Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:42, 5 November 2006

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

3 November 2006

Tourettes guy

This article has been deleted and protected. I believe it should not be protected and be put back up because it is a popular comedic website, and not an attack. Many articles on wikipedia are just like this one; they are comedic websites that happen to be about a man with tourettes. I will admit it is inappropriate and sort of mean to those with Tourettes, but i believe these type of websites should be allowed on wikipedia, it has its sources, and many people go on the site to watch the videos. There is even a petition to get it back on wikipedia. So please reconsider deleting and protecting this page. Thank you for your time. Sportsguru9999 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, at least two valid AfDs, no new evidence presented. --Sam Blanning 02:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have shown you my evidence, go to tourettes guy main page and look at the videos, they are used often and the website gets many hits. Please reconsider. Sportsguru9999 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion obvious consensus in both of the AFDs that Sam linked. If someone believes that they can write an article demonstrating notability according to our standards for webcomix and all other primarily web content using independent reliable sources, they are free to do so at a user subpage and propose that for consideration. In this case I also suggest getting feedback from the folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Webcomics before proposing it here. GRBerry 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn I dont think you understand how popular this site is, many people know about it and it is humorous. C'mon Sportsguru9999 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, no new evidence, AFDs were clear. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You guys are smart... no new evidence? there is only one real piece of evidence! i have showed you that Tourettes Guy exists and it is prosperous. many people want this as a page and there is a petition for it. Please realize that this page is legit and needs to be on wikipedia Sportsguru9999 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If there is only one real piece of evidence (the main site), then there are no secondary sources to verify anything on it. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. --Wafulz 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two valid AfDs, no new information. --Wafulz 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse again. No new evidence since previous AfDs and DRV. Guy 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Surprisingly, as one who deleted and protected at one stage, in fact I support restoration if only to stop us having to keep discussing it. The title should be Tourette's Guy. The site is tasteless and politically incorrect but those are not reasons to prevent us having an article. I would compare with Gay Nigger Association of America which has also been to AfD countless times but always with a "keep" or "no consensus" decision. And note the Alexa ranks: GNAA - 288 000 and Tourette's guy - 97 500. -- RHaworth 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per previous AfD, no evidence this passes WP:WEB either then or now. I doubt we'll ever have a web criterion based solely on Alexa rank (and I hope we never do, frankly), but if we did 97,000 wouldn't be even remotely close to high enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with the man two up from me. I don't understand when you say that the site needs to be verified. It is a website, it has funny videos that are very popular. There is no reason not to have this on wikipedia. The reasons you are giving are all the same and very weak. I hope this isn't a popular vote. I hope it is based on what makes the most sense. Sportsguru9999 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Here is some "verification" that this is significant: Petition for Tourette's Guy on Misplaced Pages As you can see it is a very important website, and many people want this as an article. Please realize that this is verifiable proof. Thank You! Sportsguru9999 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You might want to have a look at WP:RS. Internet petitions are about as far from reliable as you can get. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You might want to stop disrespecting me. I feel like you administrators are picking on me. This is completely legitamite and an internet petition is definetely a way to show verifiability. I have experienced wikipedia admins before, and you are showing me nothing different. Please respect me and tell me exactly why this article is insignificant. I do NOT want to hear there aren't enough sources when there are equally significant articles like Numa Numa, and Gay Nigger Association of America. Please know what you are saying before you speak. Sportsguru9999 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the Numa Numa thing is a pretty dumb article, but it is sourced from a New York Times article and probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As for GNAA, I agree with you that it isn't well sourced, and there have been numerous attempts to delete it. In any case, inclusion is not an indicator of notability (as specified by this essay). See also WP:SEWAGE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Tourette's guy is a tactless, tasteless website, but a popular cult hit among young internet surfers. Countless times at high school I've heard people say, "Oh yeah, you saw the latest Tourette's Guy?! Man that's so awesome!" Articles like the ones on PBJ Time, YTMND, etc. are the reasons why people come to this site: to find out about anything that has gained some noteworthiness, and that's _just_ what Tourette's Guy is. --Big Tex 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Amen Big Tex! My friends and I always are talking about the Tourette's Guy, Danny. He is just so funny. I know it is somewhat mean, but definetely deserves an article. I am glad you could bring that up. I find it noteworthy, as many people do. Sportsguru9999 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:ITSFUNNY does not trump WP:V and WP:RS. Guy 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages articles are not prizes. No-one "deserves" them. --Sam Blanning 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you know what you are saying Samuel? We aren't saying they are prizes. We are saying that with all its popularity and notibility, that it should be an article. If we are going to have a serious debate about whether Tourettes Guy is legitamite, please do not use these sayings like prizes and making fun of what we say. It is like me saying, "Tourettes Guy is not a virus, you cannot "delete" it" or "Tourettes guy is not a prison, you cannot "protect" it" Please learn how to talk to people and respect people. See below how I can play this game. 75.41.246.102 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endose Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a good argument: This above AfD is not a coupon, it cannot be "valid"
• Endorse deletion - Per JzG above. Wickethewok 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Tourettes Guy, per these guys are ganging up on me because, along with most things on wikipedia, there are more against the article than for it. Think about it, a few people like me that go on wikipedia that believe Tourettes Guy is valid versus about 100,000 pompous admins who make sure deserving articles are thrown out, especially when a new account is arguing that has no credibility yet. If you want to pick on me, then fine, but listen to me. That is all I want. LISTEN to what i have said, and realize what you are doing. 75.41.246.102 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• undelete. Disgusting, offensive, or not, Alexa rank is indicative of deletion error. Don't know the contents of the deleted article (nor the page in question), so maybe wipe it down to a stub, if necessary. Big Tex has the right idea. Unfocused 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree, i will personally make a professional article if you overturn 75.41.50.11 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: If the article was poorly written then it should have just been tagged, but taste is not a valid reason to suppress anything. Given the fact that the “Tourette’s Guy” has been mentioned on a national television and has been featured in a television commercial by a major television network, proves that this more than just a minor Internet phenomenon. That fact that he offends some people is irrelevant to whether or not he warrants being listed on Misplaced Pages. You might as well delete the Ku Klux Klan page if this is the reasoning. paulisdead 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC +10)
• Keep Deleted No information not already considered presented. DRV is not a rerun of AfD. Eluchil404 09:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This deletion review is totally pointless, ridiculous, and certain to fail. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

List of November 2006 WJBQ Interactive 8 Number 1s

I created this article to inform people of the Portland, Maine top songs of the day. I'd love it if someone would tell me how this is not Misplaced Pages material. Two articles just like the article I wanted are VSpot Top 20 Countdown, and List of number-one songs on American Top 40 of 2006. I belive this article should be allowed to be made, and should be undeleted. Thanks! Follow-Up: This is availible worldwide, and is voted on worldwide, and is pretty much from the calls, part of Maine and New Hampshire. Jmclark911 02:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is a small station, an article on the records chosen by the listeners of one show to one station in one month is never going to be encyclopaedic. Try pitching slightly higher. Like Billboard magazine no. 1s. I endorse deletion of this. Guy 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Completely, utterly non-notable. The nominator should realize that he's comparing the countdown of a radio station in Maine to a nationally-voted-upon, nationally-televised TV show and a nationally-voted-upon, nationally-syndicated radio show. -- Kicking222 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, Kicking222 pretty much nailed it. WP:INN applies here, especially given the scope of the article deleted in contrast to the articles Jmclark compares it to. NeoChaosX 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Bernard E. Witkin

I did not create this article, I happened upon it when someone made a link from an article on my watchlist. Note: The article was speedied as non-notable. The subject above is an important jurist in California history, as evidence by the fact that California State Library Law Library as well as the the law school of William Howard Taft University (the article on my watchlist) are named after him. The person who had created the article seemed to panic and copy/paste a few NY Times articles directly into the talk and article page to stop the speedy delete. I then had added my on "hold on" before the deletion, but it must have been ignored. I think this deletion was handled sloppily by all involved: (1) adding the speedy tag questionably (and I use it myself often), (2) the panicked response of the creating user adding "Hang-ons" everywhere, and (3) whoever ended up finally deleting it despite the clear evidence of notability. This article merely needed some clean-up at the state I had found it. I plead to the powers that be, please review and reverse. Bobak 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure The article was deleted as a copyright violation, not for lack of notability. Witkin is definitely notable but the way to get the article on wikipedia is to write it yourself. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've undeleted the first three revisions; unlike the later ones, they didn't contain copyrighted material so far as I can tell. —Cryptic 22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Girly

Misplaced Pages's deletion criteria with regards to webcomics have always been full of tension, but I don't think anyone who really knows anything about webcomics would ever agree that Girly isn't important. Many of the DELETE votes ignored verifiable facts (such has how long Girly has been on the web), and the VFD did not gain the attention of the webcomics community in general until after the deletion occurred, as a result many other relevant facts never got mentioned:

• Girly is the sequel to Cutewendy, which is in itself a spinoff of Wendy, both of which are extremely notable in webcomic history.
• Girly is notable in terms of being a major Keenspot label which split off
• Many of the applied rules (such as WP:V) have been found in the past not to apply to things like webcomics and other fictional works. A fictional work ITSELF has to be enough to gain facts from without being original research, since it's all right there on the page.
• Webcomics in general in the mainstream has a completely different. Many of the mainstream names in webcomics are largely non-notable in the webcomics world itself and vice-versa.
• Websnark is notable, it's a major voice in webcomics, but even if it is not the other links (such as to silver bullet) were. Comixpedia also has posted articles about girly.
• Girly is notable for reasons other than the number of fans it has or how many hits it gets. It is immensely influential on many other webcomic artists' works.
• Websnark's article on the deletion of Girly makes a lot of other good points better than I can — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webrunner (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girly

• Relist - Taking a look around on this, I think the fact that a paper version has come out, through an established publisher like Radio Comix, should have been considered more by the voters. Webcomics are difficult to deal with, but anything that's got a print edition seems to push above the line to me. Sounds like the article needs more sources, though, if it's revived. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind after looking at the below comments. AFD seems to have been valid (my concern about the publishing stands, however), so it's hard to overturn. However, I agree that it might be best to wait a little and get some more sources, then recreate the article. Endorse closure but allow recreation down the road. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion First off, please note that I voted to keep it during the AfD, and I stand by that vote. In fact, I was one of just two established users to vote to keep it. However, looking at the AfD I can't possibly imagine how it could have been closed any other way, and a sour-grapes post on a blog isn't going to reverse a strong consensus. Bottom line: I think it should have an article, but I don't see enough grounds to overturn the AfD. It might be best just to wait awhile on this and see what happens as far as media mentions and such in the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the close/debate on the AFD. Wow this is so wrong: "Many of the applied rules (such as WP:V) have been found in the past not to apply to things like webcomics..." (from the DRV nominator). Wickethewok 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I did not mean to imply that unverifiable facts are meant to be put in any article, but facts about a webcomic are by their very nature taken from a single source: the website of the comic itself. The lack of other sources cannot be held against it, unless you consider fictional works as a whole to be not unless there's other-medium books about it (like reference guides for TV series). Incidentally, in this particular case it seems WP:V was called upon regarding the -notability- of the comic, which isn't related to WP:V at all, it has to do with WP:WEB. Actually, that does remind me of another point: Girly WAS on Keenspot, if it still was, it'd be automatically notable under WP:WEB. Whether Dayfree Press counts or not, I don't know. Maybe Girly is non-notable by the rules, but there is a significant loophole in the rules if something notable can get bigger, more popular, more successful, AND less notable at the same time. Webrunner 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment: "Bigger, more popular, more successful" are not Misplaced Pages standards; multiple third-party independent coverage is. "Being on Keenspot" does not make a webcomic automatically notable; multiple third-party independent coverage, if sufficiently non-trivial, does. (No endorse/overturn non-vote.) Barno 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: WP:WEB is a Misplaced Pages standard, and it only has to meet one of the guidelines to pass WP:WEB - in this case, Being on Keenspot does make a webcomic automatically notable through the third criteria - "he content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Webrunner 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • There is no consensus for the idea that every webcomic is notable that is hosted by either Keenspot or Keenspace, or even by more notable webcomics publishers like the Modern Tales sites. Girly is just one of several articles on non-notable Keenspot webcomics that have been deleted within recent memory. As per the footnotes to WP:WEB, sites like Keenspot fail miserably, as webcomics hosted by them will not almost certainly be the subject of multiple non-trivial, third-party published works. -- Dragonfiend 09:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Bull. There's no consensus because the discussion consisted of you, Brenneman, and me, and you were willing to shout until you got your way. There is a consistent demonstrated consensus for keeping these articles - Elf Only Inn and Able and Baker being the two most straightforward instances of things that were kept because of their syndicate. Phil Sandifer 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Not only what Phil said, but that's completely against what WP:WEB is actually saying. It is not trivial to be hosted on Keenspot (Keenspot and Keenspace are different. Keenspace is anyone-hosting, Keenspot is by-invite), so it doesn't fail criteria 3. As a result it DOESN'T HAVE to pass criteria 1. So no, not only does Keenspot not 'fail miserably' but it's an automatic pass. 72.38.1.40 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've started a discussion to get to the of whether Girly satisfies WP:WEB for having satisfied it at some point in the past: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Notabilty Guidelines - what happens if things change?
• Speedy Overturn - there is a clear track record of keeping webcomics that are members of any of the big syndicates (Keenspot, Blank Label, Dayfree, the MT family). Girly meets that. It was nominated for a Webcartoonist's Choice Award in layout. It has been reviewed on Comixpedia by Wednesday White, one of the two writers on Websnark, where it has also been reviewed. It is demonstrably the case that this is notable by standards that have been proven repeatedly to have consensus on AfD. It was clearly deleted by poor process, and does not need to go through this charade of an "appeals" process to be restored. Phil Sandifer 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note also , where this deletion is roundly (and rightly) condemned by one of he most notable figures in the webcomics community. This is an unequivocally bad deletion. It goes against past precedent, it goes against sense. That it happened (While, astonishingly, in the same week, Bruce Woodcock and Timeline skew theories in The West Wing survived, despite the latter actually being unverified by any source and actually being OR) is a clear sign of how arbitrary AfD consensus is, and how deeply flawed our current method of "appeals" is. Phil Sandifer 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (disclosure: I was the AfD nominator). DRV is for examining violations of AfD procedure, and no actual procedural objection has been raised, nor is any in evidence. The arguments made above for the notability of Girly are irrelevant here, as they do not touch on process. On the contrary, I find the actions of Phil Sandifer highly objectionable. He just restored the article without waiting to see how this DRV would end, with the reason of "AfD was deeply flawed, DRV is unusable, restoring due to obvious notability". Then he removed the {{db-repost}} tag correctly added by another user. I've had no prior interactions with Phil Sandifer, but I find this disregard of process arrogant and unbecoming any Wikipedian, much less an administrator. Sandstein 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You have a lot of nerve accusing anyone of being arrogant. Mountains of evidence from people who have knowledge in this field have been presented to you all as to why the comic is notable. You ignored it all, and clung to one rule about Third-party sources, the one rule that can be used against the comic, and a rule whose relevance has been called into question numerous times. A lot of the arguments for Girly's deletion contained blatantly false information such as Girly being a "blog" and that the comic was only a few months old... misinformation which has been corrected and subsequently ignored. Ultimately, you got your way because you subjectively bended the whole argument to your whims. Please stop trying to deny it. I tried to be nice about this. But I, and many others, are becoming more and more convinced that this process is entirely subjective, and you all are losing a great deal of respect. --SuperHappy 20:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Phil just happens to be an academic expert on comics. He edits an academic journal on them. If an expert says "I'm an expert, it's notable," it's notable. You're actually wrong on this one - David Gerard 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll have to disagree with these contentions. I've created Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Girly and added one comment later; this is hardly "subjectively bending the whole argument to whims", whatever that may mean. Could any of you please direct me to the policy page that allows undeletion by people who say that they are experts, even against the results of a procedurally correct AfD and a deletion review? Finally, the rule on reliable sources is established as a cornerstone guideline of Misplaced Pages, following from WP:V and WP:NOR, and any article that fails it merits deletion no matter what its subject is. Sandstein 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Expert undeletion - an academic expert on comics says it's notable, it's notable. Misplaced Pages is not in fact supposed to be anti-expert. Also, the present version of the article is considerably more substantiated than the AFDed version, so further db-tagging in the light of this would constitute an attempted abuse of process - David Gerard 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, I have to disagree. Yes, the present version of the article has more sources added to it, but it's still the same content, and as such subject to speedy deletion -- until this DRV decides to overturn the AfD. This may be process over product, but I do think it's bad conduct to preempt consensus-building by unilaterally implementing one's "expert" opinion. Sandstein 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, no. Just because there is a process does not mean it is the only one. Expert undeletion counts too - David Gerard 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Which policy allows "expert" undeletion? Sandstein 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • None. But the first step in changing policy is to start doing something differently when policy isn't working. This is such a case. The better question is "What reason is there, in the face of the evidence and reasons given, to re-delete the article?" Phil Sandifer 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a Super Expert and I Endorse Deletion. No new information, no problems with the close. To address some of the above comments, there is in fact a clear, verifiable, citable track record that comics hosted on sites like Keenspot do not somehow automatically get "an automatic pass" when it comes to meeting the content policies (See WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) of this encyclopedia. That some Keenspot comics were kept during some AfDs does not change the fact that many others have been deleted. For example, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crazy in Love (comic), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sorcery 101, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girly, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/God Mode, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abstract Gender (2nd nomination), etc, etc. In fact, the two "straightforward instances" given as examples above have each been deleted themselves at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elf Only Inn, Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Able and Baker, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker. Clearly, there is no consensus that articles on every single trivial Keenspot comic belongs on Misplaced Pages. Articles on the free-hosted 6,000+ Keenspace/ComicGenesis comics fare even worse on AfD. If there actually were a "consistent demonstrated consensus for keeping these articles," then there'd be no need to resort to a desperate unilateral consensus-ignoring "speedy overturn" and undeletion of this article. -- Dragonfiend 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As an expert, you can of course point to your credentials, as Phil can. No? Then you're actually wrong. You appear to have problems with the concept that an actual expert on a subject knows more about it than you do and that twenty nonexpert "delete" notavotes can be beaten by one expert saying "keep" - David Gerard 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that, yes, I can point to credentials that far exceed editing an academic journal does not change the fact that such an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. -- Dragonfiend 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd go and add "Misplaced Pages is not run on propositional logic" to WP:NOT, but I suspect that WP:POINT and/or WP:BEANS cover it. Suffice it to say that I am not acting as some detached and removed authority - I've presented historical evidence (The comic's membership in Keenspot and Dayfree), economic evidence (The comic is of sufficient popularity to support its creator, a rare feat in webcomics), and artistic evidence (Nominated for a Webcartoonist's Choice Award, reviewed by Eric Burns and Wednesday White). The reasons to keep the article extend far beyond an appeal to authority. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm a super expert on trivial blogs, and I don't like these trivial blog sources. I also keep my own trivial-award-winning super expert trivial blog on trivial internet awards, and the 125+ annual nominations for Webcartoonist's Choice Awards are so trivial that my posts about them rarely include smilies. I'd also like to point out that a large percentage of my super expert myspace friends endorse this deletion. --Dragonfiend 22:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Have you considered that you may be happier playing Nomic than editing Misplaced Pages? The whole thing where you pick a desired outcome and then change the rules at will to suit it plays much better there. Phil Sandifer 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
            • If you're truly concerned about my happiness, stop talking to me. Your history of personal attacks and incivility towards me frankly sickens me every time I see your name pop up here. --Dragonfiend 22:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Your attempts to make this into a personal conflict aside, do you have an actual response to my point? Because it seems as though you're still relying on an unfortunately skewed sense of what important and notable sources are for webcomics, to say nothing of an unfortunately skewed sense of what sources we can and can't use on Misplaced Pages, such that your opinion, while stated with admirable and at times amusing stridentness, has little to recommend it in terms of actual accuracy or usability. Phil Sandifer 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                • If anything has made this into a personal conflict, it was your initial comments in this discussion directed to me where you characterized as "Bull" my demonstrably true statement that there is no community consensus that we should keep articles on every trivial little Keenspot webcomic. In fact, as i have shown, community consensus has been to delete many of these minor webcomics. You then attempted to write off actual community consensus by claiming it was formed because I was "willing to shout until you got your way." And then your little buddy David showed up to try and ad hominem attack to label me a "nonexpert" based on his knowing absolutely nothing about my professional and academic history. So if you'd like this not to be a personal conflict, then please comment on content and not contributors -- especially contributors that you have a well-documented history of personal attacks and incivility towards. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. -- Dragonfiend 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Deleting to create a good encyclopedia remains rather like fucking for chastity. As for my "little buddy" David, may I suggest that dismissing a longstanding community member and former arbitrator like that ultimately says more about you than him. Your disdain for the topic of webcomics has been made clear, as has your ignorance about it. That, despite this, you are unwilling to yield to those knowledgeable about the topic and prepared to make careful and informed decisions does far more harm to the encyclopedia than my calling you out for it has or ever will. I point, again, to the number of sources I have brought up - sources that extend far beyond Keenspot - and ask you again. We have here a webcomic picked up by two separate syndicates, of sufficient popularity as to provide its creator with his livelihood, reviewed by two of the three big sites in webcomics, and nominated for the major webcomics awards. What more do you want? Even if Keenspot isn't enough for you, even if the awards aren't enough for you, even if Websnark isn't enough for you, how on Earth is Keenspot, Dayfree, Comixpedia, Websnark, the Webcartoonist's Choice Awards AND the fact that the cartoonist is able to make a living off of the comic not enough for you? Phil Sandifer 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • Could you stop talking to me, especially using obscene metaphors and personal attacks? Please respect that you really creep me out and make me feel sick to my stomach. If anyone else is reading this, note that my supposed ignorance and disdain of webcomics has led me to create and write webcomics-related articles like Gene Yang, Drew Weing, Lea Hernandez, Raina Telgemeier, Nowhere Girl, When I Am King, etc. You'll also note that all of these articles I've worked on are based on verifiable information from multiple, non-trivial reliable sources with repuattions for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than on how cool I think the comic is, how awesome I think it is that it was mentioned on some circular group of minor blogs a couple times, or that I've somehow confused an unreliable claim that someone is attempting to make a living as an artist with some sort of reliable source claiming that the webcomic is "of sufficient popularity as to provide its creator with his livelihood." (The Misplaced Pages article reads "fundraising efforts for the comic had been sufficiently successful that he would attempt to support himself wholly via the comic" and the self-published blog source clearly reads "It can't quite be officially declared that Josh is living solely from Girly.") So, no, this doesn't cut it. That a webcomic artist made some webcomics friends and joined some collectives, hasn't been noticed by any source other than a few blogs, and writes in a blog post that they hope to some day make some undefined amount of income (What? Minimum wage? Enough so that mom will let me crash on her couch?) equals too trivial for an encyclopedia. It's not like we have a policy that everyone who makes $X a year gets a Misplaced Pages article. -- Dragonfiend 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • I am happy to stop talking to you if you'll do the courtesy of leaving the discussion. But I have not been discourteous to you in this discussion. I have called you out when your points have been wrongheaded and destructive - which has been frequently. You've been no less zealous to me on numerous occasions, including an open and baldfaced attack on my academic integrity. As for the obscene metaphors, it was an adaptation of the frequent pacifist adage that killing for peace is like fucking for chastity. I suppose I could have used the less-common "screwing for chastity," but I doubt it would have satisfied you. In any case, the point remains - I'm happy to engage in discussion with you, particularly when you actually do me the courtesy of answering my points. (Feel free to notice, btw, that Comixpedia is not a blog.) To openly declare your disdain for me is at best an ad hominem attack, and at worst a complete failure to engage in a good faith effort to find consensus. Either way, it has no useful place in the conversation. Phil Sandifer 00:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • I'm very familiar with the origin of your obscene metaphor, and I won't be bullied into leaving this discussion. If anyone else is reading this, note that Comixpedia does in fact host blogs, and that the source for the idea that the artist of this webcomic hopes to someday make a living as an artist comes directly from "joshl.'s blog" at http://comixpedia.com/blog/joshl. Currently, Comixpedia largely serves as group blog where webcomics artists write about themselves. -- Dragonfiend 01:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Trying to stay out of this now, but I thought it'd help to clarify how Comixpedia works. It is indeed a news site, and not a blog. The "blogs" contained within it can be contributed to by anybody, but ONLY those deemed newsworthy by the editors are posted on the front page. It is essentially a more Internet-based way of submitting press releases, and that's how I treat my "blog" there. If I wanted to make a regular blog post, I'd just use my actual blog to do it. Another thing, Dragon... I make enough money from all my web-based projects to live, and Girly accounts for a significant percentage of that. I'd like you to name... twenty-five webcartoonists who've accomplished this. These are the facts, and I'll leave it at that. And don't ask exactly how much I make; that's rude. --SuperHappy 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • Thanks for the clarificaton Josh (that is you, right?) but it's really unecessary -- I'm very familiar with how Comixpedia works. If you want to describe it as a news site where the publisher (Xerexes) puts creator press release blog posts on the front page, that's fine. I think it's more accurate to call it as mainly a group blog where the publisher decides which blog posts go to the front page, similar to how the blog Daily Kos works. As far as 25 webcartoonists who make a living (again, whatever that means, anyone can pick ther own standard of living), the best I can do is point you to the dozen listed at List of self sufficient webcomics. I'm sure there are quite a few others, but we need reliable sources for information we publish as an unreliable encyclopedia is useless. (Actually, I see now that one of those does not have a source, so make that eleven). -- Dragonfiend 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Right, so those credentials of yours are: ________________ - David Gerard 23:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • I think you just showed you don't have an argument. Your personal opinion of Phil has no bearing on his status as an actual expert on comics, someone whose opinion on this particular subject really truly does count for more than yours, no matter how you slice it or what mud may be thrown - David Gerard 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • I hope you'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to post my personal CV in a conversation with strangers on the internet who are fond of personal attacks and incivility including comments about how deleting articles on trivial webcomics make them feel like killing people. Since I have no intention of making appeals to my own authority, what do I gain by posting my credentials? Will the personal attacks suddenly stop? Will I sleep better at night knowing that people who harrass me know where I work and go to school? Are you going to start going around saying "Keep, Dragonfiend is an expert" and "Delete, Dragonfiend is an expert"? Really, if I actually thought it would make my life easier to give my academic and employment history to complete strangers on the internet who harrass me and talk about killing, well I'd proabably do it. But my instinct for self-preservation sort of rules that out. If David, you actually think that learning more about my academic and employment record would help you stop making ad hominem personal attacks, then maybe we could solve this through mediation somehow. -- Dragonfiend 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • If you can list the edits that you consider constitute me making ad hominem attacks on you, please do so. In the meantime, you made personal attacks on Phil in response to me noting that he is an academic expert on comics; and it doesn't matter if he were to be determined to be a thoroughly reprehensible Wikipedian and eat babies, he'd still be an academic expert on comics. He can prove it. As such, I eagerly await you proving your assertion of "super expertise," else a lkess charitable person than myself might think you were blustering to avoid backing up your assertions - David Gerard 01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • As this issue of "people who know nothing about me have decided I can be dismissed as a 'non-expert'" has drifted off topic, it is being continued at User_talk:David_Gerard#Your_asssessment_of_my_credentials -- Dragonfiend 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) Well, I for one have the same problems with this concept because it is alien to Misplaced Pages. As far as I know, Misplaced Pages runs on consensus and policy, not on supposed expert opinion and unilateral decisions. If you do not like this, you may be more comfortable contributing to another encyclopedia project, such as Citizendium or Wikinfo. Sandstein 21:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Consensus is not, however, a process of counting votes. Misplaced Pages is run by a process of trusting well-informed and well-intentioned editors to make the right decisions. Decisions are made based on whose arguments are best in line with principles and common sense. I've demonstrated notability in multiple ways, and staked the claims on my reputation as a scholar in the field (Or, well, David has, but I'll accept it). Misplaced Pages's decision making process does not give "Eh, I don't care about your arguments and credentials, I vote delete anyway" equal weight to that. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not questioning your credentials. I'm just opining they don't matter here, because this is a coverage-based notability discussion. It requires reliable sources but no expert knowledge. You're right in that it's not about counting votes but about assessing arguments. But this assessment is for the closing administrator alone to make. He or she may well take your expert status into account, although I would decide based on the sources alone. This is why I object to your out-of process restoration. I'd say you're about to make a good case for the notability of Girly with your new sources, but I feel there's no need to take the law, in a manner of speaking, into your own hands. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • WP:RS is a highly disputed guideline at this point for reasons more or less exactly like this one, however. (And I should know, since I wrote a line by line critique of it.) Phil Sandifer 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Even if one disagrees with WP:RS, this is still no reason to restore deleted content out of process just because the consensus opinion in AfD and DRV seems to agree with WP:RS. We may disagree on WP:RS, but we should all respect process and consensus. Sandstein 21:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I have the utmost respect for consensus, and similar respect for any process through which it is actually generated. Phil Sandifer 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Keenspace/Comicgenesis is completely irrelevant - it is trivial to host on ComicGenesis, therefore it's not good enough for WP:WEB. God Mode failed WP:WEB because of being co-created by Chris Crosby (and therefore Keenspot was not Independant). Keenspot is only mentioned once in the AFD for Abstract Gender, and it was extremly close. Using Girly as an example here is just.. bizarre. The point is, it's undeniable that Keenspot is both 'well known and independent' of most of the comic creators and is not trivial. As for 'no new information' - it having been on Keenspot was not brought up in the AFD for Girly. It's relevant to it's deletion. Hm ... Should votes based on demonstratively false information be given the same weight as ones backed up by proof? Webrunner 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • God Mode was also a terrible AfD, it should be noted - the issue isn't lack of independent sources. It's a fine primary source, and if Keenspot serves as grounds for notability (it should) and if Crosby is a notable creator (he certainly is) the sourcing issue is negligible. Also, note that the comic is on Dayfree now, which is a separate notable syndicate (Having both Dinosaur Comics and Questionable Content). Phil Sandifer 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Girly's notability within the field of webcomics is difficult to dispute; Keenspot (not Keenspace) invited it into its consortium, Josh Lesnic is able to make a living creating Girly; Eric Burns (one of if not the most important non-creator voice in webcomics) attests that Girly is one of the most influential webcomics among other webcomic artists. Many of those who voted delete in the original vote showed little familiarity with the field they were judging, which may not be a requirement to judge, but should have less sway than an understanding of the matter would.Nedlum 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • According to a comixpedia blog post by "joshl" from August 24, 2006, "It can't quite be officially declared that Josh is living solely from Girly." -- Dragonfiend 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)