User talk:ThW5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Franco-Belgian comics/Belgian comics/Flemish comics/...
Hello ThW5, I have created a temporary page here. to gather facts and content about Flemish comics that could be later on added in Franco-Belgian comics article as a new section. Feel free to add, reformat, rewrite, comment, ... Lvr 10:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Colonial Frisian?
How exactly would Kent count (how does this relate, in other words)?Myrtone
Well, I don't know. Try to google for "Frisians colonized Kent", about 450 AD. ThW5 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wendy Whitebread
I deleted this article because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Whitebread. There was consensus that the article did not meet our threshold for inclusion. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did not delete the article on my own opinion. I just carried out an AfD. If what you say is true, there will be significant coverage from reliable sources verifying those claims. Do you have any? seresin ( ¡? ) 17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus? A lack of well informed responses, rather.
Which claim?
http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue02/features/comics.htm (comment on the end of the page, this is the kind of use, which made me decide that Wikipedia should have a kids safe description, of the book).
http://www.forbisthemighty.com/acidlogic/comics_that_made_me.htm
Which is a good reason to restore it, is also that the full title is used for a fictional comic book in this book: http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/9781400066506.asp
Let alone the links in comic book articles linking to it.
- The only source that could possibly show notability is the second one. But it doesn't appear to be very reliable. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What more do you want? The book is a byword, it is generally used as something which is bad ThW5 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Descriptions are usually limited to "infamous". Look, do you know anything about adult comic books?
- The article needs to satisfy out notability criteria. Therefore, it must have been significantly discussed by reliable sources that are independant of the subject. And no, I do not. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Why should I bother with you then? I mean how does De Groene Amsterdammer answer that demand?ThW5 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Consensus??? There was just one reaction.
-
-
-
-
- OK, Amazing Heroes #198: "One of the most notorious titles of smut glut returns as the title heroine ofWendy Whitebread #2 becomes addicted to sex".
- In Comics, Comix & Graphic Novels A history of Comic Art, page 208: "The 1990's saw less of this extreme material, but a prallel descent into pure smut: Most noriously, the Eros line featured such titles as Wendy Whitebread (1991) and Time Wankers- which, frankly, need no further explanation."
- The most idiotic thing is that Wendy Whitebread is listed as a notable comic book title of the Eros line here on WIKIPEDIA 145.53.234.50 (talk) 145.53.234.50 (talk)ThW5 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
←Silence equals consensus. As for your sources, they don't significantly cover the novel, as best I can tell from what you provided. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- What novel are you talking about? Look, that kind of renarks give me the impression that you not only are unaware what we are talking about, but that you are also unable to understand this. Look I have put the information on Wikipedia, I don't care what languague it is in. However, Red links inidicate a in my book a wish for an article, which means that the Englisgh Wikipedia needs an article on Wendy Whitebread, perhaps not this one, I have no problem with that.
I am aware of that guideline, I however want to see whether that consensus is still present now--ThW5 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
