Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadkill Bill

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 No consensus. Waltontalk 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roadkill Bill

Roadkill Bill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm not sure this is notable. The main graphic in that page started showing up on talk pages after the Seigenthaler incident and I suspect this article was created after the fact to legitimize that image being uploaded. The cartoonist is also a member of Wikipedia, but was cautious to not create the page himself. I don't think it's anything sinister, but I doubt this article would exist if the cartoon wasn't posted around Wikipedia several months ago. Philwelch 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-- was published in The Pulse, a well-known Twin Cities mag.Rhinoracer 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with article for The Pulse, if The Pulse is notable, otherwise delete. Artw 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I advocate keep; I created the article because I like RKB, and because I think it is significant as one of the few examples of car-free advocacy to actually get published in mainstream sources. The cartoonist also gained some press coverage due to a political campaign in respect of a transport proposal in Minnesota. The strip is in there because it's GFDL'd, if Avidor would GFDL a non self-referential strip (especially the rusty muffler oracle) we'd use that I guess. Avidor has, I think, left the building, and I created it not Avidor. I first heard of RKB on the newsgroups (probably rec.bicycles.misc) about five years ago, I don't know of many other car-free movement cartoons which have been published. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. The lack of car-free advocacy in mainstream sources is not a reason to keep this - Wikipedia is not a soap box. The reliable source cited here is Pulse, which is a self described "locally grown alternative newspaper" and I don't see references to other local press coverage in the article. Also, RKB has not appeared in Pulse (or anywhere else, as far as I can tell) for several years. A cartoon that appeared for a few years in a community newspaper but hasn't been active for several years is not notable. ATren 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's hysterical. If Delete as Fancruft was ever enacted consistently on Wikipedia, about 75% of all articles would disappear. Wikipedia is famed for its fancruft and obsession with trivia. Why start now just because the cartoon satirizes Wikipedia and this is nothing more than a crude attempt at censorship? --86.131.90.154 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not an argument for keeping. Nothing hysterical here. -- Ekjon Lok 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You're kidding, right? "Censorship"? If you mean that in the counterintelligence sense, then that's hysterical. And I don't mean it caused me unrestrained laughter. Calling this AfD, "censorship" may be an autosuggestion that could be a sign that you suffer from a psychoneurotic disorder. It's unfortunate that the author chose an anti-Wikipedia strip to license to WP because it doesn't showcase the typical theme of RKB, AND it's not one of his particularly funny or insightful strips. RKB is just an example of a specialty comic about a fringe movement. I would never vote to delete anything just because it was critical of Wikipedia or because I dislike it. My vote is based on my belief that the article doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion, not because I dislike the cartoon. (Edit: which doesn't imply that I dislike the cartoon. It's just not a funny or insightful cartoon, but I do find it interesting to see how some minds work and the cartoon amounts to the author's mind poured onto paper.) --JJLatWiki 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not that this has anything to do with your content dispute with Avidor, of course, and the fact that he drew a cartoon lambasting your favourite subject. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't you debate the subject rather than attack me? This is no more notable than any community newspaper cartoon. The refs you provided are at best trivial mentions in fringe magazines. If this were somebody else's favorite cartoon you'd call it fancruft and mock its inclusion here - and you'd be right. ATren 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not my favourite cartoon, although to be fair I didn't exactly attack the creator on my blog like you did either. It's not notable as a community cartoon, it's notable as a car-free cartoon. There are rather fewer of those, at least fewer that I have seen. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And it's not my "favorite subject" (as you derisively called it above) so let's put the motive-bashing to bed, shall we? As for your notability argument - when the car-free movement is big enough to have a cartoon that runs in more than one community newspaper (and only for a few years at that) then that cartoon will have an article here. Anyone can pick the most notable cartoon (or whatever) supporting their cause and make this argument - it doesn't make it notable for inclusion as a separate article here. ATren 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The guidelines for notability specify "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent" of the subject. I don't think mere publication alone qualifies as "coverage", much less "significant". And I don't think the publisher qualifies as an "independent" source. It seems to me that the cartoonist is more notable than this cartoon. --JJLatWiki 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - sources adequately prove notability and encyclopedic worth. Oh, and I love the cartoon on wikipedia. It illustrates why stable versions is so important. WAS 4.250 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing inclusion criteria: no significant, non-trivial coverage in independent sources. None of the sources cited are actually about this comic (with the possible exception of "reviews", maybe, and even that would hardly qualify as significant coverage). WP:ILIKEIT not reason for keeping. -- Ekjon Lok 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep; Ken Avidor's RKB is listed in the Lambiek Comiclopedia[1]BillPrendergast 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)--BillPrendergast 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: (1) The Lambiek Comiclopedia is a registry of over 9000 cartoonists, and it appears that anybody may add their own bio/cartoon to the list, (2) BillPrendergast is a single purpose account with fewer than 100 edits, almost all on Michele Bachmann whom Ken Avidor has frequently accused of being anti-transit and pro-highway because of her support of Personal rapid transit over Light rail, (3) Bill is a co-contributor with Ken Avidor on an anti-Bachmann blog. ATren 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the Lambiek reference quoted above by BillPrendegast, [2], is just a small biographical info on Ken Avidor; the only mention of RKB is (I quote literally): "A year later, he started his comic 'Roadkill Bill' in the alternative weekly Pulse. In November 2001, the first 'Roadkill Bill' collection appeared at Car Busters Press." How is that non-trivial, significant coverage? -- Ekjon Lok 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: My belief based on the evidence I've seen is that ATren has been carrying on some kind of personal vendetta against the author of the comic strip for some time now and is trying to delete the Wikipedia article to further that object. I've some of the rather bitter correspondence between these two on the issue of transportation on another blog. And here we see ATren outraged in this discussion over the issue of his personal and political motives in calling for deletion; but he is quick to attribute me with same. The tone of this debate indicates that this has got little to do with the integrity of Wikipedia and a lot to do with ATren's personal animosities. Given the fact that the work was published in a reputable magazine, given the fact that it formed a part of the the debate on transportation and sprawl, given the fact that it was mentioned in a comics journal, the fact that the Wiki article was not a piece of self-promotion, and the fact that the topic of the comic is still of great interest in Minnesota--and given the fact that that the personal vendetta stuff is clearly a motive here--"Keep it"; Wikipedia is not supposed to exclude a topic because some people have personal or political problems with the topic's originator.--BillPrendergast 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of my ongoing debates with Ken Avidor, I stand by everything I've said here - that the cartoon is not notable and the sources are weak. The reason I voted is that I had this article on my watchlist (I've had it on my watchlist since the Great PRT Wars of 2006) and I happen to know something about this topic. I believe that the sources listed are mostly trivial - either the source itself is non-notable or the RKB mention is trivial (even non-existent, as someone else pointed out). It seems others agree with me here. As for my comments on you, Bill, it is common in deletion debates to identify votes that come from WP:SPA accounts who are associated with the subject of the article. Don't take it personally. ATren 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: My belief based on the evidence I've seen is that ATren has been carrying on some kind of personal vendetta against the author of the comic strip for some time now and is trying to delete the Wikipedia article to further that object. I must commend you on your powers of observation—it was I, not ATren, who listed the article for deletion. Please assume good faith. Philwelch 00:07, 1 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.