Revision as of 13:17, 27 June 2007 editATren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:59, 28 June 2007 edit undoWAS 4.250 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,993 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::::* And it's not my "favorite subject" (as you derisively called it above) so let's put the motive-bashing to bed, shall we? As for your notability argument - when the car-free movement is big enough to have a cartoon that runs in more than one community newspaper (and only for a few years at that) then ''that'' cartoon will have an article here. Anyone can pick the most notable cartoon (or whatever) supporting their cause and make this argument - it doesn't make it notable for inclusion as a separate article here. ] 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | ::::* And it's not my "favorite subject" (as you derisively called it above) so let's put the motive-bashing to bed, shall we? As for your notability argument - when the car-free movement is big enough to have a cartoon that runs in more than one community newspaper (and only for a few years at that) then ''that'' cartoon will have an article here. Anyone can pick the most notable cartoon (or whatever) supporting their cause and make this argument - it doesn't make it notable for inclusion as a separate article here. ] 13:17, 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) | ||
*'''Keep''' - sources adequately prove notability and encyclopedic worth. Oh, and I ''love'' the cartoon on wikipedia. It illustrates why stable versions is so important. ] 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:59, 28 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)
- Comment. That's one reliable source, if at all. We need multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:58, 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)
- It's not my favourite cartoon, although to be fair I didn't exactly attack the creator on my blog like you did either. It's not notable as a community cartoon, it's notable as a car-free cartoon. There are rather fewer of those, at least fewer that I have seen. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- And it's not my "favorite subject" (as you derisively called it above) so let's put the motive-bashing to bed, shall we? As for your notability argument - when the car-free movement is big enough to have a cartoon that runs in more than one community newspaper (and only for a few years at that) then that cartoon will have an article here. Anyone can pick the most notable cartoon (or whatever) supporting their cause and make this argument - it doesn't make it notable for inclusion as a separate article here. ATren 13:17, 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)
- Keep - sources adequately prove notability and encyclopedic worth. Oh, and I love the cartoon on wikipedia. It illustrates why stable versions is so important. WAS 4.250 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)