Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaded (comic)

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaded (comic)

Jaded (comic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable comic. Another user contested speedy on the grounds that independent publication constitutes notability. However, google searching revealed the mentioned newspaper Concrete be a student publication at a college. I do not believe student publications constitute any proof of notability. Someguy1221 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - being published in something like that is not notable; generally, college weeklies tend to just accept virtually any half-decent material that comes their way. I know The Martlet does just that. --Haemo 03:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources to establish significance. Being published, in itself, is not notability. Jay32183 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Who draws the arbitrary line between which publications are notable, and which ones aren't? If the publication is independent, that should fulfill the criteria for notability, regardless of personal opinion as to whether the quality of the publication is 'good' or 'bad' or how discriminately they accept certain additions. The criteria for notability should not depend on the subjective opinions of certain administrators. It is not sufficient to simply "believe" the publication unnotable, and to do so is to ladel out subjective opinion as god-given law. It fits the clause in the notability criteria demanding at least one independent secondary source (while multiple sources are preferable, they are not necessarily demanded, though they can be found on numerous profile pages in web databases such as 'stumbleupon', which should constitue an "independent secondary source"). Please leave personal opinion aside, and demonstrate the comic, or the publication's lack of notability objectively. After all, it seems to follow that if a university newspaper such as The Martlet is 'notable' enough to warrant a wiki entry, then any other university paper is 'notable' enough as an independent secondary source, and therefore the criteria for notability has been fulfilled.

Hectorlowe 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. No. Multiple reliable independent sources. Just because a source is notable or independent does not imply it's reliable. The Colbert Report and the Daily Show are extremely notable, but completely unreliable sources of information. Someguy1221 21:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There's policies on what Wikipedia considers notable over at Wikipedia:Notability, and a definition of what constitutes a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No coverage by reliable, fact-checked sources = not notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Concrete considered neither reliable nor notable as a source (due to its being a university paper,) when another university paper, The Martlet, has its own wikipedia entry, which presupposes some level of reliability and notability for university papers?

Hectorlowe 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, notability and reliability have absolutely no inherent correlation, as I tried to explain above. Second of all, The Martlet's having an article does not mean it's notable. It might be notable, or it might be non-notable and simply slipped under the radar (I shall not discuss this here, it's irrelevent). Please note, "that has an article, why can't this?" is an unnacceptable argument for inclusion of material on Wikipedia. Further, we are not arguing whether Concrete is notable for inclusion, we are arguing whether a comic that appears in it is. A web comic must be the subject of review or discussion by multiple, reliable, independent sources to be proven notable. Student publications are generally not considered reliable sources, and it is also most likely that this one is not independent. Someguy1221 20:49, 16 May 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.