Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darken
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 no consensus. I spent a while reviewing all of the comments and claims made on both sides. Ultimately, I think the arguments slightly favor keep, but there is enough weight to the delete arguments to prevent me from closing this as a keep. —Doug Bell talk 08:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Darken
Nominated for deleation per WP:NOT and WP:V —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobagal (talk • contribs). — Bobagal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Non-notable webcomic, per WP:WEB. --SunStar Net 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain why you believe Darken fails the third critera of WP:WEB: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. -Anþony (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:WEB, distributed non-trivially through Keenspot, a notable online publisher. -Anþony (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed, per WP:WEB, Keenspot's very well known and most other Keenspot webcomics have not had an issue keeping their wikipedia articles, neither should this one. - HartM, 14:40, November 27 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Sunstar.--Agent Aquamarine 01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:WEB. I do not agree that Keenspot is a "site which is well known" for the purposes of WP:WEB. For starters, the article Keenspot itself does not meet WP:WEB because it makes no claim to notability and has no links to third-party coverage. In this state, it certainly can't confer notability to subsidiary content. Sandstein 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's an argument for deleting Keenspot, not Darken. Darken meets WP:WEB even if Keenspot doesn't. Keenspot is clearly well-known with daily visitors in the millions[1]. -Anþony (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's an argument for deleting both. "Well known" in WP:WEB must at the least mean "notable", because it would make no sense for something to be considered notable for the sole fact that it is being distributed by something that is not itself notable. Keenspot is not (apparently) notable, so Darken isn't notable just because Keenspot carries it. Also, there's a difference between "well known" and "visited a lot". Porn sites are also visited a lot. This doesn't make every porn image on them notable. Sandstein 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have a couple of arguments to make:
- WP:WEB does say well-known, not notable. (I would claim that Keenspot is notable, but one argument at a time, see below.) To me, that implies that the bar is lower. It is possible for something to be well known and yet never received an award or warranted comment in other publications. I won't stress this too much because it comes close to wikilawyering, I think.
- For the purposes of this AfD, I think it we should assume Keenspot is notable simply because it has an article. That it hasn't successfully been deleted yet implies a consensus that Keenspot is notable. The proper course is to nominate Keenspot for AfD first, then decide this issue. I notice you've already prod'd Keenspot, which is odd considering that I clearly object. I'll remember WP:AGF if you remember WP:POINT.
- The nominator is a single purpose account, whose only contributions have been to nominate Darken for AfD. That doesn't invalidate the AfD, but it does make his motives suspect. -Anþony (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have a couple of arguments to make:
- Actually, it's an argument for deleting both. "Well known" in WP:WEB must at the least mean "notable", because it would make no sense for something to be considered notable for the sole fact that it is being distributed by something that is not itself notable. Keenspot is not (apparently) notable, so Darken isn't notable just because Keenspot carries it. Also, there's a difference between "well known" and "visited a lot". Porn sites are also visited a lot. This doesn't make every porn image on them notable. Sandstein 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's an argument for deleting Keenspot, not Darken. Darken meets WP:WEB even if Keenspot doesn't. Keenspot is clearly well-known with daily visitors in the millions[1]. -Anþony (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have begun chronicling evidence of Keenspot's notability at Talk:Keenspot#Keenspot notability. If Keenspot's notability is established, then, as a simple consequence of WP:WEB, Darken is undeniably notable and deserving of a "keep" recommendation. -Anþony (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- That didn't take long. See this article in the San Francisco Chronicle and this one in Publisher's Weekly. -Anþony (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does no meet our content policies. Seems to be all original research as there is no third-party coverage by nontrivial reputable sources. Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Not that the WP:WEB guideline could ever be stretched to circumvent the official policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, but Keenspot is definitely not a generally well-known publisher. Dragonfiend 06:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I wouldn't normally be so adamant about keeping an article on a webcomic, but I'm amazed by this repeated and outright denial of the facts. Aside from prominent articles in a major US newspaper and the publishers trade magazine, Keenspot has its own chapter in The History Of Webcomics (ISBN 0976804395). I've collected plenty of evidence at Talk:Keenspot#Keenspot notability; if anyone has a serious doubt about Keenspot's notability, I ask you to address that evidence directly.
- Admittedly, Darken does need work. Marmaduke isn't so hot either. This effort would be better spent identifying specific problems with the article that could be fixed in a constructive way. – Anþony talk 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Would you care to retract your accusation of "repeated and outright denial of the facts"? That's way over the top. I don't think I typed that Keenspot wasn't "notable." Maybe my eyes are decieving me, but I'm fairly certain that I typed that it was not a generally well-known publisher. I'm not sure why you're being so adamant that people address your tangent about the sources you've found for the Keenspot article, when you've neglected to address the nominator's original point that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Note in particular that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Also, as far as your Keenspot sources go, you do know that "The History Of Webcomics" is written by a former Keenspot artist, right? So it's not that surprising that he spent a whole chapter writing about it?) -- Dragonfiend 07:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. In my frustration, I used language that was not appropriate and I do apologize. I still don't see how anyone could claim that Keenspot isn't notable or well-known. Even accepting that the book might not be a completely independent source, Publishers Weekly and the San Francisco chronicle have both run pieces on Keenspot and its founders. Doesn't that hold any water? How can I prove that Keenspot is "well-known"? You seem to admit that it's notable. We have objective tests for notability which Keenspot easily passes. There are none for being "well-known", which makes it pretty easy to disregard any evidence I should bring to bear. That is what frustrates me.
- I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Advice on improving Darken to address the concerns you've raised in a constructive effort to improve the article. Fiction articles rely on the fiction itself to source plot summaries and character descriptions all the time. WP:V does include an exception for self-published sources for articles about the author when the claims are not contentious. Though that admittedly does not directly relate to articles about fiction works, I see a clear parallel supported by the common Wikipedia practice in writing about fictional works. – Anþony talk 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WAF seems to imply that citing the fiction itself is not necessarily a bad thing, only that it tends toward original research and a skewed perspective. If Darken is guilty of either, that can be fixed. Discussion at WP:V talk confirmed that works of fiction for which a copy is readily available are verifiable. – Anþony talk 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Would you care to retract your accusation of "repeated and outright denial of the facts"? That's way over the top. I don't think I typed that Keenspot wasn't "notable." Maybe my eyes are decieving me, but I'm fairly certain that I typed that it was not a generally well-known publisher. I'm not sure why you're being so adamant that people address your tangent about the sources you've found for the Keenspot article, when you've neglected to address the nominator's original point that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Note in particular that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Also, as far as your Keenspot sources go, you do know that "The History Of Webcomics" is written by a former Keenspot artist, right? So it's not that surprising that he spent a whole chapter writing about it?) -- Dragonfiend 07:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I expect at least one independent source -- beyond the numerous scenester blogs / web-comic indexes. Listing on Keenspot is important, based on WP:WEB #3,
but the current article still fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.∴ here…♠ 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Still would like an accepted media reference beyond Keenspot. The talkaboutcomics interview is not enough. WP:WAF does a nice job of describing things that belong in articles of this sort, write a few cited paragraphs about one of these: the design; the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative; its popularity among the general public; its sales figures (for commercial offerings); its reception by critics; a critical analysis of the subject; the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. ∴ here…♠ 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per WP:WEB and previous statements, as I believe Keenspot itself is notable (and have made a note of such on Keenspot's talk page about some possible examples in favor of its notability), and that this notability does in fact apply to its member comics, too. As a business, there's a standard applied to get into Keenspot that generally means its member comics are also going to be known to a fair number of people already, a standard I think is high enough for recognition here. I also question the insistence for verifiability - on what information, specifically? Darken's wiki page makes no claims on its pageviews or other statistics that traditionally are considered to need extra sourcing. Is it just a matter of having to go through and cite specific pages of the comic where mentioned events happened? I'm not being snarky, I'm seriously curious if that things happened in the comic and can be pointed to on the site are enough or not. Nerrin 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Keenspot is both notable and well-known, it's notability extends to all of it's member comics as per Anþony. If that isn't enough, Keenspot is a category, surely the items within the category should be considered notable? Darken is a work of fiction, and the only verifiability that should be required is referencing the fiction itself (such as citing the website, or citing pages which events occurred). Unless there is something in the article that talks about something that is outside of the content of the fiction, then no verifiability beyond the website itself should be required. If there is anything in the article that is outside of the content of the fiction, then those details should be addressed, not the article itself. Admittedly, the article should be written in a more Out-of-Universe approach, but that is an argument for improvement, not deletion.--NicholaiDaedalus 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) — NicholaiDaedalus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete this article is completely unsourced, and no reliable sources have been identified from which the facts in the article may be substantiated, because as far as can be seen from a quick review there is no reliable source which gives details critique of this comic. If such sources do exist, feel free to cite them in the article, but right now it is an unambiguous delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:V should not be a factor when the article cites the fiction itself as per AnÞony's and My previous comments, and doing so does not create a WP:NOR violation as long as inferences and analysis is not included in the article. If there is no citations, then someone needs to just pop them in. If there is any original reasearch, then remove anything and everything in the article that isn't a description of the fiction's content. Would you delete the article on Final Fantasy if someone wrote in that FFVIII had the best opening sequence? It's in violation of WP:NOR isn't it? No you wouldn't, you would delete that comment and leave the rest of the article in tact. Again, these are arguments for improvement, not deletion.--NicholaiDaedalus 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I do not think something should be deleted simply because it isn't Virgin Records or a top band. This site was made to be an Encyclopedia, was it not? The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to put as much information as possible. Now, I am not saying that Darken is a bad, non notable comic. Creator Komiyan is very notable in the webcomic community. The only argument I am seeing here for deletion is that Keenspot is not notable, that's an argument for the deletion of KeenSpot, not Darken. Plus, in the webcomic community, everyone has heard of Keenspot. In fact, I think it is the most notable. I may be biased because I'm a reader of Darken, but I see no evidence here other than it's hosted by Keenspot to delete it. -Paralda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.206.182 (talk • contribs).
- Strong Keep, as it is notable, and the article is very well written. Sharkface217 03:39, 2 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.
