Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superdickery

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. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superdickery

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

Weak delete because it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Lots of google hits and while I haven't checked them all obviously the several dozen I did check appear to be somewhat trivial mentions on blog-like sites. WP:ILIKEIT but that's not reason enough for a keep. Otto4711 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Funny and a personal favorite, but not really notable. ShaleZero 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Context is important here. This site has been mentioned many times at Newsarama, a fairly important comic book oriented website; and has been the subject of comment at fark.com and (I don't have a cite) Wizard magazine, if I remember right. Any of these things ought to demonstrate sufficient notability in the context of a web site devoted to making fun of old comic book covers. -Smerdis of Tlön 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's been on Boingboing [1] [2]. It's become a meme with a sufficient fan base. samwaltz 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Love this site, but unless it has sources, can't go for the keep (note: sources do no good here. Add them into the article).--UsaSatsui 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Keep per Kendrick7, rewrite the article around the meme and use the site as a source. --UsaSatsui 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep though the focus should be changed from the site (which fails WP:WEB, though I've heard of it too) to the meme of Superdickery, i.e. that these [Comic book] covers [were] the result of a frequent Silver Age comic promotional tactic in which the front cover featured a scene so baffling and apparently nonsensical that readers would be compelled to buy the comic just for the explanation. That sounds like a fact which can be WP:RS'd, and is the real nut graf. That there is a site devoted to providing examples of this, and that the promotional tactic has been named after the site, is another issue. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I can agree with this. In fact, I'm changing my opinion. --UsaSatsui 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Quick question: If we re-write it based on the meme, is the meme "Superdickery", or is it "Superman is a Dick", which is currently a redirect? --UsaSatsui 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep it as "Superdickery", as it is easier to remember, and you don't have to worry about capitalisation, etc. I would probably recommend adding a few other redirects for "Superman is a jerk", "Superman is a Jerk", etc.samwaltz 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — notable meme as described above ➥the Epopt 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added two sources to the article: Coverage in the Edmonton Journal and The Irish Times. --Dragonfiend 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. JuJube 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. I belive the owner was interviewed in Maxim or somthing. Jack Cain 12:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Enough said Alyeska 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Srong Keep If Habbo can be on here, why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:26, 28 February 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.