Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Clem

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. While there are only two secondary sources that can be considered independent and reliable in the article, I would consider this as sufficient for passing the general notability guidelines. It would be silly to go into the degree of notability, i.e. are two sources enough to establish notability, or do we need three? Besides notability is not the main criterion for having an article but rather verfiability, neutrality, and no original research. This article passes all those requirements. I'm not an admin so feel free to undo this if this is way off base. --Polaron | Talk 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Clem

Mitch Clem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A well referenced article, however referenced only from the website of the subject. We need third-party verification for information, we can't just take everything from the guy's blog. bogdan 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

*Hangon I don't agree that it is well referenced. It is everything but. This seems to be a good article, but has no third party references that I can see. A topic's website should only be used for filler info, not the prime source. This is in essence an autobiography. However, I have found that subject such as Mitch probably have knowledge of good verifiable sources which we can use to support much of the article and also demonstrate notability. I've written to Mitch asking for his assistance. After perusing Google, I feel that there will be sufficient material to support notability if we put in the hard work. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep & Improve After writing the above, I received some guidance from Mitch on some independent 3rd party sources, which I have added to the article. Of course the inline notes still point to his sitwe, but that is casuse for a rewrite, not deletion. Besides inline notes are not required and could just be removed. There are more sources, but I need time to research. For now this meets the requirements of Notability and BIO. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Huge amount of self-referencial sources. The only source of any note, from PC World is a list, which could be considered a directory, directory listing are not considered as basic for articles. - Francis Tyers · 22:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Francis that's not true! Yes the notes are essentially self-referencial; however, there are two links under "REFERENCES" which are independent and verifiable, which clearly meets the criteria for both BIO and Notability. Since in-line notes are not required at WP, poor notes are not a reason for deletion. Please look closer at the discussion above; this article is not properly formatted, but that is not a reason for deletion -- it is a reason for improvement. --Kevin Murray 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
My opposition is not about the formatting, which is actually pretty good. The problem is with the lack of reliable sources. There are two links that aren't do Clem that I can see, but both are blogs / other web-comics. Such sources are not reliable as secondary sources. One quote from WP:RS: "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." - Francis Tyers · 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a link to Minnesota Public Radio] which certainly takes a major stride toward satisfying the notability criteria, which suggest but do not require multiple independent sources. The other item in the reference section appears a bit bloggish, but clearly independent of the subject. I think that we can try to fail this on perceived technicalities or look to assuming good faith. I'm not involved in this article with the exception of improving the references after finding it a AfD yesterday. I have however, been very involved in the drafting the current versions of both WP:N and BIO; I feel this meets the spirit of each. --Kevin Murray 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Evaluation of sources The credibility of the sources used at this article have been questioned and too much emphasis seems to be put on the inline notes which are exclusively to the subject's website. To avoid confusion, I've temporarily disabled the footnotes so that evaluators can focus on the independent references which were being obscured by the volume of notes. Let's look at those references critically and individually:
  • Minnesota Public Radio (online), is clearly independent and credible. This is also a robust article where Clem is the central focus. What more could we ask? --Kevin Murray 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PC World Magazine is certainly recognized as independent and credible. This article does not give us much information; however, being recognized by PC magazine in their list of 100 favorite bloggers (along with paragraph of description), tends to support the assumption that this subject is widely recognized and thus notable per our standards. --Kevin Murray 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comixtalk.com, appears to have various aspects including a regularly scheduled set of published issues by a "staff" where we could likely assume some editorial review exists. There is also a blog aspect; however the reference for the Clem article is part of a dated volume of the online magazine and not from the blog side. I see no conflict of interest issues and expect independence from the subject, Mitch Clem. --Kevin Murray 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Washigton Post.com Certainly we respect the Post as a source. However, this is a reprint of the PC World article. While it is not a separate source, this demostrates an even wider distribution and thus recognition of Clem. Greater notability? --Kevin Murray 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • MSN.com Another respected journal; however, as with the Post (above) this is a reprint of the PC World article, but as with the Post this demonstrates a wider notability of the subjects mentioned within. --Kevin Murray 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: The PCWorld, Washington Post and MSN.com all reprint the same article, which is in fact just a list of 100 blogs, each being described in just a line. Are you arguing that it's a non-trivial review? Also, comixtalk is a blog.
Mitch Clem writes several Web comics about punk music, living in Texas, and kittens. His LiveJournal also showcases the flyers he draws for music shows.
bogdan 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Your picking on one weak source, the others qualify him with out this. Seems like a Red Herring argument. --Kevin Murray 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I found that three of your sources are trivial and one is a blog. That's four bad sources out of five. bogdan 09:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
One list, twice reprinted makes it still one list. Inclusion in a list is not sufficient for WP:WEB requirements and is trivial. — Francis Tyers · 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Minn Pub Radio coverage indicates notability the rest is icing. Comixtalk has aspects of a journal in the area where he was interviewed. --Kevin Murray 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
One good source is not enough to prove notability.bogdan 09:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please consider this quote from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." There is no requirement for multiple sources if one source is substantial. You should also consider the cummulative effect of what you calll "bad" sources -- I would call them weak. --Kevin Murray 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kevin Murray's argument. Clem clearly has enough coverage in independent sources to meet notability guidelines. Thatcrazycommie 08:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I was asked for an opinion--I havent the least idea of what web comics might be notable, but on the general criteria this might just be over the bar. DGG (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Just enough independent sources. Epbr123 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are independent sources here. I'm not a webcomic fan, but it looked OK to me. I don't see a problem. futurebird 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not a biography. If we want to write about the guy's blog, there might be just barely enough to do that, but there's not near enough to write about him. The source list is long, but there's only one independent source in it, Minnesota Public Radio. Everything else (including Comixtalk, sine it's an interview) is sourced to the person's own work, and the article is full of filler (do we really need several primary-sourced paragraphs about the guy's reading interests?). The PCWorld piece is a one-paragraph blurb so really doesn't matter for anything, sourcing must be substantial. It is also about his blog, not him. There might be enough here in a few years for an article, this guy's star does seem to be rising, but rather than looking into that ball we should delete for now and reevaluate once more independent sourcing exists later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep People are confusing notability with verifiability. The MPR story confers notability, the links to the cartoonists website are for verifying facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Our verifiability policy is quite clear: articles should not be based primarily on self-published information, like the article currently does. bogdan 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Minnesota Public Radio article is good, though only one. The Washington Post/PCWorld/MSN list is very short, but the fact it's been reprinted by so many highly reliable sources says something. And as to Seraphimblade's point, there are other sources for his biography than his own sites, he's been interviewed by quite a few places:
Between all of those, that's sufficient coverage. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The Minnesota Public Radio link looks like proof of notability. I don't think the PC World link is a succesful proof of notability, and I don't know if comixtalk is a reliable source, but that's why I go with a "weak". Corvus cornix 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comixtalk was fomerly Comixpedia, a site which has been used as source material for scholars other than ourselves.[1] that would suggest to me it is a reliable source. Hiding Talk 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. By your definition, Urban Dictionary is a reliable source, since it was quoted by scholars [2]. bogdan 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • To my eye we're comparing apples and oranges, looking at the uses made of urban dictionary as a source. But maybe you're right. We're better off using our definitions at WP:RS, which boil down to using sites with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Now we have to determine how one gets such a reputation. My opinion has it that one way of demonstrating such a reputation is being used as a source. Yours may differ. Just because we differ, does not mean we have to spout nonsense. You speak as if opinions are facts and only one can be declared sensical, or logically correct. Hiding Talk 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's an interesting borderline case, and I'm glad that Kevin brought it to my attention. While looking into this I found this thread on comixtalk.com, in which a comix blogger comments on Wikipedia and points out that "In the last month, over 50 webcomics' articles have been deleted, all for failure to assert notability." And there is an awareness that we may at times be failing to take into account some modern topics which do not have the traditional "reliable sources". During a recent overhauul of WP:BIO I used the phrase "Widespread and sustained coverage on the internet, resulting in demonstrable wide name recognition on several significant internet forums and blogs" in order to cover topics such as webcomics which may have a significant following, and which may well have within that topic one or two subjects which are notable within the community, but which may not get coverage outside the community. Within, say, the Concrete poetry field, someone like Bob Cobbing is highly notable - but, because of his anti-establishment stance, got very little coverage in "reliable sources". Maggie O'Sullivan is regarded in certain circles as the most important female UK poet to have emerged in the late 20th century - but wouldn't get as many reliable sources as Pam Ayres, a female comedy versifier of little importance whose fame will fade. I know I'm making judgments here, but my point is that we have to be aware of the "quiet corners" of human experience and look to how we can enable notability within these darker, less well known places. The phrase I used was replaced with "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources." Unfortunately internet forums and blogs are not counted as reliable sources for rational reasons - there is little or no editorial control. However, I'd like for us to listen to what people on comixtalk are saying about webcomics, and allow them to inform our decisions. So if there are multiple references of notability on comixtalk about a webcomic then we seriously take that into account. If that same webcomic is then mentioned on numerous forums and blogs, we can say that the webcomic is notable within that "quiet corner" and that notability should be acknowledged and discussed on Wikipedia. However - I have gone off on a slight tangent. This Mitch Clem article has an acknowledged and solid "reliable source", supported by several minor sources. Enough for notability - but what for? The webcomic, or the author? Well, Nothing Nice To Say is on Wiki. And I think we are getting to the point where with the sources available both here and on the webcomic article that nobody is going to seriously doubt the notability of the "world's FIRST online punk comic" - after all, there's also a proper book which mentions the comic. Notability doesn't transfer, so that the guy is the author of a notable comic doesn't necessarily give him the notability for his own standalone article. He has to earn that himself. Has he done anything notable other than Nothing Nice To Say? It doesn't appear so. In the words of the man himself when asked why anyone would know who he is, he replied: "Most likely because I do an online comic strip called Nothing Nice to Say. Some people might know who I am because of a zine I used to do called "Summer's Over", though it's very, very doubtful that that's the case." I'm not !voting on this, but I think people might see the direction in which I'm going. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Silk, you say "Notability doesn't transfer, so that the guy is the author of a notable comic doesn't necessarily give him the notability for his own standalone article. He has to earn that himself." I'm not sure that I agree completely and universally. He has "earned" the recognition for the comic strip, his intelectual efforts. I think that we need to look at this on a case by case basis. If we have enough information to distinguish him from the strip, then information which is not relevant to the article on the strip becomes relevant to the articlae ont he writer. However, without resolution to the side issue below, do we have enough info on Mithc himself. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a questionable area when you say that he has "earned" notability from his comic. How did his comic acquire notability? The notability may have come about for reasons other than the guy's ability. When he has done another notable comic, then we can say that it is likely there is something about this author which appeals to people. At the moment all we can say for certain is that the comic strip appeals. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Charles M. Schulz (Peanuts) ? Subjective areas? --Kevin Murray 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think there are too much self-published sources. But the person is notable, and should let it develops. Chris! ct 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I would agree that it is borderline, but there are at least 2 truly reliable, non-trivial sources, (the Public Radio one and the Muse Magazine one). The blogs are rather sketchy with regard to reliability as they lack ediorial control, but given that there are already reliable sources cited, these add a small further nudge in the right direction. This article may be resting on the baseline of notability, but it does clear it by that much. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean-up. The Muse magazine and Minnesota Free Radio links pretty much clinch it and the other coverage helps. What I'd like to see are less links to his own site (dozens in the footnotes and 5 in the external links) and more use of the interviews and coverage to help source statements. (Emperor 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep. I think NPR is sufficient for notability; the other stuff further supports it. -Ich (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it looks like Muse Magazine was a print publication at one point; I think the interview there is WP:RSable, and with NPR, I think that's enough. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Kevin Murray asked me to weigh in, and I think his analysis is extensive and basically correct. We have one substantial source, and several corroborating witnesses to Notability. The main point of the Notability guideline is to make sure WP is not the primary witness to notability, and there is sufficient coverage to cover that base. A marginal case of Notability, yes, but based on how far the pendulum has swung against Web comics, I think we should be more lenient when we do have a decent case. Dhaluza 00:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Side issue - self published sources

There has been a question raised here regarding the correct use of self published autobiographical materials used in this article. Please see WP:SELFPUB an excerpt from that guideline below. I have mixed feeling on how much of an article should be self refeenced, but I don't at this point see a prohibition. IS there another controlling policy page? --Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

At the time of the original nomination, this article failed the last line-item, and it remains questionable what percentage of the "facts" are supported by the independent sources, but what does primarily mean? 90%? 51%? Clearly we have differing opinions among our evaluators. --Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Heh.
  1. This is really something to be discussed at the article talk page, not at the AfD. The AfD will close in a few days, but this discussion will presumably need to be referenced, edited, modified, replied to for much of the lifespan of the article.
  2. This is also not a deletion reason. At worst, it would lead to cutting chunks out of the article, while the AfD is really supposed to be about deleting the whole thing completely.
  3. You've got four fairly long interviews by non self-published sources now, so the point is likely moot. I don't doubt over half of the article can be sourced to them. If by chance you can't, ask again, but give it the old college try first. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I half agree, but I think that this issue is realted to policy, not just this article. I'm thinking that we should discuss at PUMP/Policy. --Kevin Murray 18:16, 7 November 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.