Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman

I wouldn't mind discussing this, I sent an email.

I made the about the author page from the interview with Nightflying magazine, not vice versa. I cannot link you to the magazine's article in it's primary version, because it's in printed format. It does however, read much the same.

Think of Batman, Superman, but more so in an e-book form.. I'm not sure what is meant in the Gets 9 unique google hits, This is a new iconic fictional character, but is not commercial, especially considering bands, movies, movie stars, and fictional art created characters. Thecatman1 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept your explanation of the about the author page. The google hits is a metric I use to indicate that likely online sources that can be used to improve the article to meet Wikipedia standards are sparse. In this case, the search results cover everything already in the article and a few links that would not be appropriate material from which to draw encyclopedic information. — Scientizzle 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had mentioned last night, that I drew upon the interview from Nightflying, to create the About The Author page, but, I am confused on the "few links that would not be appropriate material" from Google. Please help me out there. Also, I posted on my mytalk page, when I possibly should have made the remarks here.

I want to create definition for Tigerman, just as any fictional character is defined, and wikipedia is a place people go for definitions

Tigerman is less than a year old, as a fictional character, but is being sought out by general public for defining. The history is not long, but the work is valid. Yes, it is unusual that it is an e-book not completed, because it has no end. Much like a soap opera, television series, or,, a comic book series (Superman goes back to what, the 1930's?) Tolkien's LOTRs is a trilogy, and Tigerman is on Part II. 23 chapters so far. It is so very different than anything else being added to the internet, and offered to public, it has no catergory or boilerplate niche that in can be lumped into.

Defining this type of literature has to start somewhere.. Has Wikipedia's structure grown so rigid, that all is now in stone? Was this Jimbo's philosophy of Be Bold? (No sarcasm intended) Thecatman1 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That the series is unfinished (but still in progress) isn't really important. Unlike LOTR & Superman, this topic has not been "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Wikipedia doesn't serve the function of defining new forms of anything, literature included; it most certainly doesn't serve the function of creating notability. — Scientizzle 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I worded that with less thought than I should have, and certainly do not imply that I have desires to utilize Wikipedia as a promotional gimmick or notable source, but defining the aspects of our world is where wikipedia excels.

I have always had the highest respect for wikipedia, and if you can check random hits from outside link sources, you will see that you have always been linked from National Wildlife Humane Society's Educational Page since the site's inception (and the organization). Educational Links You share fine company on that page.

Your site has always been there, and was actually one of the first to be added. "Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia - An excellent scholarly work written for--and by--its readers." Thecatman1 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you a couple of emails, I hope you don't mind. I used another wikipedia page as a reference, and in respect to that entry I am not linking it to public view. I can send many more, but I am a half century old, and am not of that nature.

I can more model Tigerman after that page link I sent you, if that is a more acceptable format. They show only one external Reference and use MySpace as a Resource. Tigerman has a MySpace, and is a darn nice one too. I would love to make another entry for National Wildlife Humane Society, as it is a very important organization, I just do not want to repeat this same process.

Oh, along with Wikipedia as an Educational Link, on NWHS's site (along with notable government and other conservation orgs) is Tigerman. Thecatman1 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Chakal (talk · contribs · count)

I recommend that the article is not deleted. Wikipedia seems to have a Doctor Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde personality...no sooner has someone died, been arrested, or caught with someone else's significant other than someone rushes to put it in the entry. I think of the undertaker in "A Christmas Carol" who was snidely asked "You don't let the grass grow under your feet do you?" to which he humbly said, "Ours is a highly competitive profession." In this way Wikipedia is almost a news service, and I routinely turn to it the way I routinely turn to msnbc.com or foxnews.com. However a different standard (to extremes) goes to articles about new people/places/things. You'd think facts were candidates for sainthood...with the need for three verifiable miracles and a hard long look from the Devil's Advocate.

While I am not naive and understand the need to prevent Wikipedia being used as a method of achieving significance rather than recording it, I recognize that Thecatman1 has at least been honest in trying to work with the system. His entry is at least as relevant to the world as someone's quick recognition that the National Council of Elders is considering a motion to cane the Palau Undersecretary of Volcanoes for smoking in a restaurant on a Thursday. Let's not cause a chilling effect on contributors that encourages stealth rather than cooperation. We have too much of one and not enough of the other. Chakal 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from Thecatman1 (talk · contribs · count)

Umm,, wow Chakal, that caught me offguard. Especially the the manner in which it was presented. Another internet author I see on your page.

• I would like to comment on that though, especially concerning comments from several discussions going on at different locations concerning deletion of the article. This is creating possible obfuscation.

" While I am not naive and understand the need to prevent Wikipedia being used as a method of achieving significance rather than recording it, I recognize that Thecatman1 has at least been honest in trying to work with the system." Chakal

"Wikipedia doesn't serve the function of defining new forms of anything, literature included; it most certainly doesn't serve the function of creating notability." Scientizzle

I would like to point out something from another discussion outside these articles of deletion. Putting Tigerman in Google gets this. Google Position Of Tigerman It ranks #5 "of about 217,000".

This is my main point. Three of the four positions above Tigerman, are all concerning the same person, Stanley Tigerman, a very world famous architect (for a lot longer time than our Tigerman, which is disputed here). My Point?

The 6th position for Tigerman, is this same Stanley Tigerman's Wikipedia Page. Tigerman (in the article being discussed here) has passed a world famous architect's Wikipedia page already. So, it should be quite obvious that there is not an agenda to elevate our Tigerman article being discussed here, as a method of trying use Wikipedia as creating Notability.

Google somewhat demonstrates that as our Tigerman passes Stanley Tigerman's Wikipedia Google position, there has to be a Notability, and fast growth in readership. At least it makes the point moot, of trying to exploit Wikipedia to advertise or raise the Tigerman's popularity.

"If you've any proof that there "is a very large following for this digitally illustrated e-book", that could certainly help your case." Scientizzle

Please see above comparison to Stanley Tigerman

Excerpt from his Wikipedia page:

"Stanley Tigerman (born 20th September, 1930 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American architect, theorist and designer He studied at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Chicago Institute of Design, and Yale University. After serving several years in the Navy, he assumed the role of draftsman and designer in a series of offices. Since 1964 he has been the Principal of Stanley Tigerman and Associates Ltd. (now Tigerman McCurry Architects), in Chicago. He has also taught at several universities in the United States."

That's a lot of history for him.

You mentioned earlier Scientizzle, that you use Google (paraphrasing) as some sort of barometer. Our Tigerman's e-book site, has passed Stanley Tigerman's Wikipedia position in Google.

Can we take that into consideration, concerning your "large following" challenge?

Actually hoping that editors truly take these comment exchanges in earnest (or at least read them) I would like to add one more observation, if editors could be so kind to allow me this latitude.

This "submitting one's own creation" and more than one Reference might not be something that applies to musicians I would surmise.

[Musician's and Albums]

There are a number of famous musicians there, and References are easily added. Who wants to say that Eric Clapton needs a reference on a new album? Besides, many editors would want to do that for his album. It would be an insult to him to allude that an editor needed any references for a new album.

My point is, most of those album article pages are self-submitted and have NO References, no Resources, many No External Links,and many don't even have a band's website. Just a MySpace Music page.

Does Wikipedia hold musicians in a higher regard, than writers and artists?

If an editor really wanted to go through all the self submitted articles (or those obviously added through Meatpuppetry), there could possibly be a tremendous amount of server space made available for Wikipedia.

I mentioned it would be very petty of me to site a single article (no References, no Nothing) as leverage, but in the legal world precedent carries tremendous weight. Applying the same standards being applied to my article, throughout that Albums By Artists would clean out a ton of articles, possibly unfairly.

"Let's not cause a chilling effect on contributors that encourages stealth rather than cooperation. We have too much of one and not enough of the other. Chakal "

Had I wanted to be "stealthy" and use meatpuppetry to have some other person sign up for a new account here, and add my article, then possibly most (if not all of this debate), may not exist.

Acquiescing to Jimbo Wales' quotes "give latitude", "Be Bold" and finally "nothing is set in concrete". I will end this entry.

I am however, adding links here to all the other discussions concerning deleting this article, for a better gathering avenue of comment discovery and due diligence, for other editors. If they are inclined to garner as much comment before making a Keep or Delete recommendation. I would hope they would, as I would in their position.

This also supplies links to the origin pages of various quotes of others I have made here.

User talk:Thecatman1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigerman

Thecatman1 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Further on notability, question of advertising & References

First off, I offer any needed apologies for pointing out the Self Submitted music album articles, the majority having No References, (many having nothing) as I DO NOT wish to engage in causing any hard working musician undue negative light, even if I did not point out a particular article. I myself have 2 music albums that I recorded and for sale, and would NOT want undue negative attention created to my musical artistic endeavors.

Secondly I see a situation that can rectify all of the debate, quite easily here.

There is a category for webcomics that I noted that wikipedia desires and encourages a build upon.

It appears that lack of References and much other criteria is allowed much leniency. This is quite plain to observe from the following.

List of webcomics

Observing the first and oldest entries (1993):

Doctor Fun (shows only 2 external links, and nothing more) and Where the Buffalo Roam (webcomic) (which shows Web Sites and External Links only), niether are challeneged for References, and considering their longevity on Wikipedia, shouldn't be challenged.

These are the oldest entries in List of webcomics and date 1993.

Then, going to the very bottom and working up, I looked at the 20 entries there. 11 of the 20 had NO References.

If an editor is not inclined to click through each one, I will list them, but would prefer not to. These are accepted entries in Wikipedia, and many have been accepted without references since 1993.

As myself an artist of music, physical art (canvas & paper paintings), digital art, and story/prose/poetry written materials, I am not inclined to create challenge for these articles which have proven themselves acceptable, using a precedent that goes back to 1993 here at Wikipedia.

I would like all editors to still recognize the acceptability of Self Submission of music albums, lacking References (but myself recognizing Notability of them all, simply because they have made it to a permanent audio medium, such as vinyl, tape, CD, etc). If Wikipedia desires to be an all encompassing encyclopedia of the internet, then all permanent media should be given creedence, not just musicians who are legends and/or "one hit wonders".

I personally feel, with all of the current emphasis on internet music and art (ie RIAA MPAA etc), self submission of art and music should be flexible and somewhat lenient. This is to make certain the copyrights and art patents are properly secured, as the creator can grant that upon submission, making certain to ensure that Wikipedia is kept out of any potential "harm's way", in this ever growing controversial matter.

I would appreciate having editors view the my article Tigerman as a webcomic and be categorized as such, joining the ranks of the two originals from 1993 and all similar articles (that show No references).

Please DO recognize that Tigerman does have one very notable Reference in a printed magazine with a readership of appx. 75,000 per issue, and a mirrored (edited) e-version on the internet. The mirrored e-version's website has near 3 million hits since the counter was reset on Jan. 1 2005 (just over 2 years ago).

I feel I have demonstrated a case of latitude within Wikipedia, for many self-submissions in the area of Music Album articles (without References), and a nomenclature of Tigerman as a webcomic makes excellent arguement for No References (although the Tigerman article does have that single, very reputable one).

I also feel that my previous comment here, demonstrating the excellent Google position of the single word "tigerman", clearly shows that I have no intent of using Wikipedia as an advertising tool.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, and judgement is based on many criteria (much of it undefineable, even in Wikipedia).

I will edit my article changing it from e-book to webcomic. I would then expect it to be held to that measure and precedent.

Thank-you to any editors who take the time to read this comment, and give thoughtful consideration. Thecatman1 21:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications

Catman, you certainly have the gift of verbosity...let me see if I can respond to your queries & clear up any confusion in one fell swoop.

1. I use the Google test to demonstrate that a topic for deletion has little widespread coverage and, most importantly, that the coverage that does exist does not include reliable sources from which to build an encyclopedia. Had I found any such sources in my Google search(es), I would have placed them into the article and improved the content. In this case, Tigerman has meager coverage, with Nightflying magazine the only independent source.
2. A Google search or webhit counter cannot count as a source for several reasons:
   1. The results will always change, so it it inherently unreliable
   2. Interpreting the results of a Google search as anything meaningful would be prohibited original research
3. There are certainly many articles on Wikipedia that have little-to-no sourcing (and poor prospects for improvement) that should be deleted. With the amount of material added each day, all us experienced editors that sift through Special:Recentchanges & Special:Newpages are bound to miss many cases of articles with less merit than this article. That other articles exist in any similar state is not, however, a strong argument to keep...(incidentally, webcomics arevery often the targets of AfD because of their nature: tiny loyal fan base or comic creator writes an article without providing any decent sources...)
4. If you cannot demonstrate that Tigerman has a significant following, as you stated, using an independent source, then such a claim will likely not hold up in AfD.
5. The problem with having only one reference does not meet WP:WEB's The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself (emphasis mine).
6. Let me reiterate that I belive you are acting in good faith and have not done anything beyond make some inevitable newbie mistakes. It's my hope that, whatever the outcome here, you'll stick around and become a regular contributor. It takes a bit of time & effort to learn the ropes (you've been given a five-day crash course in Wikipedia's working, for better or worse), but in the end, even if Tigerman is deleted, you could still improve information within topics that you care for and are knowledgable about.

Hopefully, this clears some things up. — Scientizzle 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications/Reply

Are you saying Verbosity {requires editing, lol)is a gift?, or that it is Notable. "winks"

• I do truly understand that citing other KEEP articles with less, or no References, is not a good example, but is precedent (going back to 1993). I would feel horrible if some editor now went back and hit a delete on those first 2 web comics articles, because they have no references. They have stood the test of time since 1993. That is actually a ground breaking bit of notability within itself.

My contention is that new projects and internet endevavors are bound to have a lack of Reference. Does that mean they should become "commonplace" before consideration is given? Obviously the subject of the article is quite real, as can be discerned with a single click.

I site one Reference, but at the same token, there are many articles that use the article's subject's own website as a reference also (can show that if needed), and that precedent would make allowance to move this article's subject's website under Reference, thereby creating 2 References. Yes, maybe hairsplitting, but not uncommon here.

Also, Nightflying is a 25 year old publication, and is a highly respected publication with a per issue readership of appx 75,000 per issue. The printed article was released in the March issue (much prior to the Wiki article submission), so there is weight there. A March issue is actually prepared in finality, for the printer, in February. In addition to the paper publication, and the online version, there is a NightFlying Forum that has an active Tigerman thread. General Discussion approaching 6,000 views. A low number of posts, but lots of "lurkers" (people view to see when a new chapter hits the net). I have no control over views, just the ability to post. That is some sort of Notability. Possibly a 3rd Reference.

EDIT, I haven't been in the forum for a few weeks, but looked just now, to observe the View stats. It occured to me, to view a few of the participant's remarks concerning the content of the Article (Tigerman)'s worth (Notability).

This is just common folk, from around the world, so their opinions probably carry very little weight here, but they speak very highly of the Article's subject nonetheless. For every actually "joiner" who posts, there is probably a formula to place on the "non-joining" viewers (lurkers?). There are far more "watchers" in this world than "doers".

I would also like to point out, that if Google can be used as a barometer for Deletion, it should most fairly also be used for Keep as well. Holding 5th place "in about 221,000" Current Google Results tigerman results does say something quite meaningful, especially when #1, 2 and 3 are the same famous person, AND that same famous person's Wikipedia page is 6th place (being passed by our article's tigerman subject. This should negate any INTENT for the article as Advertising, as there is nothing to gain by that attempt. It is also non-manipulativeable (is that a word?). Web sites either go up, stay the same, or go down, based on hits and public attraction/popularity.

There is however, the possibility to manipulate a counter (I don't though, the hits are real), but if I was so inclined, and was acceptable, I guess I could just go in and move it to 30,000 from 3,000 (not with my ethics though). I feel 3,000+ qualifies it as more than a "tiny readership" anyway, so I allow it be accurate.

I am having trouble finding a lot of articles in the "new arts articles" area with many references, because they are new. Notability is not always established with age.

In reading the other reasons (from the other 2 editors) for DELETE is Advertising. I have delved deeply into how Wikipedia defines Advertising, as explained in a prior comment here.

"Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted"

I am WIDE OPEN for suggestions on what is still NPOV and more than willing to clean it up, or invite other editors to. I become jaded on seeing precedent articles with less than this article, being allowed, and the easy choice to DELETE over Cleanup. Let's face it, had I submitted it without regestering as an editor, and (in error) signed it, then it would not have been so visible, correct?

I am not looking to "slip through the cracks" nor would I take this experience and go rifling through all of the Albums By Artists, and/or Web Comics, seeking to apply the same protocol on them, being applied here. It would gut the web comic category, and greatly reduce the Albums By Artists category. That would impress no one here, I am sure.

Plus, as an editor, you can expect me to excercise reasonable leniency in the matters of newer art and music (giving weight to "nothing is set in concrete" and "be bold"). As music and art finds it's way into new unexplored territories and genres, References aren't as easy to quickly call up, such as writing something about George Washington (or, even Stanley Tigerman). Jimbo's words "be flexible" and "nothing is set in concrete" should be applied.

"To make a short story long" LOL,,, why, (if allowances and precedent are so available) choose a fast path of DELETE over "cleaning up for NPOV",,, and applying 2-3 References demanded here, when one has been acceptable (or none) for so many, for so long? (Remember, many articles use their own subject's website for a Reference, and that can be changed here easily, in a cleaning up process). DELETE requires typing 6 letters, KEEP requires work. The subject has merit or it wouldn't rank os high on Google (sorry for the redundancy)

In Respect,

Thecatman1 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)