Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerkcity

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerkcity

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349'''Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just yesterday I came upon a crufty article, rewrote it and removed the cruft. Why is it an issue here? --Kizor 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all of wikipedia
    • Comment. This isn't being counted, right? --Kizor 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because this way Brad will finally get to be hall monitor. Xihr 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jerkcity 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails swedish meatball test. Quatloo 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - even I've heard of this, and I hardly read web comics. Richard W.M. Jones 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - long standing notable web comic Gid0ze 19:31:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - If those asshats at User:Jerkcity want to delete it, then we should keep it. Galexander 19:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a no-brainer. Long-standing, well-known webcomic. -- Rynne 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy, it's a guideline made up by the "consensus" of a population of certain wiki editors who get some sort of weird thrill out of imposing their judgements on others. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no credible reason to delete entries based on notability... other than that wannabe administrators simply enjoy doing it. Ariochiv 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Right at the top of WP:WEB it says this. "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how the authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.". I'm pretty sure that means it's official. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • False. Policies are official. Guidelines are not. Quatloo 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Guidelines are made up by the community, and can be edited by anyone; they are not official policy. Verifiability is policy. Neutral point of view is policy. Notability is a guideline, not policy. Nowhere in WP:DELETE is Notability listed as a valid criteria for deletion. I realize that you guys do it everyday anyway, but that doesn't make it right. Ariochiv 08:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:WEB isn't a policy per se, but it's nevertheless cited by many people as a keep/deletion rationale. The very outcome of many deletion debates may hinge on that. I'd say if you want to reject specific notability criteria, you have to then explain what other criteria you use to explain to keep the stuff; if you reject a long-standing guideline that's cited by a lot of people as it is, you have to find other footing to stand on. We're open to ideas, of course, it's just that WP:WEB happens to represent a bunch of rather well-tried ideas. So I'd like to ask is this: If you reject notability criteria, what else do you propose we do to stop us from being flooded with completely insignificant content? How do you help people from telling apart wheat and chaff? How do you help people find the remarkable content? If you yank the carpet from under our feet, you need to put another carpet in its place or people will keep slipping around on the bare floor.
      Also be aware that AfDs that manage to change the established procedures are few and far between - you probably need some excellent deletion-lawyering to wriggle out of this one... meanwhile, I propose you edit the article to say how it fulfills the current criteria for inclusion. You won't change people's opinions overnight - or within timespan of a single AfD debate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete yes, I've heard of this, too, I think it's a wonderful comic, but we aren't building an encyclopedia of wonderful things we've heard of. No, this does not meet WP:WEB which is a guideline. It also doesn't meet our official WP:V policy "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It also doesn't meet our official policy that WP:NOT and internet guide, and articles about websites should "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." So, if we want to keep this article, find some verifiable info from reliable sources talking about the topic's significance. -- Dragonfiend 04:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If the nominator had even taken a moment to do a Google search on Jerkcity, he would have found numerous third-party references. Amazon.com, TCJ.com, Salon.com, Rotten.com, nndb.com, Pigdog.org. Now of course, you can always claim that these aren't "reliable" third-party sources, but since there's no criteria on which to base whether a source is reliable or not, you're still just making it up as you go. And applying WP:V to an article about a webcomic where the accuracy of the article is not at issue is just double-talk. Ariochiv 08:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Aren't Rotten, NNDB, and Jerkcity all Soylent Communications websites? If so, it's unclear whether writeups on Rotten and NNDB are third-party references to Jerkcity. --Zippy 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • How is it that you consider a book published (and placed for sale on Amazon) by the Jerkcity people as "third-party"? Quatloo 09:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Feel free to ignore the Amazon reference if it fails your Swedish Meatball test. Ariochiv 00:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nom Stormscape 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep but if you decide to Delete, get rid of Penny Arcade too. --timecop 05:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- well-known webcomic. Also, I agree with Stormscape -- may be a bad faith nom. Haikupoet 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your accusation of bad-faith, malicious editing seems entirely unfounded. -- Dragonfiend 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah? Well, why aren't you assuming good faith on his assumption? That's what's great about guidelines, you can spin in circles all day defending both sides of any argument. Xihr
    • Comment. This nomination is honestly in good faith. I took a look at the article, the external links, etc and didn't see any claims of notability. Take a look at other highly notable webcomics; Megatokyo for example states in the first paragraph that it ranks among the most popular webcomics, and is the best selling original English-language manga. Jerkcity, on the other hand, makes no assertions of notability. That's why I nominated it. To clarify, I'm not saying all articles need to be as notable as Megatokyo, but they need to assert some form of notability. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So why not add a note stating that it should reference its notability, rather than starting a vote to delete the article entirely? Xihr 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I brought it to AFD as I honestly believe it comes close to WP:CSD#A7, which states that an article is subject to speedy deletion if it does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
          • If it comes close to it, then it isn't there, is it? So this is all just a waste of time. What else is new. Xihr 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this site doesn't meet WP:WEB, then our guidelines are failing, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生 07:09, 1 November 2006
  • Delete - Non-notable. Notable things say that they are notable as per WP:NOT. Reccomend to "Jerkcity" author to assert notability in similar manner as "Megatokyo" author to achieve req'd notability level. SUNSHINE INCARNATE — SUNSHINE INCARNATE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Very very weak keep - Meets the "I heard of this from outside Wikipedia" gut feeling, is pretty long-standing, has had (apparently self-published, limited-edition) book; 227 distinct Google hits for the term (shows 202000 (!) at first), so there's probably some name-recognition. That said, probably far from being the most important web comic in the town, and there's no solid evidence of otherwise meeting WP:WEB... If there's any evidence to contrary, I'd be more enthusiastic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 15:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. clearly more important than a CD that sells 5,000 copies. Unfocused 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Screaming WTF DUH Keep i cannot for the life of me understand why the hell this was nominated for deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I have not heard of Jerkcity myself, but from the little research I did it seems to be fairly well known and as it has been around for so long it should be kept. bbx 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looks like it fails WP:V (which is policy), which would trump any claims of notability. No independent reliable sources coverage. Wickethewok 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please review WP:IAR. I think it's rather obvious that any policy ever written will encounter an unanticipated situation that invalidates it, that is, except WP:IAR. Given the other responses here, I think it's pretty clear which policy is more important in this case. Unfocused 22:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Wikipedia will be worse off if this is kept, so I don't think IAR applies. Wickethewok 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • At least six other editors to date have either strenuously objected to deletion or considered this a bad faith nomination and you think Wikipedia is still better off deleting it? This is the kind of pedantic policy-worship that pisses off good editors and drives them away. Unfocused 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain how "Wikipedia will be worse off if this is kept." Ariochiv 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to nitpick, but this is the entire part of the article about JerkCity: "Exploitation Now and Jerkcity mix pop-cultural criticism with dark, often sexual humor." It doesn't even have its own sentence... seems pretty trivial. Wickethewok 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's a trivial mention, but even a trivial mention in a major media source is enough to demonstrate that the article's subject exists, which takes the "delete it, it's unverified, violating WP:V" idea out of bounds. That mention isn't enough to establish notability, of course, so you could still advocate deletion on those grounds, if that's how you feel. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I'm seriously shocked anyone could think Jerkcity isn't notable. It's been around forever, is pretty much universally known in I-spend-too-much-time-on-the-Internet circles, ranks huge in a Google search (I'm getting 137,000 hits after I prune out jerkcity.com and other sites connected to Jerkcity and its creators), exists in a print format, and is produced by the same shadowy cabal that's behind Rotten.com, Leisure Town, and Rands in Repose.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.194.180 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Massive google search result, and not only that, this was one of the first

webcomics I ever heard about.ABigBlackMan 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Request - Could someone present some non-trivial reliable third party sources? Wickethewok 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Ariochiv already did. That said, the definitions of both "non-trivial" and "reliable" are so vacuous as to make almost any source arguable. --Kizor 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Question - Wickethewok, could you expand on what you mean by non-trivial reliable third-party sources? Thank you. Mrf 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That Comics Journal interview might work. The others just look like blog mentions which generally don't. Do you have any others like The Comics Journal? -- Dragonfiend 05:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ariochiv. Reliable sources also provided in sufficient number, facts are uncontested anyway. --Kizor 13:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most popular comics published on the web, it's been around for a number of years, still manages to publish daily after thousands of strips, and is pretty much the only place to find any insightful commentary about the internet era, in my opinion. Plus I like the jokes about sodomy.172.166.72.120 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm late to the debate, but this is a no-brainer. Verifiably notable, long-running webcomic that is, dare I say it, a part of net history. And I own the book. Polpo 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • NeutralConditional keep (as long as it passes WP:WEB's first test. WP:WEB guidelines specify three criteria. If any one of these is satisfied, the article passes the WP:WEB test. My feeling is that to resolve this debate in favor of keeping the article, we should focus on (1), as this is Jerkcity's strongest case for notability. I think Jerkcity will have trouble passing /2 and /3, the former because I have not seen any mention of awards for the site in this discussion, and the latter because of the requirement that sites that show the work be independent of the creators of the work. --Zippy 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. By the time you're selling hard copies it's a little late to start questioning notability, and nominator admits that this was part of a blanket listing. This should be a no-brainer. Chris Cunningham 13:22, 5 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.