Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi (second nomination)

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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi

Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fancomic which fails WP:WEB as well as the general notability criteria. To be specific, the article provides no evidence that the comic:

  1. "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works."
  2. "has won a well known and independent award." — I do not believe the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is either "well known" or "independent" (since the awards are voted upon by webcomic artists).
  3. "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." — The comic is self-published.

Few other articles link to this article, which underscores this lack of notability.

Furthermore, the article lacks reliable sources for most of its content, meaning that the article is unverifiable. It seems to consist mostly of original research and other unencyclopedic content, such as character analyses and plot summaries.

This article was previously nominated for deletion on May 1, 2005; the result was no consensus. Since the closure of the debate, the article appears to have improved little in terms of encyclopedic content or sourcing. --Slowking Man 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about similar fan works created by the same author, and have the same lack of notability, verifiability, and encyclopedic content:

--Slowking Man 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Subjects have not gained wide notice, and we aren't (thankfully) a article repository for fanworks, of which the list is endless. Interrobamf 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the general precedent for not having articles on individual works of fan fiction, plus WP:WEB, WP:V, the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Though I edit one of those articles a lot, I can't find anything asserting its notability, and what goes for one would almost certainly apply to the rest. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi and Grim Tales from Down Below, Delete King of Fighters Doujinshi.
  1. "has won a well known and independent award." Whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is 'well known' is up for debate, but I'm pretty sure it's an 'independent' award. Just because other webcomic artists vote doesn't mean the awards are dependent, just as I would consider the Oscars an 'independent' award despite the fact that it is voted on by people in that industry.
  2. "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." The comic is published on Snafu Comics, which has a traffic rating of 12,440 from Alexa, which is owned by David Stanworth. Mr. Stanworth decided to host all of Bleedman's comics and is not directly related to Bleedman in anyway that I know of. They weren't buddies like Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston. Bleedman doesn't own the hosting or the domain. I think that makes Snafu Comics independent of Bleedman. I'm not sure whether it's well known but it does have an Alexa rating of 12,440.

I'm not sure how either comics violate WP:V as stated by Andrew Lenahan. It would seem to me the best source of material for an article about a comic would be the comic itself.

Ivvan Cain 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There's a big push on Wikipedia to have articles be verifiable using reliable sources. If an article's only sources are from the subject itself, that article is questionable and will probably be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So basically the push atleast for webcomics is to cite information from other people writing about the comic as oppose to the comic itself? That's hard for most webcomics to do. Ivvan Cain 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is why most webcomic articles are deleted. --RoninBKETC 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So under that one can could essentially delete all the "web comic" entries as they are all Self Published and the majority of the Source content comes from the Subject themselves. Heck why stop there Why not delete all of DC/Marvel/Archie/Dark Horse/etc's Individual Comic entries also they are Self-published with the majority of the Source info coming from themselves also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.196.224.71 (talk) 21:25, November 14, 2006 (UTC)
Except DC/Marvel/Archie/Dark Horse Comics and so forth meet criterion one, in that they have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Many of them would probably meet criterion 2 as well. Not to say that many of the comics articles could use some work, but there's little doubt about the notability of say, Superman. --Slowking Man 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're a little bit confused. Marvel (etc.) are not self-published, and there are plenty of reliable sources that cover them: Wizard, Comics Journal, Comics Buyer's Guide, and many others. I don't think trying to compare a powerpuff girls fan comic on the web with Batman and Spider-Man is really helping your case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that this isn't true (the self-publishing part and the sourcing part). There are plenty of webcomics that are not self-published, either in web form or in print, Megatokyo (Dark Horse Comics), American-Born Chinese (First Second Books in book form and Modern Tales in webcomic form), Chasing Rainbows (girlamatic), etc. There are also many webcomic articles which can be sourced from reliable sources; Megatokyo (New York Times) and American-Born Chinese (San Franscisco Chronicle, it was also nominated for a major literary award, no small feat) from above, American Elf (Boston Globe), The Perry Bible Fellowship (The Guardian). I don't want to disappoint you but webcomics are being covered by reliable sources. ColourBurst 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be helpful to elaborate upon why you think the article's subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --Slowking Man 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The comic's notable. Simple. You don't see it as popular (the dA pages, the Alexa traffic) then you're blind. Blacklist 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:SET#Bias in the Alexa test and WP:NPA. Thanks. GarrettTalk 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A) So... the page views could be LESS. That doesn't actually help your argument, it helps the fans. And B) People of Wikipedia need to grow a backbone and allow for some criticism here, ffs. Blacklist 05:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the entire 'Bias in the Alexa test'? It said that the webmaster can install the toolbar and visit the site themselves, INCREASING the pageviews. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly but Bleedman does average a lot of page views daily which cannot really be artificially inflated. http://bleedman.deviantart.com/stats/pageviews/ Almost 12k daily. Though to be honest this debate really isn't getting anywhere.
Ivvan Cain 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. GarrettTalk 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Snafu Comics per TBC's reasoning. Since they're hosted on that site. a mention in that article makes more sense. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought we already addressed it was notiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Retro7 (talk • contribs) 07:51, November 17, 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete derivative fancruft. It's not just the topic; it's the content -- with no possibility of improvement. John Reid ° 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not printed; on hiatus; fan fiction; only claims to notability are the Choice Awards. Kill this dead, but kindly. There are worse articles. --Gwern (contribs) 08:31 17 November 2006 (GMT) 08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- This web comic has won an award that's apparently notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Isn't that a notability criterion? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is notable. No one's ever challenged this, but I don't see how it meets WP:WEB. --Slowking Man 10:09, 19 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.