Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Roadkill Bill: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:49, 27 June 2007 editATren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 edits →[]: clarify← Previous edit Revision as of 13:00, 27 June 2007 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →[]: replyNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
**'''Comment'''. That's one reliable source, if at all. We need multiple reliable sources. ] • <sup>(((] • ])))</sup> 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC) **'''Comment'''. That's one reliable source, if at all. We need multiple reliable sources. ] • <sup>(((] • ])))</sup> 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with article for The Pulse, if The Pulse is notable, otherwise '''delete'''. ] 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC) *'''Merge''' with article for The Pulse, if The Pulse is notable, otherwise '''delete'''. ] 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
* I advocate '''keep'''; I created the article because I like RKB, and because I think it is significant as one of the few examples of car-free advocacy to actually get published in mainstream sources. The cartoonist also gained some press coverage due to a political campaign in respect of a transport proposal in Minnesota. The strip is in there because it's GFDL'd, if Avidor would GFDL a non self-referential strip (especially the rusty muffler oracle) we'd use that I guess. Avidor has, I think, left the building, and I created it not Avidor. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC) * I advocate '''keep'''; I created the article because I like RKB, and because I think it is significant as one of the few examples of car-free advocacy to actually get published in mainstream sources. The cartoonist also gained some press coverage due to a political campaign in respect of a transport proposal in Minnesota. The strip is in there because it's GFDL'd, if Avidor would GFDL a non self-referential strip (especially the rusty muffler oracle) we'd use that I guess. Avidor has, I think, left the building, and I created it not Avidor. I first heard of RKB on the newsgroups (probably rec.bicycles.misc) about five years ago, I don't know of many other car-free movement cartoons which have been published. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as fancruft. The lack of car-free advocacy in mainstream sources is not a reason to keep this - Misplaced Pages is ]. The reliable source cited here is Pulse, which is a self described "locally grown alternative newspaper" and I don't see references to other local press coverage in the article. Also, RKB has not appeared in Pulse (or anywhere else, as far as I can tell) for several years. A cartoon that appeared for a few years in a community newspaper but hasn't been active for several years is not notable. ] 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC) * '''Delete''' as fancruft. The lack of car-free advocacy in mainstream sources is not a reason to keep this - Misplaced Pages is ]. The reliable source cited here is Pulse, which is a self described "locally grown alternative newspaper" and I don't see references to other local press coverage in the article. Also, RKB has not appeared in Pulse (or anywhere else, as far as I can tell) for several years. A cartoon that appeared for a few years in a community newspaper but hasn't been active for several years is not notable. ] 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:* Not that this has anything to do with your content dispute with Avidor, of course, and the fact that he drew a cartoon lambasting your favourite subject. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC) :* Not that this has anything to do with your content dispute with Avidor, of course, and the fact that he drew a cartoon lambasting your favourite subject. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::* Why don't you debate the subject rather than attack me? This is no more notable than any community newspaper cartoon. The refs you provided are at best trivial mentions in fringe magazines. If this were somebody else's favorite cartoon you'd call it fancruft and mock its inclusion here - and you'd be right. ] 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC) ::* Why don't you debate the subject rather than attack me? This is no more notable than any community newspaper cartoon. The refs you provided are at best trivial mentions in fringe magazines. If this were somebody else's favorite cartoon you'd call it fancruft and mock its inclusion here - and you'd be right. ] 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:::* It's not ], although to be fair I didn't exactly attack the creator on my blog like you did either. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' - The guidelines for notability specify "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent" of the subject. I don't think mere publication alone qualifies as "coverage", much less "significant". And I don't think the publisher qualifies as an "independent" source. It seems to me that the cartoonist is more notable than this cartoon. --] 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC) * '''Delete''' - The guidelines for notability specify "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent" of the subject. I don't think mere publication alone qualifies as "coverage", much less "significant". And I don't think the publisher qualifies as an "independent" source. It seems to me that the cartoonist is more notable than this cartoon. --] 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:00, 27 June 2007

Roadkill Bill

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

I'm not sure this is notable. The main graphic in that page started showing up on talk pages after the Seigenthaler incident and I suspect this article was created after the fact to legitimize that image being uploaded. The cartoonist is also a member of Misplaced Pages, but was cautious to not create the page himself. I don't think it's anything sinister, but I doubt this article would exist if the cartoon wasn't posted around Misplaced Pages several months ago. Philwelch 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-- was published in The Pulse, a well-known Twin Cities mag.Rhinoracer 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with article for The Pulse, if The Pulse is notable, otherwise delete. Artw 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I advocate keep; I created the article because I like RKB, and because I think it is significant as one of the few examples of car-free advocacy to actually get published in mainstream sources. The cartoonist also gained some press coverage due to a political campaign in respect of a transport proposal in Minnesota. The strip is in there because it's GFDL'd, if Avidor would GFDL a non self-referential strip (especially the rusty muffler oracle) we'd use that I guess. Avidor has, I think, left the building, and I created it not Avidor. I first heard of RKB on the newsgroups (probably rec.bicycles.misc) about five years ago, I don't know of many other car-free movement cartoons which have been published. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. The lack of car-free advocacy in mainstream sources is not a reason to keep this - Misplaced Pages is not a soap box. The reliable source cited here is Pulse, which is a self described "locally grown alternative newspaper" and I don't see references to other local press coverage in the article. Also, RKB has not appeared in Pulse (or anywhere else, as far as I can tell) for several years. A cartoon that appeared for a few years in a community newspaper but hasn't been active for several years is not notable. ATren 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not that this has anything to do with your content dispute with Avidor, of course, and the fact that he drew a cartoon lambasting your favourite subject. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't you debate the subject rather than attack me? This is no more notable than any community newspaper cartoon. The refs you provided are at best trivial mentions in fringe magazines. If this were somebody else's favorite cartoon you'd call it fancruft and mock its inclusion here - and you'd be right. ATren 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The guidelines for notability specify "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent" of the subject. I don't think mere publication alone qualifies as "coverage", much less "significant". And I don't think the publisher qualifies as an "independent" source. It seems to me that the cartoonist is more notable than this cartoon. --JJLatWiki 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories: