Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paska Ankka/original discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Translated from fi:Wikipedia:Poistettavat sivut/Paska Ankka:

This is an archived nomination for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep — MikkoM 4 September 2005

[edit] fi:Paska Ankka

I don't think this is notable enough. And I can't think of any article to merge this to. — Jniemenmaa 26 August 2005

[edit] Votes

  • Delete: not appropriate for Wikipedia - especially not if PA violates copyright. — Teve 26 August 2005
  • Keep: Wikipedia certainly needs more shit. Possible copyright violation is not a problem, because Wikipedia includes articles about real crimes (meaning articles can be written about crimes). A better resolution than deletion would also be to merge with the Aku Ankka article, where this can be mentioned at the end. — Cyborg Orangutan model-123 26 August 2005
  • Delete — Joonas 26 August 2005
  • Delete — Crash 26 August 2005
  • Merge to the Aku Ankka article. — iirolaiho 26 August 2005
  • Keep everyone (that I know) knows the paska ankka, see the comment by cyborg orangutan. — Hazjibab 26 August 2005
  • Delete Can only be merged to some article about Internet marginal culture — Ekeb 26 August 2005
  • Delete — ML 26 August 2005
  • Keep — Rdnk 26 August 2005
  • Delete Toilet humour does not belong in Wikipedia. — Evakonpoika 26 August 2005
  • Delete This is not in any way notable (even though I know the comic in question). Also the PA comics aren't even funny in any way. — PtG 26 August 2005
  • Delete. I agree with the previous comment. — Samulili 26 August 2005
  • Delete. — Vzb83 26 August 2005
  • Keep. I know the comics in question, and they are not my favourites, but this is no reason to delete. — SM 26 August 2005
  • Keep They are illegal and I don't like them, but we should have information about them. Provided that the text specifically mentions them as illegal. — xjaja 26 August 2005
  • Keep. — Neofelis Nebulosa 27 August 2005
  • Keep. Thus far many other net characters and phenomena have had their own articles, so why not this one too? — Saku 27 August 2005
  • Keep Even though the phenomenon in question is not noble in any way, that is no criterion to delete. Wikipedia also has detailed articles about torture, for example. It should be clear that torture is illegal and should be denounced. — Teveten 27 August 2005
  • Delete As a memory of the article's existence, the Aku Ankka article or the Disney article (or something) could be modified to add a mention about the parodies its popularity has brought. It doesn't need any more specific mentions. — Myrtti 28 August 2005
  • Merge to the Aku Ankka article. A better idea would be to make a separate article for parodies about Disney comics, which have been made quite a lot in different times. I don't think Paska Ankka is in any way especially notable or original in this field, and I don't think it needs its own article, but it could appear in a collective article. — Cuprum 28 August 2005
  • Keep. We have plenty of room. — Martti Koskinen 28 August 2005
  • Keep. I think Wikipedia can have a serious article about a non-serious comic. I don't think it's wrong to tell about the comic in question, even though it violates Disney's copyright. And there's plenty of room for articles in Wikipedia, even though we can't make much of a story about this. — Matikkapoika 28 August 2005
  • Keep Paska Ankka is an old enough joke to deserve a mention — Nimistömaakari 28 August 2005
  • Keep. We have heard about these earlier. — Velipuoli 28 August 2005
  • Keep. I remember the "good old" Paska Ankka, and who would not have seen a friend writing new manners and citations for Aku Ankka. Also Cyborg Orangutan model-123 had many good points in his comment. — Miihkali 29 August 2005
  • Delete - Does someone really have to make an article here about some toilet humour distributed on the net? Even if it was really famous in some circles? I would think that fame would be left somewhere in primary school... — Ningyou 29 August 2005
  • Keep'. — Trainthh 30 August 2005
  • Delete. An old and bad joke. Could be mentioned in one line in the Aku Ankka article. — Jokkex 30 August 2005
  • Delete. Not notable. A secondary vote: Merge. — Höyhens September 1 2005

[edit] Discussion

TeVe: I think the illegality of the article is a poor criterion for deletion. We have articles about criminals. — iirolaiho 26 August 2005

Do votes by trolls like Cyborg Orangutan with their nonsense explanations count? — ML 26 August 2005
Yes. Unfortunately. But what does it have to do with this? — iirolaiho 28 August 2005

There must be other underground comics like this? We could have a separate article for them, where we could collect them, this alone does not seem sensible. — Ekeb 26 August 2005

It is not sensible to allow an article for some stupid joke by a couple of kids, but when a couple of voters decided so, then reason can be silent... Uncyclopedia was created to parodise Wikipedia, but as we can see, Wikipedia is getting hard to parodise... :-) — ML 26 August 2005
And about that comment about "underground comics": this is not at all an UG or any other comic, but merely ready-made Aku Ankka comics with the speech bubbles changed. In other words, a bad joke made in fifteen minutes. This could be compared to spoof songs made over ready-made songs on the Internet, except that they have required a lot more work and also require a bit of skill. (I believe and hope, that the reason someone voted keep was misunderstanding the whole issue, probably again in vain... :-) — ML 26 August 2005
I agree that this does not belong here as its own article, but if we can find a place for it in some other article. It would be nice to hear a bit better explanations from the keep voters about why this should be kept as its own article? — Ekeb 26 August 2005
Explanations don't matter in these votes, only votes alone matter. I tried earlier to suggest that the policy be rationalised (for example, on the English Wikipedia, votes alone don't matter), but nothing much came out of that. — ML 26 August 2005

Many who voted keep have stuck up with the illegality. I agree it is not a criterion for deletion. I am merely pointing out that the original reason for deletion was that (I think) it's not notable enough. — Jniemenmaa 28 August 2005 "Our opinion is that parodies and fun can be made, and we can't (or shouldn't) forbid tastelessness from the world. On the other hand, we view that the Paska Ankka comics are not parodies, but instead blatant copies, which violate Disney's copyright: Paska Ankka has only changed the speech bubbles to more dirty speech, the pictures are intact, in some cases it's entire stories. This kind of borrowing does not fall under right to cite. Because of this, we have sought to negotiate with the ISP offering Paska Ankka to remove material violating Disney's copyright." The cite is from a discussion I had yesterday with the Aku Ankka staff. As far as I know, we don't even have to vote about articles violating copyright! — Evakonpoika 30 August 2005

But the Wikipedia servers don't have those copyright violating pictures! We only link to pages containing them. — Jniemenmaa 30 August 2005
To my additional question: "Did you know that this Wikipedia thing exists at all?" the staff answered: "Of course we knew! Or at least I know, because I have commented and edited both the Finnish and the English WIkipedia. I am on the Finnish Wikipedia IRC channel #fi.wikipedia.
Myself, I support free distribution of information and free encyclopedias from my heart - very good! And the other staff also sympathises and supports you, even though we are strict supporters of copyright." This was answered by the Net Duck Vesa Saarinen. With these lines, I wanted to prove that the Aku Ankka staff knows what Wikipedia is all about, and what the Paska Ankka article contains. — Evakonpoika 30 August 2005
    • Your point remains unclear. Do you mean that the Paska Ankka article, or only the links, should be removed as a copyright violation? The article itself, which only describes the phenomenon in question, does not violate Disney's copyright at all. The article only says that this phenomenon exists. Of course the links can be removed if necessary I suggest that the links be removed, as they link to illegal material. The article can otherwise be kept. The warez article does not violate software copyrights by describing the phenomenon. — Teveten 30 August 2005

Why did we again have a discussion about copyrights, when it was already mentioned that it was not the question, but instead the subject was not notable enough? This is a joke by some grade school children, that no one will remember after a year. — ML 30 August 2005