Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeph Jacques

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 of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeph Jacques[edit]

Delete non notable (google gives ~15,000 hits), non-encyclopedic facts (tattoos, purchase of pet rabbit), might be self-advertising (but can't tell for sure), mention of nn personal life (girlfriend). At the very least, merge a few lines into Questionable Content Tony Bruguier 14:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I still think it's non notable and that most web comics authors are not that well known. Per est, I think that the category might be need deletion too, as there's clearly a difference between Charles_M._Schulz and them... not that their work is of low quality, it isn't. It's not just that notable. Anyway, the cleanup makes it look like a serious article and not a personal page, thus the change to weak delete.

Comment. By that logic, we should delete most of the articles about the American Presidents from the 19th Century, since the majority of them aren't notable, compared to Bush, Clinton, Reagan and JFK. Then we should just go and delete all the articles about British PMs, since only a few of them are notable. Of course these Webcomic authors aren't as famous as Schulz, but name three non-webcomic authors who are? These guys may not be known far and wide in the real world, but they are on the internet, and thats a culture in itself.--Kross | Talk 19:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Questionable Content. The comic is notable; the creator is not notable on his own (no other works). --keepsleeping say what 16:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as per Keepsleeping. -- Plutor 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we delete him for being non-notable, then hell, lets just wipe out the entire Category:Webcomic authors.--Kross | Talk 04:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or send to Cleanup. My thoughts match those of Kross. I am not sure why Jacques' entry would be singled out of the Category:Webcomic authors category. Jacques draws both Questionable Content and Indietits, as well as contributing guest strips to other notable webcomics. If the cause of the deletion request is the non-encyclopedic facts the entry could always be sent to Cleanup.--est 06:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given recent cleanup. — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for further cleanup TastemyHouse 07:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. — Kjammer ⌂ 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kross. Decklin 23:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup/add to. I agree with Kross. Quentin mcalmott 06:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kross. Tedzsee 04:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean up for sure but removing it purely for the reasons shown isnt reason enough Arcon 14:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kross. Frenzberrie 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:Bunny 303.png|right|thumb|400px|Bunny № 303, lampooning the falsely reported death of Jeph Jacques on his Wikipedia page.]]

Keep = Important piece of Wikipedia history --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't keeping for that reason hinge on self-reference, though? — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:55, 1 November 2005 (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.