Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klordny
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 delete. Daniel 03:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Klordny
Delete - article is about a fictional holiday with one major appearance 30 years ago, and a group that took its name from the fictional holiday. Prod removed without comment. There do not appear to be any reliable sources that attest to the notability of this fictional holiday either within DC Comics continuity or the real world. The real-life group information is "sourced" by a blog entry and a link to a yahoo group, which do not pass WP:RS. Otto4711 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per "Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable if commented on by third-party sources" as an editor put Corpx 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: There's also this FAQ Also, whatever happens to this, the same should be done for the entries Pule and Durin's Day --202.160.44.201 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pule and Durin's Day first would need to be submitted to AfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well, I'm not sure what you'd consider "reliable sources" for this article - what's a reliable source for a fictional holiday? And I can't help it if the Klordny APA group chooses to have a blog and yahoo group mailing list for their communication - why not, they're very easy to use, so do you penalize them for that? Other "third party" sources for Klordny the holiday include numerous mentions on the web, message boards, and usenet over the years, indicating familiarity with the holiday even if its only major appearance was 30 years ago. Admittedly, these would be considered "self-published" and thus "unreliable", but this is not an attempt to show any kind of factual knowledge but rather how it's a generally known and accepted term/phrase/holiday within the comics community. See examples from 2006, 2006, 2006, 2002, this wordie.org entry, this comic series proposal which would have explained where the Klordny festival came from, this Dec. 2003 review, this 2007 quiz, the Usenet Oracle (who got it wrong), etc. It also appeared in a Legion comic in 1999. Klordny the APA is in the Michigan State University's Comic Art Collection, in this profile from 2007, this cover from this guy's archives in 2005, this list of APAs from 2002, the Comic Art Of The United States Through 2000 bibliography, and dozens of Usenet articles dating back to at least the early 1990s. -- Wizardimps 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you should read WP:RS on what qualifies as a reliable source. Corpx 08:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did read it, which is why I agreed these are all "self-published" sources and thus "unreliable". However, that would make them not usable when considering factual content. These examples show that the word and concept of this fictional holiday have been generally known and used for years, and I would submit that the fact that people know about it, write about it, and have written for a magazine by the same title (regardless of its content) makes it notable. This fictional holiday has a 30-year history in print (predating general use of the internet) and on the internet. -- Wizardimps 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. Just because people write about something on the internet does not make a topic notable. Corpx 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll remind you that the Amateur Press Association (APA) named after the holiday existed since the early 1980s, a decade before the internet was open to the general public. But now what? Obviously neither of us has changed the other's opinion and nobody else has commented. Do I lose on a 2-1 vote? -- Wizardimps 20:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. Just because people write about something on the internet does not make a topic notable. Corpx 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did read it, which is why I agreed these are all "self-published" sources and thus "unreliable". However, that would make them not usable when considering factual content. These examples show that the word and concept of this fictional holiday have been generally known and used for years, and I would submit that the fact that people know about it, write about it, and have written for a magazine by the same title (regardless of its content) makes it notable. This fictional holiday has a 30-year history in print (predating general use of the internet) and on the internet. -- Wizardimps 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you should read WP:RS on what qualifies as a reliable source. Corpx 08:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not enough WP:RS independent of the topic to write the article. The source of this holiday is DC Comics, which makes DC Comics not eligible as an independent reliable source. Also, any other source contribuing to the facts of the holiday are not independent from that holiday. Even if Klordny (magazine) is notable, it does not make Klordny (holiday) notable. Adding to the article the fact that people know about it, write about it, and have written for a magazine by the same title (regardless of its content) would be original research. Their collective knowledge about the holiday may make the holiday important and famous, but without reliable source material, the topic is not "Wikipedia notable." -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:00, 18 July 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.
