Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Loves Eric Raymond

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. W.marsh 17:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody Loves Eric Raymond

Web comic with no assertion of notability. Previously prod'ed, so I'm bringing it here.
Associated redirect:

• ELER

—ptk✰fgs 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I have heard of this one, which is no real measure, but I recall some coverage --Steve 02:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, barely notable outside of a small Internet community. Someone will surely bring up the 39,000 Google Hit count, but that is actually a very low figure for webcomics, blogs, and other Internet-specific content. Andrew Levine 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Pseudo (because anon) keep Notable enough to have drawn comments from the real life figures parodied in the comic (as mentioned in the article). Not the world's most popular webcomic, obviously, but for it's geek audience it is notable. 137.111.13.34 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just not important enough. Smells a little like spam, too. Jermor 06:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I think this webcomic is fairly notable, I might even have seen it in a Linux magazine. JIP | Talk 06:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no verifiable third-party reliable sources suggesting any sort of achievement or significance. WP:NOT an internet guide. Fails the WP:WEB notability guideline as well for the triple crown. -- Dragonfiend 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. John Vandenberg 06:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Strong Keep. It has been assessed as a Start class article. see Version 1.0 Editorial Team. John Vandenberg 07:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As part of our webcomics wikiproject, we went through and labeled every non-stub webcomic article we could find as start class or higher. It was not intended as a measure of anything other than that, for example, "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added." We may have been wrong in doing so, but it certainly was not intended as a labelling every non-stub a "speedy keep." -- Dragonfiend 07:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason I used speedy keep was that the article has passed by the eyes of Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. I have changed that to Strong Keep in light of what you have said. In my opinion, this webcomic is notable due to the satirical content being acknowledged by the subjects and the process used to create the comic being novel if not original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by jayvdb (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 November 2006
      • Indeed, the comic is one of few (2?) known to the Creative Commons staff to be licensed under the CC. No other CC comics are known to use a wiki in creating the scripts. Ruleke 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend. TJ Spyke 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Per JIP. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of encyclopedic notability, unverified claims about feedback from subjects and wider coverage (the "I think I've seen some coverage of it somewhere" claims don't help; and even if verified, this may not be encyclopedically notable anyway - reactions are brief emails ranging from this-is-funny-but-stupid to this-is-stupid-but-not-funny), fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT, WP:V as per Dragonfiend. Bwithh 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Notable enough...needs more work. Is there something related it could be merged with? Ozzykhan 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete what we lack here is INDEPENDANT review in RELIABLE SOURCES. People chatting about it in blogs don't count. Get us some independant reviews in reliable sources, and I will change my vote. --Jayron32 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I feel that I should add here that I do think ELER is highly hilarious, and I've certainly not nominated it out of any animosity toward the comic itself. —ptk✰fgs 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:V's requirement for reliable sources. Wickethewok 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete . I don't. Guy 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I've-heard-of-it-outside-Wikipedia yeppers, funny-like, yes, somewhat widely known, yes, but is it famous enough? This is a relatively young webcomic that has not really yet seen a lot of media exposure, as far as I know. I don't think that it's really all that remarkable that the people parodied in the comic (ESR, RMS, Linus, Gerv Markham, Bruce Schneier, etc) have voiced their opinions on the comic. They probably have a lot of opinions about other things too; we wouldn't write articles on that merit alone ("Category:Stuff that Eric S. Raymond hates" would be a pretty Uncyclopedic category). I guess it's probably better to delete it now, give it a year or so, and if it can be demonstrated it has grown beyond "a webcomic that a bunch of geeks really like" (as in "some real IT media mentions"), then it's time to work on this. And I don't really mind seeing a mention of it in Eric S. Raymond article either; it's relevant there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The comic has been reviewed on lugradio and has been mentioned on it since. Eric Raymond also got questions about it in an interview on a later radio show. [1]. The author of the comic has been invited to and has given a presentation about the process used to create the comic on the LUG radio live 2006 convention [2]. Ruleke 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The webcomic is widely read in the open source community. Robert Brockway 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think those are pretty trivial mentions. If someone provides verifiable sources, I'll consider changing my vote.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep They've got me convinced. --Kizor 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi, I found two "published" references, but they are pretty obscure, so I wont hold you to your promise. And im pretty sure I've looked at all 39,800 references. So, I agree it isnt broadly referenced, but I dont think it is needs to be deleted for that reason, after it's verifiable because it is on the commons. John Vandenberg 10:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep More notable than, and just as encyclopedic as Squilliam Fancyson.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsr4ever (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 November 2006

• Keep Has a following in the FOSS community and follows FOSS events - if you are going to delete this, why not delete Lugradio as well???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 4 November 2006
  • Comment Don't DO that. They might follow your advice. --Kizor 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is widely read and cult-like within open source communities. Secretlondon 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep widely read in FOSS community, very often linked (albeit for jokes) from slashdot.org bubu~ 10:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One of Wikipedia's primary advantages over a traditional encyclopedia is the freedom from space constraints that keep all but the most prominent items out. I've heard of this outside of WP, I know people who read it. Kwertii 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Not particularily notable, not particularily funny.. but this is an online encyclopedia, and I see no reason to remove the entry (it's not like wikipedia's running out of space or something) 74.108.47.35 04:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep It is well known in the community it targets. In particular, it has had feedback from the people it parodies. --James 02:49, 8 November 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.