Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Pussy (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 Keep ~ Anthony 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Pussy

Purple Pussy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This webcomic's article was originally deleted at AfD in January. Since that time, the comic's writer has been accused of plagiarism. DRV believes (narrowly) that this new development warrants re-examination of the notability of the comic. Please consult the DRV for sources on the new information. This is a procedural re-listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per all the information on the plagiarism located here. The sheer amount of attention this recieved from notable webcomic artists probably would have qualified this without the media attention it recieved on top of everything. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now, but suggest re-visiting this in say 6 months to see whether the news-story aspect ever gets anywhere. That said, I wouldn't oppose a Merge into Shmorky's article, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to comment that the statement above, "the comic's writer has been accused of plagiarism.", is inaccurate; the big fuss is over the comic's writer (Dave Kelly) claiming and being claimed to be the victim of plagiarism (on the part of Todd Goldman), not that Kelly was "accused of plagiarism" himself. 67.158.77.171 03:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per previous AfD. Still no decent sources about the comic. The only new information is adequately covered at Todd_Goldman#Dave_.22Shmorky.22_Kelly. Maybe it's worth a redirect there. --Dragonfiend 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Nevermind consideration of a redirect to the Goldman article. The plagiarism allegations have been removed by the Wikimedia Foundation Office. [1] --Dragonfiend 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Epameinondas 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: The comic is clearly notable, being a Keenspot comic means that it meets the third requirement in WP:WEB; only one of the three is needed. And this is fiction; and many pages on books do not cite sources for the content that can be gathered by reading the book; and there are many, many people that are commenting on the matter. If you want more links to people commenting on this, I would be more then happy to do so. (Justyn 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC))
  • STRONG KEEP: This comic has influenced a great many comic authors, as many of them have said on their blog pages in recent weeks due to the plagarisim issue. I think that shows this is an important comic for the genre, and the article should be kept. Timmccloud 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: I've followed Dave Kelly for a while. He has always stuck me as more notable than any one of his works taken individually. Even without the (rather notable) current events, I'd suggest restoring Dave Kelly (artist) and merging information about his various projects into it. For more information, we can provide links to Comixpedia:Purple Pussy, Comixpedia:Lizard!, Comixpedia:Living in Greytown or wherever. –Gunslinger47 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Justyn. Publication by Keenspot satisfies WP:WEB. -- Ben 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keenspot publishing was discussed in the previous AfD. The question we're here to discuss is whether "this new [accusations of plagiarism] development warrants re-examination of the notability of the comic." Since, the current chair of the board of Wikimedia Foundation User:Anthere has removed the accusations of plagiarism from another article "following a legal request,"[2] I'd strongly adviseagainst using the same poorly sourced, potentially defamatory accusations of plagiarism as some strange examples of the "notability" of this webcomic. --Dragonfiend 06:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". Wikipedia is not censored. A person's lawyer asking for information to be removed from Wikipedia for the sole reason that it makes his client look bad (dispite that fact that the information is only saying that he was accused of doing something, not weither or not he actually did commit said accusations) fits the definition of censorship to me. (Justyn 22:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
    • Comment: [3] was hardly poorly sourced. All it did was state was Goldman was accused of plagiarism, which is very well cited and hardly contestable. Just because his attorney has bullied some people doesn't change the facts he's been accused of plagiarism a few times, and is a defendant in a lawsuit. Boxjam 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Purple Pussy has now been mentioned in two secondary sources: the Las Vegas Sun and Juxtapoz, though the latter is now offline only. This satisfies the requirement for several news sources to cover a comic and makes it notable. GarryKosmos 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: How does any of this plagiarism nonsense relate directly to Purple Pussy (in other words, how does it help us build a better article)? Nifboy 03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It proves notability to the people who like to go around deleting stuff for kicks. The article being around at all would is much better then no article at all, right? (Justyn 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
    • The plagiarism demonstrated the notability of the topic. If Purple Pussy was not notable, no one would have noticed the plagiarism. The fact that it was noticed and received such an overwhelming response from the webcomic and art community (and, in turn, caused at least two reliable sources to cover the event) proves the comic notable on a level necessary to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. GarryKosmos 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Some perspective: I get about 131 hits on google news for "Jeffrey Zaslow" "plagiarism"[4] and only 1 for "Purple Pussy" "plagiarism".[5] --Dragonfiend 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Do it on Google and you get nearly 1000 hits. [6] Of course, Google hits (or lack thereof) alone matters little, since there are two reliable sources that mentioned the comic (three now, counting the one you just found), satisfying WP:WEB. GarryKosmos 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Why would I do a search on Google rather than Google News if I were looking for reliable news reports on a current event? Cearly Jeffrey Zaslow being plagiarised has recieved much more reputable news coverage, but I don't see how his or anyoen else's being allegedly plagiarised is a notable achievement for them. I can see how a notable artist being a plagiarist is worth noting, but not how the random webcomic artist he may have plagiarised is. If an artist's career highpoint is that they may have been plagiarised, that doesn't sound like it's worth an article. --Dragonfiend 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • The "may have been" is incorrect; Goldman admitted that he copied Kelly, so the matter is not in dispute by either party (only the intent behind the act remains questionable). The Jimbo quotes that decorate your user page say it all: Wiki should have articles that are based on verifiable, reliable sources. This comic has 3 so far from this incident alone. There's also the other factors that go towards keeping the article beyond just the plagiarism that were brought up in the last AfD. By themselves, they were not enough to prevent deletion; but those, plus this new material, makes it notable by all relevant Wiki policies. GarryKosmos 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There are accusations that Goldman plagiarized a lot of different sources. So why is Purple Pussy the one that we're hearing all the fuss about, at much greater volume than any of the other accusations? I submit that it's because Purple Pussy is notable, whereas the other alleged victims are less so. 67.158.73.188 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd submit it's because your sources are limited to those that get "fussy" about non-notable webcomics rather than other topics; myself, I hear about plenty of other non-notable topics at a much greater volume than this. --Dragonfiend 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • And how is it non-notable when it's "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works?" It sounds like you disagree with WP:WEB's notability standards, so you should take the conversation there rather than dispute policy in an AfD. Until WP:WEB is changed, multiple published works means notability, so Purple Pussy is a notable webcomic. All that's left to decide is if it's notable enough to get an article. But calling it non-notable is a clear misnomer. GarryKosmos 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Notable because of both Keenspot placement and Todd Goldman controversy. Xmoogle 11:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: there is no reason whatosever to delete this article. None. Applemask 00:21, 24 April 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.