Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Loves Crappy Movies

Add links
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 Delete. Taking the heavy meat weight into account, it's still 2-to-1 in favor of deletion with the 1 side having pretty poor arguments. "A college newspaper has published it a couple times" is pretty weak support for notability and I couldn't verify its truthfulness anyway. If better sources can be found, re-post. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Loves Crappy Movies

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

The artwork is good, but the comic fails WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is bogus in my opinion and shouldn't be a problem. All information deserves to be on Wikipedia and even if it does increase the traffic to Joe Loves Crappy Movies (that should be expected) its still as article worthy as most webcomics out there (see SLF's keep comment below). H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The comic is published in the Rutger University Newspaper as an indepent source. The creator was interviewed for Comixpedia and was reviewed by the people at Digital Strips. Also the comic is well known enough in the webcomics community to merit its inclusion in Wikiproject Webcomics. Previous Vanity issues seem to have been corrected by someone. SLF 14:53, 26 October 2006 — Stiff Little Fingers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Don't Delete - per Trevor - Joe Dunn rocks my feeble clerk world, and if you delete his Wikipedia page, then you support Jack Thomspon and all of his freedom of speech repressing actions. No one from the Digital Pimp Online site is affiliated with this Wiki page, and they are not self-promoting. This page was created by a fan who was kind enough to take the time to make it, and keep it updated. I know that, as another fan, I appreciate someone taking the time out to do that for Joe and the rest of the people who read his comics on a regular basis. Don't support Jack Thompson, and don't delete this Wiki page. 16:41, 26 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.60.32 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Also, it doesn't matter whether you agree with WP:WEB or not because it is an official guideline and the criteria for which web based articles have to meet to be considered notable. TJ Spyke 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject of article meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. It should also be noted that the article was created by the author of the webcomic which borders on flagarant self-promotion. JGardner 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can prove to you that Joe did not create this article. What the hell do you people want? We can change the article instead of deleting it but everyone here is simply just giving out a link as to what isn't being followed and hoping we know what they are talking about. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's the first version of the article created by the user Joe Dunn whose talk page has a biography of Joe Dunn and his webcomic. Regardless, it's not the article nor who wrote it that is the real issue -- it's the fact that "Joe Loves Crappy Movies" does not appear to be notable outside the webcomic community. The article needs to assert its notability per the guidelines in WP:WEB. JGardner 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per JGardner and WP:WEB the article now reflects and asserts its notability. The article should be kept as all matters for deletion have been resolved. If there are more reasons for deletion please post them specifically instead of a continued repeat of the original post and a link to WP:WEB. Listing just a policy is not considered a reason for deletion as listed in ILIKEIT - Just a Policy.SLF
As I posted before, the specific reason that I feel this article needs to be deleted is because it does not appear to be notable outside of the webcomic community. The recent edits concerning its notability do nothing to dissuade me from this opinion as, aside from a mention of being published "several times" in a college newspaper, they only assert its prominence from other webcomic sites such as Comixpedia and DigitalStrips.com. Has it ever been published in a national publication? Highlighted on CNN? The New York Times? USA Today? Fish and Stream magazine? To illustrate the importance of this, there is not a wikipedia article for every professional international chess player. There are articles on Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer, but not Alexander Riazantsev who may certainly be considered notable within the chess playing community, is certainly not internationally or even regionally notable. All I'm asking for is proof that Joe Loves Crappy Movies is more of a Kasparov than a Riazantsev JGardner 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While it's nice to see Support for Joe here, please limit all votes away from just being a fan. These votes need to give a reason and cite Wikipedia policy as to why the page should me kept or removed. Please do not post personal agendas or opinions. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If it were a book of chracters, would there be deletion? If it were Leonard Maltin, would it be deleted? JLCM provides not only entertainment but reviews of current movies with periodic departures into past themed topics aka the 10 on the 10th. The stub doesn't rave about how good this site is - only that such a site exists. Already, there is precedent set by other Wiki entries on traditional comics like Peanuts, and webcomics (Sluggy Freelance for instance). Why single out THIS one for deletion? Oct 27 2006 - long time user of Wiki — 68.147.63.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Ah, but Leonard Maltin and Peanuts have had multiple, non-trival third party references, as per our policy. Incidentally, this article wasn't "singled out"--there are about a hundred and thirty articles nominated for deletion every single day. This one was the fifty-first article to be nominated yesterday. ergot 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep*- While saying that something is "only big in the webcomics community" MIGHT mean that it has little "relevance" outside of that community we should be aware of how large of a community webcomics attract. With certain sites getting thousands (If not tens of thousands) of hits everyday how can we say that they're "not notable enough"? — 72.128.31.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep*JLCM provides well thought out reviews and funny cartoons to go along with them. The idea of note worthiness is interesting and valid to keep Joe User's Homepage from being on WP. However, Joe Dunn is an established web cartoonist, with lots of support from his fan base. If a community is willing to come to the support of JLCM, then isn't that an indication that its worth keeping?72.128.31.117Prodigal72.128.31.117
  • Keep - The article itself may need to be amended to show that it does qualify for inclusion under WP:WEB (As JLF has already demonstrated), but that can be addressed easily. Just because one person thinks it "not notable" does not mean it is so. I see absolutely no reason for deletion and I hope the issue will be resolved soon.Bosque 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Bosque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep*- It's a great webcomic for the public, and Wikipedia is public. I don't really see the problem with keeping JLCM on here; as noted before it's not hurting anyone. Seriously though if this is an encyclopedia shoulden't it include all things?70.110.15.46 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Klied — 70.110.15.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. Anomo 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This isn't self-promotion, JLCM is an established webcomic with a large internet following. It's had regular updates for 2 years, and Joe Dunn has collaberated with many other authors in the past. Also, as the article states, it's been published in a paper. All together it meets the notability requirements. — 130.207.225.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I think it's notable enough. Every Furry webcomic in existence seems to have an article, so I don't see why we would delete this one. It doesn't need to make national news to warrant an article.--Agent Aquamarine 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based on the list at WP:WEBCOMIC, one would hope an article on this comic would be able to remain. JPG-GR 07:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a cite that it is well-known amongst people in the motion picture industry? My only qualm with this article is that, although nearly a dozen people have posted "keep" insisting that it is notable, no one seems to provide any evidence that Joe Loves Crappy Movies notability transcends the webcomic community as per the criteria listed in WP:WEB. Give me some evidence that one of the criterion listed there has been met and I'll switch my suggestion to Keep. The fact that other articles exist for webcomics that do not seem notable is not an argument for keeping this one; it's only an argument that there exist other candidates for deletion. JGardner 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per SLF early on, it was established that it's reprinted/distributed in a source independent of its creator. That meets WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break to keep editing easier for everybody

[edit]
  • Weak keep. This one is a tough call, for me, but I'm thinking we may as well err on the side of caution. As SLF and badlydrawnjeff mentioned, this has been published in the Rutgers paper. The comic's managed to do okay at topwebcomics.com, so it must have a decent-sized following. It is lacking a bit in reliable sources, but in my opinion we're seriously lacking guidelines/precedents when it comes to webcomic deletion. Luna Santin 12:44, 5 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Loves_Crappy_Movies&oldid=1082403752"