Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploitation Now

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. Bucketsofg 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploitation Now

Exploitation Now (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Non-notable, defunct subject. Page offers no sources of notability, no sources to verify, failing WP:V Ocatecir 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note:Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Michael Gorbatsjov is no longer the president of Russia, but that doesn't affect his notability. The same goes for every subject that has at some point been notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But being non-notable is. There is a difference between has-been and never-was. - Ocatecir 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Won the 2001 WCCA for best supporting character, 2002 WCCA for best female lead. If not kept, merge to Michael Poe's bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.44.220 (talk • contribs)
  • No links are given to prove this or let editors investigate the notability of such an award. - Ocatecir 03:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - Okay, I can help you with that. The two results listed are here and here. As to the notability, the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are at least notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. (Though currently being AfD'd, so that may change) I believe this satisfies point #2 of WP:WEB quite nicely, which combined with the publication of two books (one non-self-published, meeting WP:WEB #3) makes this comic sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no attempt to establish WP:N through WP:V. Shaundakulbara 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge and Redirect to Michael Poe. --Dennisthe2 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Failing that, Merge and Redirect to Michael Poe. Montco 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Stubby, but the content meets notability requirements of WP:WEB; specifically, it is both hosted by KeenSpot/ComicsGenesis and has been published as at least one book by an independent publisher. It's just sad that the article is so short. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keenspot does not meet the criteria of WP:V because it is self-published. As far as the book, perhaps more information could be added to the article to satisfy WP:V. - Ocatecir 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "You keep using WP:V. I do not think it means what you think it means." I think you're talking about WP:N, at least for KeenSpot, and you're getting it confused with KeenSpace. KeenSpace is (was) where anybody could sign up for a website to host their webcomic. KeenSpot is (was) for specific comics which the company felt were good enough to qualify for additional considerations and goodies, such as publishing a book, marketing, etc. There are several thousands of KeenSpace comics, but under one hundred (last I checked) KeenSpot comics. Or were. Whatever. As to finding sources for the book, it's a little difficult. There's plenty of places that sell it, but most of the sites that had articles about the release of the book are since gone. (Or have deleted the news archive) Several articles on how the book is going to be published, however. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I am using WP:V, specifically in the case of Keenspot WP:V#SELF. WP:V and WP:RS exist to ensure that articles are sourced by sources that are reliable and have reputations for fact-checking. This is why self-published sources cannot be considered. Also for the book, please read the first line from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." - Ocatecir 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ooooookay, you obviously haven't read WP:FICT then. The information here is cited from the primary source, which is perfectly acceptable for a work of fiction. If anything, the primary source is the most reliable source for works of fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm, WP:FICT is ok for citing sources about the Webcomic itself, but as for finding outside sources to establish notability it does not fly. We aren't searching for information about the Webcomic, we are searching for reason why we should care about it. If the only information lending notability is not from a verifiable source, then the article cannot be included in wikipedia. - Ocatecir 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Then, again, your issue is with WP:N, not WP:V. (Or rather, WP:WEB) The article subject meets the notability requirements laid out there just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. - The only issue with the book is finding a better source for it; linking to the Amazon page for it, while kind of sparse, would nonetheless successfully assert notability. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Linking to an amazon page is not sufficient to satisfy notability. Amazon carries plenty of non-notable books. An outside source is needed to establish why that book is notable. Also please note the word "multiple" from "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" from WP:N. - Ocatecir 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This isn't an article on the book, this is an article on the comic. All WP:WEB asks for is proof that the comic has been published somewhere independent of the creators. The Amazon link would satisfy that requirement, thereby asserting notability of the comic. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The author of that publication is the author of the subject himself and the publisher is Keenspot, a self-publishing publisher, thus landing us right back at WP:V. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." - Ocatecir 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is one thing to argue that KeenSpot is a self-publisher when it comes to the website. (Highly questionable even then, since KeenSpot does not indiscriminately let anybody publish their work via their website) The book, however, is another matter entirely. KeenSpot is not an indiscriminate publisher of whatever someone pays them to publish, which is what the above text is attempting to address. It clearly does not fall into the category of self-published, as an entity separate from the creator is responsible for the publishing of the book. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another webcomic. Ho hum. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm a little confused as to what your argument is. Is it that because this is a webcomic, it should be deleted? That's probably not a particularly valid reason for deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. There is enough suggestion of notability as indicated above to give pause to pushing the Nuke button. SilkTork 23:52, 30 January 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.