User:Blaxthos/AfD Sandbox

Hosted

Antihero for Hire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- unreferenced, or, vanity

• Keenspot

Killroy and Tina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- unreferenced, or, vanity

• Graphic Smash

Jeepers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Completely unreferenced

• Girlamatic
  • Modern Tales

Unopposed

Lore Brand Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Completely unreferenced

Bad Boys of Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Completely unreferenced, OR, vanity

Discussion

Picked five fluff articles at random... don't know if they are the worst, however they certainly are uncontestably AfD material. /Blaxthos 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (5th nomination) andWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_16#Able_and_Baker to see that there is still some debate regarding if "syndication" counts as distribution. That's not to say that it's not suitable to "bundle" some slightly-more-debateable ones up, but the fact that they are "distributed" by three different entities muddies the waters. Perhaps nominate

• One of the three hosted one on it's own, or
• Choose more "Unopposed" style ones, or
• Pick at most two "hosted" ones from the same distributor for the group nomination.

While I understand your frustration at emotive arguments at AfD, it's remiss not to take them into account. Trying to understand anything that might obstruct clear discourse and remove that obstruction is a good thing.

brenneman 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Policies Involved

Perhaps I'm approaching AfD in a fundamentally incorrect way, so let me ask for clarification here:

1. Is syndication (especially on niche/themed websites) enough to satisfy WP:WEB? if so →
2. Does the article cite reliable sources? if so →
3. Does the article contain claims that are not WP:Verifiable? if so →
4. Does the article still have to adhere to no original research? if so → DELETE

To me, it seems like content that should be included on Wikipedia must satisfy all these requirements (substitute appropriate notability guideline as needed). Even if the hosted strips qualify for WP:WEB, they will still fail the other three criteria. Am I being dense? /Blaxthos 05:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're 100% correct. (I've changed these to numbers for clarity.) The thing is that if #1 is a "yes" than the webcomic itself is a reliable source for ultra-basic material on itself. As long as it's not self-aggrandizing etc, if my blog says "I'm 180cm tall" that can be put into my article. Of course if the NYT then says I'm 140cm, that overrides my blog. So for these it all comes down to that first criterion. Which, as you have noticed, is a contentious one in some quarters. Have you looked at the talk archives for the web guideline? It's a nightmare...
brenneman 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Now hold up a second though... when I first came upon wikipedia (2004) I got a pretty harsh lesson about self-published sources. I run Bash.org, a notable website, and I was prevented by an admin from adding information about my own site, which I knew to be true and in direct conflict with information being placed into the article. I even published said information onto the site, but I was made to understand that a reliable third party must publish that information (and make it verifiable) to warrant inclusion. Citing your webcomic example, it becomes a horrendous mess of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Perhaps my fundamental understanding of the policies is incorrect? /Blaxthos 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)