Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Jack
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, defaulting to keep. Seems there wasn't much new to add, so what we have here is a work by a notable author which may or may not itself be notable. I'm willing to buy the argument that non-online sources can be found; if that doesn't happen over the course of a few months, then the matter can be revisited. A merge is also a possible solution, but that could be discussed on the article's talk page. Shimeru 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Adventures of Captain Jack
Unsourced furry comic book stub that doesn't assert notability. The tone of the article is none too encyclopedic either. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N-K@ngiemeep! 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - on the assumption that anything published by Fantagraphics is pretty notable. Artw 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lack of sources trumps any 'inherent notability'-K@ngiemeep! 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Published by a reputable, widely distributed publisher makes the book itself a reliable source, when simply describing the contents of the book. Makes it difficult to write a decent article though because you can't make interpretive claims without additional sources like reviews. --W.marsh 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lack of sources trumps any 'inherent notability'-K@ngiemeep! 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless reliable secondary sources are added asserting notability. WP:BK says nothing about the notability of the publisher conferring automatic notability onto its books. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's not an individual book, it's a comic book series, one that was published by a major publisher and has since been collected in two trades, that to me says 'notable'.
-
- I Am Not A Furry so I don't really know the best place to find the best references, but googling comes up with sufficient hits that, considering this was first published in the pre- and proto-web days, it must have been some kind of a big deal to somebody. With sufficient research it could probably be improved with a whole slew of references, so possibly keeping it and adding the appropriate templates would be a better course than deleting it?
-
- Failing that merging and redirecting to Mike Kazaleh would be the best option. Artw 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for the reasons stated above, also because the author, Mike Kazaleh, has gone on to some notability as an animator, working for Bakshi, Kricfalusi...I'm tired of furry, too, but for me this qualifies as 'funny animal' Rhinoracer 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that we should keep an article of unverified information from unreliable sources-K@ngiemeep! 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I take it that you don;t consider the Furry chronology a solid reference? Artw 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's just a passing reference to the comic. It doesn't address the problem of the lack of multiple, non trivial sources. Still failing WP:RS, WP:ATT and some more WPs listed below-K@ngiemeep! 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I understand it multiple, non trivial sources is the ideal, not the baseline. Artw 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's just a passing reference to the comic. It doesn't address the problem of the lack of multiple, non trivial sources. Still failing WP:RS, WP:ATT and some more WPs listed below-K@ngiemeep! 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I take it that you don;t consider the Furry chronology a solid reference? Artw 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that we should keep an article of unverified information from unreliable sources-K@ngiemeep! 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Makes no assertion of WP:N and being published by a notable publisher does not confer notability - if it's worthy of an article then it should have some independent and verifiable claims of its own. Aticle is also devoid of reliable secondary sources per WP:ATT. Arkyan • (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless more reliable sources are added, then I may reconsider. Realkyhick 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm looking for any criticism of Captain Jack (without a lot of success beyond simple expressions of affection; Kazaleh has a lot of love from fans, but his simple style can be hard to do in-depth critiques on, & what there is on Captain Jack is almost certainly old & heavily preWeb) & found this in an Amazon testimonial from 1999:
- 'Not since "The Adventures Of Captain Jack," by MIKE KAZALEH went out of print have I read such an entertaining book.'
- High praise indeed, to be used as a comparison that way. Of course, it could be Mike or a friend just trying to hype his work, so I can't use that as a cite, but it struck me. Ventifax 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no such thing as "inherent notability" anywhere in policy. Article fails the attribution policy and doesn't prove notability with any reliable sources. NeoFreak 07:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- A merge into Mike Kazaleh might not be inappropriate, given the brevity of that article and the assumption that it is works like The Adventures of Captain Jack that give him the notability required for a personal article. This is not to suggest, however, that assumption is necessarily warranted, but deletion of Mike Kazaleh has not yet been proposed. Pop Secret 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Having done a little research on this subject I came up with a lot of luinks for Kazaleh, all indicating he's pretty notable in his field. A deletion attempt on his article would be insane. Artw 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Artw. Kalazeh would almost certainly survive an AfD, being the artist of Marvel's Ren and Stimpy comicbook series, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. per WP:BK and WP:ATT. --KZ Talk • Contribs 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE --Haemo
- Keep — sources have been added, meets WP:ATT and WP:NOTE —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- How does it meet notability (and WP:ATT) guidelines? We have a one line mention of it being "an important furry comic", and a catalogue list-K@ngiemeep! 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a great reference - you have to hunt around for it, and it's only one line, but it does show that Captain Jack is regarded as important by one of the leading experts on furry fandom (god I hate myself for knowing that now). Which pretty much confirms the information that googling has dug up in blogs, newgroups, the sites of comics vendors and other sources that don't make for good references. Given that this was published in 1986 finding the kind of online references to it that you'd get for it's modern day equivalent will alwyas be hard: I believe what is required is a subject matter expert to dig up refs in print form. Given that we've established that (1) it exists, and was indeed published by a major publisher,(2) it's still in print, (3) it's regarded as important by those that like that kind of thing I don't see the objection to it's continued existance in stub form, with the hope that such an expert will come along with the refs required for expansion. Artw 17:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fame and notability are different things. The lack of reliable information available about this comic seems to show that, despite being famous within the furry fandom, this isn't notable - and it really does look like this article won't go beyond a plot summary given what we have. Also, notability is not subjective-K@ngiemeep! 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- The ref doesn't say famous, it says influential. As for the paucity of online references, see above for why I belive that it isn't a sign of anything other than that finding wikipedia-acceptable references for indie comics pre-the interweb is really fucking hard. That we find anything at all is indicative of a high degree of notability for a comic of it's type (or would you argue that an equivalent comic from the present day is more notable because it has N-dozen potential references?) Artw 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- What you're suggesting here is that we keep this because it's harder to find sources for this? Notability isn't subjective, and thinking otherwise leads to unsourced articles such as this. If there aren't sufficient sources available to write an article, there shouldn't be an article, because otherwise it is gonna be unsourced, unverifiable OR, running afoul of several guidelines. And to your question, I'd say yes, because notability is determined by the amount of attention paid to a subject, and multiple reliable sources indicate that a subject is notable.-K@ngiemeep! 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not an unsourced article. This is an article that could do with better sources, and I would argue that he aboce should be taken into consideration when asessing the article. As for WP:OR, this article is nothing of the sort. You should maybe calm down a bit with your policy-cites, right now it looks like you're reaching for excuses to delete the article. Artw 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- What you're suggesting here is that we keep this because it's harder to find sources for this? Notability isn't subjective, and thinking otherwise leads to unsourced articles such as this. If there aren't sufficient sources available to write an article, there shouldn't be an article, because otherwise it is gonna be unsourced, unverifiable OR, running afoul of several guidelines. And to your question, I'd say yes, because notability is determined by the amount of attention paid to a subject, and multiple reliable sources indicate that a subject is notable.-K@ngiemeep! 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The ref doesn't say famous, it says influential. As for the paucity of online references, see above for why I belive that it isn't a sign of anything other than that finding wikipedia-acceptable references for indie comics pre-the interweb is really fucking hard. That we find anything at all is indicative of a high degree of notability for a comic of it's type (or would you argue that an equivalent comic from the present day is more notable because it has N-dozen potential references?) Artw 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fame and notability are different things. The lack of reliable information available about this comic seems to show that, despite being famous within the furry fandom, this isn't notable - and it really does look like this article won't go beyond a plot summary given what we have. Also, notability is not subjective-K@ngiemeep! 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a great reference - you have to hunt around for it, and it's only one line, but it does show that Captain Jack is regarded as important by one of the leading experts on furry fandom (god I hate myself for knowing that now). Which pretty much confirms the information that googling has dug up in blogs, newgroups, the sites of comics vendors and other sources that don't make for good references. Given that this was published in 1986 finding the kind of online references to it that you'd get for it's modern day equivalent will alwyas be hard: I believe what is required is a subject matter expert to dig up refs in print form. Given that we've established that (1) it exists, and was indeed published by a major publisher,(2) it's still in print, (3) it's regarded as important by those that like that kind of thing I don't see the objection to it's continued existance in stub form, with the hope that such an expert will come along with the refs required for expansion. Artw 17:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- How does it meet notability (and WP:ATT) guidelines? We have a one line mention of it being "an important furry comic", and a catalogue list-K@ngiemeep! 10:14, 6 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.
