Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INDUCKS

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 – well-referenced article, meets WP:WEB. Links to copyrighted works should be removed, if any exist. KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

INDUCKS

INDUCKS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This site fails WP:WEB and the article is purely promotional in nature. Claims to be "the second largest freely available comics database", but its an unsupported self proclamation that does not establish real notability. Primarily sources are the site itself and fan sites, along with a few that do not even mention INDUCKS at all. Additionally, the site appears to violate numerous Disney copyrights, which would make linking to in a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. As it states in WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Collectonian (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As one of the freelancers who work for the Danish publisher of Disney comics, I can assure you that INDUCKS is useful on a daily basis. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:N, has not gained significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral, for newly added sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The project's indexed data are extensively used not only by users, but even by most Disney publishers all over the world. And they credit the project often on their actual paper publication. That'd be kind of weird if the site really violated any copyrights at all. If there are problems with some of the contents of this article (like the claim of being the second largest comics db) of course they can be solved by rephrasing or removing those contents. Lazarus Long (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I believe this is very useful and serious source of information. Philou1024 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. No, Collectionian, the article is not "purely promotional in nature". It has got an interesting section of history, among other things. But I agree that the sentence about being the second largest freely available comics database should be removed if there is no source for it. --EIRIK\^talk 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I just added a few scholarly and independant sources. I would like also to correct some of the criticisms of Collectonian.
  • The site is purely promotional in nature: first the Inducks is non-commercial and distributed under a free licence. Second it seems to me that the real names mentioned in this article (some of which are not people of Inducks like Per Starback) were copied from articles to this Wikipedia entry. If you look at the main website, you'll see that the contributors names are very well hidden. So I don't see any promotion goal, although I would actually prefer to remove most names since they're not of much interest.
  • Claims to be "the second largest freely available comics database", but its an unsupported self proclamation that does not establish real notability: I removed that sentence now (which was not on the website BTW), but with 80,000 indexed comics it surely is noticable.
  • Primarily sources are the site itself and fan sites, along with a few that do not even mention INDUCKS at all. I have added lots of other sources scholar and external, please have a look at them. There is no study per se on Inducks, but it's an established and recognized source of information (especially for Disney publishers who use codes that were originally made up by Inducks).
  • Additionally, the site appears to violate numerous Disney copyrights. Actually no: Inducks does not contain any image, Outducks does. It is a collection of fan websites that provide thumbnails of covers and stories. An Inducks search engine, COA, has links to those thumbnails, but those are not hosted on inducks.org. Herve661 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC) PS: I am the main author of the article.

• A site doesn't have to be a paid site to have a promotional article. For the copyright, I thought I'd linked to an example, but guess not. This is the link for their page on Goofy[1]. The page does not say "hey, we don't host these images" and if OutDucks is part of InDucks, it is really the same thing. Also, notice they very clearly invite people to upload more scans of images, which is certainly a copyright violation and a clear indication that they support these images. There is only a single tiny note at the bottom of the COA pages noting the images belong to Disney, and that's it. No mention of their having permission or anything. Collectonian (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You linked to it here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_11#Template:Inducks_character. However, I dont know if the note at the bottom is sufficient but when such images is used on wikipedia for example there is not even a note, You must go to the image page to se that it is a copyrighted image. Skizzik (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• If you think the article is too promotional, I suggest to improve the text (I just removed a few names) rather than remove the article. Outducks is indeed a separate project (the domain names are owned by different entities). At this page, it says for instance "picture from outducks.org". There are a few images of the (main) characters without this notice indeed, but these are still hosted on Outducks. I believe this is fair use (just like GCD has lots of covers or even Wikipedia has lots of images under fair use - and here it is not even inducks but outducks). The logo image of Inducks on this article is also a copyrighted image, reproduced by fair use, and you may upload images through Wikipedia, so the situation is similar to me. Herve661 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are the one who created the article. The onus is on you to ensure it meets the notability requirements for websites, doesn't just read like the "about us" page of the site (which it still does), and is actually neutral. All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. In particular, I think a better source is needed for the claim that Disney has started using codes from InDucks, like something from Disney themselves or a major, reliable news source. Also, you might want to visit WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates to help with learning how to format references. Collectonian (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I did not create this article, user Entheta did. Regarding the fact that Disney publishers use Inducks storycodes - I don't know if it's documented anywhere, but it's not difficult to see: the codes starting with "ZM" or "YM" that Inducks introduced (for Mickey Mouse daily strips or sunday pages) can be found in Gemstone comics. US comic-books codes (the Inducks way, like "W DD 99-01") are used by the Dutch publisher Sanoma. Likewise, Gemstone uses codes like "S 63001" (a la Inducks) instead of the previous Disney way, "S 3001". Here is an image from "Love Trouble" in Walt Disney's Comics 671, a recent issue, which has a printed "YM" code, and here is a message from 2003 which explains that Inducks invented these storycodes. Herve661 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC) PS: improved a bit the ref. layout.

• Ah, my mistake. You've done the majority of the editing and I thought I'd seen where you created it, but must have misread. Still, the idea is the same. Those making the claim have the burden to prove it with a valid, verifiable source. If the idea that Disney publishers are using Inducks storycodes is not documented anywhere, then that claim is now verifiable and does not belong in the article. One can say "it's not difficult to see," but extrapolating from looking at stuff like that is original research and not something verified as a "reliable source." A Google news group post is NOT a valid source in any way shape or form.Collectonian (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not extrapolating, I know perfectly what I'm talking about and was just trying to give some elements to convince people that I'm not adding wrong information, even though one may argue about the relevance of one source or another. I hope other users among Disney comics fans will be able to confirm this well-known fact. Herve661 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again, that is not verifiability. Read the page WP:V. Verifiable means it has been documented in by a neutral, reliable third party source. Otherwise, it is just speculation and guess work. No matter how "educated" it is not verifiable and, as such, should not be included in the article or used as a claim of notability. Collectonian (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I just wanted to give some elements here that I thought could be useful to the discussion. People who knows a bit about Disney comics will have no problem agreeing with what I wrote. We can remove this fact from the article until someone has a "proof". Herve661 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. I guess this is a problem with the very nature of the subject: Disney comics aren't very popular in English-speaking countries. On the other hand, they are very popular in some other countries. See for example the intro section at Disney comics for a reference. Since most readers are from non-English-speaking countries, most litterature on the subject is written in languages other than English, mainly various European languages. But it should be possible to have articles about things almost unknown in the English-speaking world, but very popular elsewhere, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Experts on the subject, who are the most likely to contribute with the article, usually know at least one of these articles. You also mentioned that many of the sources listed weren't online sources. Have you taken a look at the article lately? It seems that a quite significant portion of the references go to online sources. Also note that Inducks, a rather short article, contains a lot of references, while Gyōji, a much longer article, doesn't contain a single one. (Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

• All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. So, you're saying that sources in other languages than english are not reliable? I object to that. The reason that it is hard to find neutral news sources concerning the database is quite obvious; not many major news sources are interested in dealing with comics, and even less with databases about comics. But this project doesn't gain anything by "promoting itself". The use of Inducks codes by publishers of Disney comics is a well-known fact in the business. --Oledamse (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Collectonian, I'm David Gerstein, Archival Editor with the North American domestic Disney comics (published by Gemstone), and I can confirm that Inducks is an invaluable resource in our production system. It helps us just as it helps any publisher, by helping us keep track of which stories have been published where and from which of our overseas sister publishers we'd do best to order specific pieces of material. I can also vouch for the alacrity of the international articles referenced, in case my voice as a domestic insider is somehow more helpful (though it shouldn't be... I'm sorry to see my colleagues having to defend themselves like this). Ramapith (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep sufficient sources for notability.DGG (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons I gave in the discussion above. (Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
• Keep The list of sources and references is there to prove it, european languages or not. --Oledamse (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not saying yea or nay, just commenting on the nominator's points. Violates numerous Disney copyrights? To my knowledge, not in any more substantial way than Wikipedia "violates" copyrights through bajillion Fair Use images. Most of the stuff in INDUCKS is low-res scans of covers, title pages and single panels. Plus, it's not like Disney would have shut them down over their long operation. On the contrary, I even spotted a link to INDUCKS in one of the most respected publications in Finland =) (would probably qualify as a trivial mention though). WP:EL probably has to be clarified; if we only allow "licensed" content and not Fair Use, we'll need to brutally delete a whole lot more of links. A lot more. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Some notes on copyrights

The images shown on Inducks pages may very well be considered fair use. If not, consider this:

• WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works states that there shouldn't be any links to sites holding material violating copyrights. However, Inducks doesn't contain any images that might violate any copyrights. Instead, these images are part of Outducks (a separate project, not part of Inducks). There was a discussion about this at Talk:The Pirate Bay#Removing links to The Pirate Bay, and the conclusion seemed to be that it was possible to link to The Pirate Bay from the article about that site, since the site didn't host any material violating copyrights (it just links to such material).
• If linking to Inducks isn't possible, then just remove the links. The information about the site could still be shown there.

Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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.