Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Wings (comic)

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Wings (comic)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A7, no assertation of notability as a webcomic, also suspecting COI given that the article creator's name is similar to one of the writers'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to have a notabilty as a webcomic to be on Wikipedia? The comic is published in over a dozen magazines in seven languages around the world and sold thousands of books. The website has thousands of daily visitors. Where do you draw the line for "notability"? I am one of the authors of the comic, but I fail to see the COI. IMO the article is quite objective.--Stefthechef (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources. I could find nothing verifying that the webcomic is published in magazines. Searching "Chicken Wings" + "Webcomic" found only blog posts, forums and Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, if you search for "webcomic" you won't find the magazines, and secondly, the comic strips are in the printed versions only, not on their websites, of course. Except Trade A Plane, who keeps an archive of the recent strips on their site (http://www.trade-a-plane.com/cartoons/chickenwings). I can scan some pages and upload them somehwere, but a) I don't know where I would have to upload them to and b) I'll have to do that tomorrow, because I'll go to bed now.--Stefthechef (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't count. That's primary sources. You need a secondary source — i.e., someone who does not publish the strip but has written about it in a magazine, newspaper, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I believe I've heard of this webcomic, so it's not like it's a complete unknown, but the clincher here is that it just doesn't have enough reliable sources to show that it's notable. There's one on the article, but I've found that you generally need about 2-3 to show that there's been a lot of coverage. I found a few mention in some blogs and small magazines, but I don't really see where they'd pass as reliable sources and in the end that's what really is needed to show notability and to back up the claims of the strip being published in different languages and magazines. I know that being reprinted can help pass WP:WEB, but we need wider proof of this other than via primary sources. I'm also not sure that being reprinted via small magazines and websites is what they mean by being reprinted. I have no problem with this being userfied until more reliable sources can be found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This comic is one of the most famous published on aviation magazines worldwide: I already added some references of publications, will add more if i find. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this even being considered ?! Seriously, Wikipedia guys, there actually are some useless articles which are not marked for deletion, also Wiki should be used for gaining and sharing knowledge, not deleting it.--JeanCaffou (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any valid reason to delete it? I don't think so.--Fede0411 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Fede0411 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Would this count as 'independent sources to establish notability? http://www.alabamaaviator.com/news.asp?record_no=22887 and http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1303281451001 The EAA page specifically says 'Chicken Wings' is published in "various publications, including EAA's Sport Aviation magazine" Professional Helicopter Pilots Association: http://www.phpa.org/chickenwings/ Published books available for sale on Aircraft Spruce: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/ps/gifts_comics.html and also as an app in the iTunes store. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Wings-First-Michael-Strasser/dp/0741427184 Bradc314 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Bradc314 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are kind of on the fence, but FOR GOD'S SAKE YOU CAN'T USE A FORUM POST. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We’re not that big among “normal” Comics and Webcomics and we’re certainly not Dilbert or Garfield. But in our niche (comics about aviation) we’re number one. I’m not saying we’re famous, but I dare say we’re “notable”.

I don’t understand why the very publications that publish our works are not proof of our proliferation. We’re a gimmick for their readers. Do you expect third-party newspapers and magazines to write lauding articles about features in competing magazines?

Also, why is the fact that a source is secondary so important? Say I write a commentary, article or op-ed that gets published in the Washington Post. According to your definition, that is not a trustworthy source about my writing. If a local newspaper editor writes about my piece that he read, it is a secondary source and therefore more trustworthy and should be quoted as a source instead?

And why is a link relevant for a source to be accurate? Is everything that you can't find in a quick Google search invalid as a source? How about other printed publications? They are used frequently as a reference in Wikipedia, and if you want to verify or falsify that reference, you will have to pick up a physical copy and check. Same here, I challenge you to falsify any information that I provide by actually picking up an issue of Trade-A-Plane or Sport Aviation Magazine (or whatever) and looking at it. You can also contact their editors. Here is a list of magazines that you could use to check:

Sport Aviation Magazine (US): http://www.eaa.org/sportaviationmag/ This one gets mailed to all 160.000+ EAA members

Trade A Plane (US): http://www.trade-a-plane.com Circulation: Over 120.000 copies in over 100 countries

Atlantic Flyer(US): http://aflyer.com/ (couldn’t find media data)

Fliegermagazin (Germany): http://www.fliegermagazin.de Circulation: 31.720

Aeromarkt (Germany): http://www.aeromarkt.net Circulation: ca. 30.000

Roger (Germany): http://www.rogermagazin.de Circulation: 3.000

Pilot Magazine (UK): http://www.pilotweb.aero Circulation: ca. 15.000

JP4 (Italy): http://www.ediservice.it/riviste/index.php?rivista=3 (couldn’t find media data)

Volez! (France): http://www.volez.com/page-1-le_magazine.html (couldn’t find media data)

Cockpit (Switzerland): http://cockpit.aero/ Circulation: ca. 5.000

Siivet (Finland): http://www.apali.fi/siivet/ (couldn’t find media data)

Flynytt (Norway): http://www.flynytt.no/ Circulation: 6.800

There are many more features, some irregular and obscure, some so small not worth mentioning, like local newsletters. Here’s just an incomplete list of bigger magazines that featured our strips in the past and have either ceased publication or discontinued cooperation:

Rotorblatt (Germany) http://www.rotorblatt.de

America’s Flyways (US, ceased publication)

Pilot Shop News (US, ceased publication)

Avion (US)

Take-Off (Portugal, ceased publication)

Asian Aviation (Singapore) http://www.asianaviation.com

Aerosvijet (Croatia) http://www.aerosvijet.com

SA Flyer (South Africa) http://www.saflyermag.co.za

Also, we have sold thousands of books. Some examples where you can get them (I haven’t had the time to search for all the places and ommited wholesalers, Amazon, those without a webshop and those where there is no direct link, but I hope you get the picture):

http://www.shopeaa.com/publications_fiction.aspx

http://www.pilotstore.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2110&DEPARTMENT_ID=55

http://thehangar.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=10_268

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/bv/books_comics.html

http://www.flightstore.co.uk/books/use/brand.CWINGS

http://www.afeonline.com/shop/index.php?cPath=38_163

http://skyfox.de/index.php?cat=c147_Humor-Humor.html

http://www.watschinger.at/pilotstore/de/Literatur/Cartoons-Unterhaltung.html

http://www.flyby.pt/index.php?cPath=46_80_94

http://www.friebe.aero/LuftfahrtLiteratur,_Kalender/3,2,26,95,0,0,0,1.html

http://www.boutique.aero/article.aero?id=5972

http://www.siebert.aero/Katalog/Karten-Medien/Allgemeine-Literatur-Dokumentationen-Poster/Humor

http://www.eisenschmidt.de/index.php?cPath=60_67

http://www.aeroware.de/product_info.php?info=p5471_CHICKEN-WINGS-2---FULL-THROTTLE.html

http://www.shop4pilots.com/BUeCHER---KALENDER/Satire---Comics/

http://www.aviationmegastore.com/aviation-humorcomics/cat/?shopid=LM4f6b73c5c620064a7799a99461&parent_id=11

http://pilotshop.nl/contents/en-uk/d56.html#p1161

Last, but not least, for what it’s worth: Our website has an Alexa Rating of around 800,000, Google Page Rank of 4, and over 5.500 daily visitors.--Stefthechef (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're kidding, right? I have 3 books of their comics in front of me now. Want me to upload photos? How about we find a stack of magazines this comic appears in & upload photos. All this plus references to their site online from sites such as FlightTime Radio and more (just Google link:chickenwingscomics.com). Falcon124 (Take that runway, and that, and that...) (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that kind of thing. We know the comic exists, but what we need are secondary sources. I.E., not the comic itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully the list Stefan uploaded below is sufficient to demonstrate secondary sources as they're definitely talking about the comic & the guys :) 118.209.29.158 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up the articles about us. A few were already mentioned, and I’ve scanned and uploaded a couple more. There are more our there, but I can’t remember them all and/or don’t have physical copies available.

EAA Timeless Voices with Michael Strasser - November 2011 http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1303281451001

“On Board” interview with Stefan Strasser - Issue 6/2011 http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/aua-onboard.jpg (in German)

fliegerweb.com: Chicken Wings, der Comic für Flieger http://www.fliegerweb.com/airliner/news/artikel.php?show=news-6541

Flighttime Radio - January 1st, 2011, Show 155 http://www.flighttimeradio.com/Pods.xml or here: http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/Flighttime-Radio-Show-155.mp3

Autopilot Magazine - August 2010 Online article: http://autopilotmagazine.com/displayArticle.php?refKey=article1295559754 PDF version: http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/misc/Autopilot-Magazine-Aug-2010.pdf

ViA Airport Journal Graz - Issue 2/2008 http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/via-airportjournal.jpg (in German)

Review of one of our books on Avweb.com: http://www.avweb.com/whatsnew/06-02.html --Stefthechef (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a well written article with more than adequate sourcing. Plus, it is a well known comic within the aviation community. I see no reason for it to be deleted. Braniff747SP (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm one of the reader of this webcomic. Apart from the Internet, I know it's mainly printed in aviation magazines, just because it deals with aviation stuff (FAA rules, cliches about the pilots,...). I know Chicken Wings because I'm fond of planes. I also read Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic -which talks about gaming- because I'm a gamer. Why should we keep Ctlr+Alt+Del and delete Chicken Wings ? Because there are more gamers than pilots on Earth ? --Flappiefh (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Chicken Wings serves a very clearly defined audience - I can't think of another aviation-themed webcomic. (And it's funny!) Alice Stewart (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's a policy-based reason to keep how? Don't get me wrong, I'd really like to see this article kept, but we need verifiable, reliable sources, that are not the comic and related media themselves, to establish that this is notable enough to be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.