Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life on Forbez
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 of the debate was no consensus (default keep) (6d, 4k), with one keep vote discounted (anon vote).--Scimitar parley 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Life on Forbez[edit]
Non notable keenspace comic, found here. Is there any sort of notability? Apart from some comments on webcomic toplists linked from the article, I can find none. I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure. Google search seems to throw up a lot of random webcomic crosslinking places, and nothing else. - Hahnchen 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where to begin?
- No reason for deletion stated
- Deletionist did not even bother to open this discussion
- Deletionist did not even state identity here, it was User:Hahnchen
- Deletionist is a known mass submitter for deletions [1]
- Deletionist failed to follow Wikipedia Guide to Deletion
All in all I propse the following:
- Speedily remove deletion tag
- Speedily remove User:Hahnchen
Note that format for article is closely based on that of Count Your Sheep. Thus:
- STRONG KEEP 85.164.86.246 18:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag was added at 16:23, 22 October 2005, and I opened this page myself at 18:28, 22 October 2005. That is a period of more than 2 hours. 85.164.86.246 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Yes, it was a long time before it was completed, I was busy with other nominations and other non-wikipedia stuff. But you checked my contribs, so you should have known that I knew about the afd process. To be honest, I wasn't that bothered about someone creating the page, but was bothered over what you had to say about it. ie speedily remove the tage, and to evict me from the wikipedia house. Normally, if you find a broken afd listing, it's better complete the nomination, and then to put your argument rather than just posting some rash statements. - Hahnchen 13:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag was added at 16:23, 22 October 2005, and I opened this page myself at 18:28, 22 October 2005. That is a period of more than 2 hours. 85.164.86.246 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hahnchen has complied now I think, and the critic was also unregistered. --MacRusgail 19:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you wish to delete this article? Factitious 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How has he complied? He even fails to note that this article was initially created by following the existing edit link on Graphic Smash. Stating I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure shows he has not even bothered to read the Wikipedia article on Graphic Smash. He asks for notability without even checking the links in the article under the heading Awards. The reason Google does not show up much is that the web comics has moved home several times and also been a subscription comics in the past, thus less coverage. This is not impressive. Moreover I cannot see being unregistered is a disqualification anywhere. Can you? 85.164.86.246 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - One of the main reasons for nominating it for deletion was the fact that I DID check the external links in the "awards" section. They're not awards, they're forum posts on webcomic toplists. Every webcomic ever has that. I'm also against the, "once appeared on some network = notability" stance. It's like giving every band who has ever been signed by the most minor of labels an article. - Hahnchen 13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some people may be inclined to discredit an unregistered user in an AfD vote. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - One of the main reasons for nominating it for deletion was the fact that I DID check the external links in the "awards" section. They're not awards, they're forum posts on webcomic toplists. Every webcomic ever has that. I'm also against the, "once appeared on some network = notability" stance. It's like giving every band who has ever been signed by the most minor of labels an article. - Hahnchen 13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A handful of comments on two different web-based forums hardly qualifies as reliable sources when trying to show that this is something more than just another webcomic with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NN web-comic. It's a shame these getted added as they're obviously close to people's hearts and it often offends when we have to delete. Marskell 09:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This comic is sufficiently established. Though the author moved it to his own site fairly recently, it was on Modern Tales. I agree Hahnchen was overzealous on this particular nomination. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like some comics on Modern Tales would be notable, and others wouldn't. Without consensus-approved guidelines designed to address such things without half an hour of research for each AfD, I don't think we can take its presence there as evidence. -- SCZenz 22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted. My vote remains unchanged and I still believe Hahnchen made a mistake on this one. I'm not fond of the deletionist attention webcomics have received lately, but this one strikes me as an error as opposed to a philosophical difference. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like some comics on Modern Tales would be notable, and others wouldn't. Without consensus-approved guidelines designed to address such things without half an hour of research for each AfD, I don't think we can take its presence there as evidence. -- SCZenz 22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - comics associated with Modern Tales and other professional webcomics syndicates are notable. The closing admin should also see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate. Snowspinner 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Modern Tales really 100% professional? I see it has some free comics and some subscription comics, so it's hard to tell. That's why I think we should spell such things out in the guidelines--but we have to agree on them to use them. We shouldn't have to be experts to see that a comic is notable; this should be spelled out in the article. Incidentally, you might look at Wikipedia:No original research#The role of expert editors for Wikipedia policy on what expertise counts for; the answer is not a whole lot, unless reputable sources are cited. This is sometimes time-consuming (something I've experienced plenty on physics articles), but it makes the encyclopedia better. -- SCZenz 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would not pretend that my say-so should be taken as a valid source for content addition - but deletion debates are a different matter - subject experts ought be taken seriously when asserting notability of a subject, I would think. And yes, Modern Tales is a professional site - it is Joey Manley's business. A given MT artist may have other jobs, but MT in general is a professional operation, the contents of which are notable. Snowspinner 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The site as a whole may be professional, but I would still want more information about the particular artist. It also depends on how many comics are on the site, and what its criteria are for inclusion. I don't know that within an AfD is the appropriate place to discuss such questions in detail—rather, the ongoing work at WP:COMIC is. Regarding expertise and deletion, if someone was deleting a physics article, I would put up a couple of links to places the concept was discussed in peer-reviewed journals. I realize that Modern Tales may be nearly the closest thing that exists to a peer-reviewed journal in webcomics, but I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source in the same way under Wikipedia rules. -- SCZenz 23:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to have the discussion on WP:COMIC, fine, but it seems absurd to declare that notability issues that haven't been settled there are somehow invalid to discuss here - the article is up for deletion now. Do you propose to table the discussion until we have inclusion guidelines? As for Modern Tales, they are selected based on their merits by the editor of the particular site - in the case of Graphic Smash, that's T Campbell. Snowspinner 23:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point is well taken. So why did this comic move? It seems to have moved from a hosting service that might very well have made it notable, to one that doesn't (unless it's in the top 25). Where we should consider it as being from depends on why it moved, how long it had been there, etc.--so what's the story? -- SCZenz 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure yet - it's something I'm looking into. But I'd like to err on the side of caution here. My guess, though I'm not certain, is that erratic updating made it unsuitable for a professional operation like Graphic Smash. I don't know of any other cases of strips going down from notable syndicate to Keenspace offhand, which is itself kind of notable. Snowspinner 23:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While most comics on Modern Tales are notable, I don't think the least read comic on Modern Tales is automatically notable. Same goes for a comic that may have experienced 15 seconds of fame with a brief association with the Graphic Smash site. Is every failed sitcom pilot notable? Is a band automatically notable if they sign to a major label but then their album tanks? My vote remains "delete." Dragonfiend 23:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think few would object to an article on every television series to have aired on network television, considering that WP:NOT explicitly advocates articles on every individual episode of some of them. Snowspinner 23:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my vote will have to remain as is, at least if you're right about the unsuitability due to updating irregularities; that would undermine the whole reason that Modern Tales would be a standard of notability in the first place. -- SCZenz 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to say that my feelings on webcomic syndication and notability are already covered in WP:COMIC. I'm against the any membership to a syndicate = notability guideline as suggested. It would be the same as saying any signed band to the most minor of record labels would get an article. OK, GraphicSmash as an entity may be notable, but how notable are the individual comics? I reckon that most people would refer to the syndicate over a specific comic, on the lines of "I'm reading graphicSmash", over the specific comic. - Hahnchen 17:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You reckon completely and 100% wrong. I have never in my life heard of anyone refer to reading "Keenspot" or "Graphic Smash." Snowspinner 17:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe that was a bad example phrase. But the point I am trying to make, is that graphic smash is way more notable than the individual comics that make it up, unlike say a record label. I doubt people would pay just to see 1 particular comic, but look at graphicsmash and say, "now, hey! There's a collection of not too bad comics that I wouldn't mind reading." Which is why I think that just because a comic has appeared on xxx syndicate, doesn't mean that it's notable. - Hahnchen 20:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience it is generally one or two comics that get people to make the purchase, and then they stumble upon more from that - for me it was Digger on Graphic Smash and Narbonic on Modern Tales. Snowspinner 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have known people who've paid because of one comic, and found out about others that way. I started subscribing to Graphic Smash mainly for Digger, Killroy and Tina, and Fans (the webcomic), but I've been introduced to many other good comics through it. When you make claims like the one above, it makes it look as though you don't really know much about Graphic Smash. Factitious 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While most comics on Modern Tales are notable, I don't think the least read comic on Modern Tales is automatically notable. Same goes for a comic that may have experienced 15 seconds of fame with a brief association with the Graphic Smash site. Is every failed sitcom pilot notable? Is a band automatically notable if they sign to a major label but then their album tanks? My vote remains "delete." Dragonfiend 23:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure yet - it's something I'm looking into. But I'd like to err on the side of caution here. My guess, though I'm not certain, is that erratic updating made it unsuitable for a professional operation like Graphic Smash. I don't know of any other cases of strips going down from notable syndicate to Keenspace offhand, which is itself kind of notable. Snowspinner 23:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point is well taken. So why did this comic move? It seems to have moved from a hosting service that might very well have made it notable, to one that doesn't (unless it's in the top 25). Where we should consider it as being from depends on why it moved, how long it had been there, etc.--so what's the story? -- SCZenz 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to have the discussion on WP:COMIC, fine, but it seems absurd to declare that notability issues that haven't been settled there are somehow invalid to discuss here - the article is up for deletion now. Do you propose to table the discussion until we have inclusion guidelines? As for Modern Tales, they are selected based on their merits by the editor of the particular site - in the case of Graphic Smash, that's T Campbell. Snowspinner 23:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The site as a whole may be professional, but I would still want more information about the particular artist. It also depends on how many comics are on the site, and what its criteria are for inclusion. I don't know that within an AfD is the appropriate place to discuss such questions in detail—rather, the ongoing work at WP:COMIC is. Regarding expertise and deletion, if someone was deleting a physics article, I would put up a couple of links to places the concept was discussed in peer-reviewed journals. I realize that Modern Tales may be nearly the closest thing that exists to a peer-reviewed journal in webcomics, but I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source in the same way under Wikipedia rules. -- SCZenz 23:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would not pretend that my say-so should be taken as a valid source for content addition - but deletion debates are a different matter - subject experts ought be taken seriously when asserting notability of a subject, I would think. And yes, Modern Tales is a professional site - it is Joey Manley's business. A given MT artist may have other jobs, but MT in general is a professional operation, the contents of which are notable. Snowspinner 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Modern Tales really 100% professional? I see it has some free comics and some subscription comics, so it's hard to tell. That's why I think we should spell such things out in the guidelines--but we have to agree on them to use them. We shouldn't have to be experts to see that a comic is notable; this should be spelled out in the article. Incidentally, you might look at Wikipedia:No original research#The role of expert editors for Wikipedia policy on what expertise counts for; the answer is not a whole lot, unless reputable sources are cited. This is sometimes time-consuming (something I've experienced plenty on physics articles), but it makes the encyclopedia better. -- SCZenz 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An important webcomic, and one which we should have useful information about. I've known of Life on Forbez since well before it joined Graphic Smash, and would consider it notable even if it had not been associated with the site. Factitious 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Webcomics are a small field. Thus, it is possible for a webcomic to be notable within the webcomic field, and yet be unverifiable notability-wise outside. This comic fulfils the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics and its inclusion in wikipedia in no way harms wikipedia itself. If in doubt, don't delete!--Fangz 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:COMIC is still just a proposed guidelines. And isn't "notable within the webcomic field" different than notable for inclusion in a general enyclopedia...? What this harms is our internal consistency, and possibly WP:Verifiability, if you're claiming it doesn't have to be verifiable. -- SCZenz 02:15, 25 October 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.