inconsistent application of WP:RS. Whereas plenty of articles cite college newspapers, in this article a link to an award-winning university paper is being shot down as "not reliable". The other sources are being similarly dismissed even though they're from a reasonably reputable publisher. And WP:V specifically allows self-published information as long as it is stated as being that party's POV, therefore sourcing the FAQ is not unreasonable for confirming facts, if not for confirming notability. --TexasDex 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Arbusto 03:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly notable. Keep. · XP · 05:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete it on previous AFDs. —Drowne | Talk 16:36, 1 October 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.