Talk:Jeremy Nell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] 401 error
The trashmedia.co.za domain gives me a 401 error for all urls. 41.208.236.192 (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article cleaned up
Since this article has been deemed fit to stay on Wikipedia, I've cleaned it up, removing unverified claims, and adding more references. Crowlike (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Section header
This article has had a couple of citations included, and seems to be balanced and accurate enough to warrant the removal of the tagged notice.
Crowlike 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was created by Jeremy Nell himself and he is the most frequent editor. He is still a rather obscure personality in South Africa. I don't think that he is well known enough to have an article about him on wikipedia, and if he hadn't created it itself, he would not have one. rrcatto (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this flagged for deletion? Simply because the user above made a wishy-washy claim with absolutely no supporting evidence other than anecdotal opinion? Even the line "I don't think..." is enough to reveal the absurdity. Jeremy is definitely a recognised cartoonist in South Africa. Crowlike (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's clear from a review of the contributions, that all the articles created by Crowlike were designed to promote Jeremy Nell and his interests. Please see: Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments. Quoted from there:
Notability is sometimes related to conflict of interest or self-promotion. Wikipedia should not contain any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.
rrcatto (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your reasons are not good enough, you seem like you have an axe to grind, and your evidence for your claims is too weak. Any article about an individual could therefore be seen as being designed to promote his or her interests. Crowlike (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a follower of Jeremy Nell's Blog and can confirm that Richard Catto has a personal issue against him, please refrain from taking his point of view seriously. I don't think there should be an issue with Jeremy Nell being on WIKI. He is REALLY a cartoonist who is building up a credible career in both humour and political cartooning, that is published in national newspapers. Richard Catto is the proud owner of a blog that lists advertising as blog entries. Please disregard his tainted rantings.Redhed79 (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Most biographies on WP are not autobiographies, something that WP advises strongly against. Redhead79, you are an outsider and therefore you ought to refrain from debating an article deletion. By outsider, I mean that you have made no contributions to WP. You are here to support your friend (Nell) and are doing that by making personal attacks against me (another thing which is not wanted on WP). rrcatto (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Anybody is allowed to partake in this discussion. Your case against Nell is weak. Crowlike (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see: WP:DP. Quoted from there:
It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion in order to sway its outcome.
I don't believe that Jeremy Nell can be considered a notable cartoonist until he has had a book of his cartoons published. He is still struggling to establish himself, and he is employing self promotion as a means to that end. This is a case of the tail trying to wag the dog. By that I mean that WP should be used to describe individuals who have already become known not used as mechanism to achieve fame. rrcatto (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's your belief, and that's all it is. A cartoonist, or writer, doesn't need to have a published book in order to be established and widely known. Nell is indeed established, as can be observed. Please prove that he isn't. Crowlike (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've looked for information published in reliable sources about Jeremy Nell but have not found any. This article is mostly original research with no cites to back up its claims. rrcatto (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you define as a "reliable" source doesn't matter, because Nell is indeed a recognised cartoonist in South Africa, as the numerous publications that his daily comics appear in, suggest (including one of South Africa's largest daily newspapers, The Times). You don't seem to have a balanced opinion, and as such, your seemingly anti-Nell bias needs to be visited. Crowlike (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there any newspaper articles about Nell? Zapiro, for instance, is written about. Nell has not made the news in the mainstream media. rrcatto (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia staff need to note the obvious underlying agenda that rrcatto has against Nell. Crowlike (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My agenda is transparent. I believe that a relatively obscure South African cartoonist is using WP to promote himself and his interests by creating articles which contain original research. I feel that it is impossible to remedy the problems and therefore the articles should be removed. Please also note the following:
"Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." - WP:AFD
You have yet to disclose your interest in these articles. rrcatto (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
