The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The vast majority of Wikipedia-policy based arguments here are in favour of keeping this article. Tokyogirl79 raises a number of valid points which are worth further discussion on the article's talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures for Sad Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator of the comic has asked that this page be removed. Forpfsc (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Forpfsc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Pictures for Sad Children

• Snow Keep - This is a valid item for the encyclopedia and the rationale of author request seems to be an invalid deletion reason not based in policy. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author has indicated that the comic archive will be posted if the page is deleted. By existing the page is actually limiting content and information. ^[1] Forpfsc (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant to whether or not it is appropriate to remain on wikipedia. The author can choose to do as they please but that decision will not impact the encyclopedia. Also, not that it matters but the domain has lapsed in the past and there is no way to verify it isn't a forged website or request just for the removal of content.-- Dane2007 ^talk 01:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of turning the "ref" link into a normal external link. Easier to follow and doesn't cause a malformed reflist at the bottom of this page. Hope that's okay. Yintan  07:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I turned it back into a ref. It's mentioned in more than one place and it is very hard to spot as a single number in square brackets. I moved the talk reflist to where the ref is first used so it won't keep getting moved. Meters (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the references are just kickstarter updates anyway. Regardless of the status of the archive returning, with the comic altogether gone from the internet, does the remaining coverage really demonstrate notability of a legacy? Parabolist (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was put best by Himynameishelen on the talk page: "Cleopatra isn't a queen any more; just because something no longer exists doesn't mean it ceases being notable." Notability is not temporary and enough of the sources remain intact to justify notability. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a break; this is no Cleopatra. Relaxing (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Really is one event by a non-notable person.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the person is not in question; the notability of the web comic is what the page is about and what is up for deletion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article, and its sources, do not seem to assert the notability of the comic. They seem to be mainly about the unusual actions of the artist. "WP is not news."Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:RECENT, WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual Relaxing (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've quoted two essays and two policies. As deletion discussions are primarily focused around policy, I will note that the notability of the person (per your quotation of WP:BIO) is not the question, the page around their comic is. The notability of the comic is established by the reliable sources present in the article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the article focuses on the author's actions in one particular matter, which was recentism then and not notable now. The focus on the author over the material brings the biographical nature into question. I challenge you to use the tools on this page to find evidence of the subject's notability. With a couple exceptions all you'll find are blog/news articles about the act in question dating from the time it occurred, and nothing since. This is not notability. Delete. Relaxing (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no real reason to remove it under the guidelines. Furthermore the deletion of the page could set a precedent for any artist to hold new (or in this case, not even new) works for "ransom" in exchange for removal of an (factually accurate) entry they just don't like.Kaitzi (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Kaitzi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. WP is capable of considering any and all deletion requests on their own merit. Relaxing (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope or no, there's still not a reason to delete the page, period.2601:40E:8002:1100:7C99:3EA4:DB79:BCA7 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason for deletion within a mile of policy - David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This comic was not notable while it was available online, and it is less notable now. NoThanks (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — NoThanks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The comic has been referenced several times and continues to be brought up as recently as June 2016. A Google News search shows this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Google News search has one mention of the kickstarter campaign, from June 2016. The previous Google News results are also about the kickstarter campaign, one from June 2015 and several from February 2014. The only google news result not about the kickstarter appears to be from 2010, and is about an art show held by the author. There are no Google News results about the webcomic "Pictures for Sad Children." NoThanks (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Brought up', the Kickstarter gets referenced in clickbait. That's not notable, that's media companies profiteering off an individual's suffering. If that's the standard for a justifiable source then Wikipedia itself should be your own source text but it isn't, follow your own protocol. Delete. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete This webcomic doesn't exist, there is no information beyond the (manifestly false) hearsay of a few gatekeepers. The name of the author is wrong. It's not notable insofar as it has zero manifest presence w/i the space of 'notability.' Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to provide a reliable source stating that the name of the author is wrong? -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide one indicating that it is not wrong? Their Twitter account has the bio line 'please don't refer to me as 'john campbell' thank you". This is obviously not the first time this has come up. There's no extant original source for the name 'John Campbell' and the only original source for anything in this article, the 'controversial' Kickstarter, itself has no remaining instance of the person themself using this name. The only conceivable purpose for retaining this name is to save face and authority and retroactively justify the sickening harassment of an individual who has made their wishes expressly known. WIkipeida's sanctimonious wielding of its own protocol as edict is transparent bullying-- no one can produce justification for the existence of the article beyond something someone said making some people upset. That's not 'notable', it's not anything.Delete this. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The source from "Slate" references the author as John Campbell as do most if not all of the other sources. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the source from 'Slate' nor any of the other sources can be considered an authority on an individual's current name in light of that individual making all apparent effort to dispense with that name. WP:BLPSELFPUB Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A reliable source must be cited for this claim - as anyone can register a Twitter account, we cannot confirm that or use it as a reliable source. As such, we will use the current reliable sources that state the authors name is John Campbell. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the account in question has been registered since 2009 and has consistently been used by the author of the comic in question. Anyone who is following the account started doing so because they intended to follow the person in question. In the question of a person's name their own self-assertion by a personal social media account should easily be taken as more reliable than old unsourced news posts, or at the absolute barest least should give adequate cause to strike the use of a proper name altogether. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm going to drop the stick on this matter as it's obvious we don't see eye to eye on what is required here. Our arguments will be judged by the closer and they can do as they see fit. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say The New Yorker is a pretty reliable source to show that, at the time of Pictures, the author went by the name of Campbell.[1] Yintan  17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS The page primarily discusses the kickstarter rather than the webcomic itself, which was not notable. This is not appropriate content for an encyclopaedia but rather a gossip article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The author's 'ransom' is irrelevant: the page's content is the issue. Niamhdh (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Niamhdh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS and possibly WP:SOAP aslamp (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not written in a news style nor is it written in a way that WP:SOAP would apply. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is absolutely written as an account of events that were current at the time. Relaxing (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have reliable citation for anything about the comic itself excepting that it existed (via the New Yorker article; the WCCA source is a dead link). The bulk of the article and sources are given to recounting only a single incident (WP:BLP1E) in the form of a timeline (WP:NOTNEWS) and describing the actions of a person who has not sought attention (WP:LPI) The final section on the website's 'Closure' is unsourced. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author has asked, on multiple accounts that have always belonged to them, that this page be removed. As someone who struggles with mental illness, listening to what people say will make their lives easier, no matter how odd the request may seem, is important to me. As others have pointed out, the majority of the article is focused on the kickstarter campaign and also deadnames the author. I hope others will listen and opt for respecting the author's wishes. Bottleofink (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to cite regarding the dead naming? As it turns out though, we don't remove content merely because an author requests to do so as that would jeopardize the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point's that the article's subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's own notability standards doesn't clear any burden of citation, traffics in gossip and hearsay and willfully and defiantly maintains biographical data that's untrue, such that the purpose of the article can only be construed as to abet ongoing harassment and character assassination of an individual who's repeatedly asked that it stop. How's that square with 'the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole'? Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Xaxxyxxxyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you dispute the information, then you should request the sources to correct themselves as that's what Wikipedia uses for it's articles. As for the notability claims, see my responses above. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well requesting external sources to edit their content is not a realistic resolution here. Relaxing (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that the article is about the webcomic and not the individual, in which case the article contains no substantive information regarding its subject. If it's that the comic continues to be referenced, in which case it's only ever referenced in association with the Kickstarter, and the article is not about the Kickstarter, the Kickstarter doesn't meet any standard of notability as evidenced by its total nil impact on culture excepting being referenced with no investigation or factcheck by blogs or reports of different Kickstarters (which themselves don't get dedicated Wikipedia articles). Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I looked up the domain picturesforsadchildren.com on http://www.tucowsdomains.com/ and it says it was registered by someone named John Campbell. Also, although the website expired last year, the tucows entry says it was renewed this past March. Thus, I consider it pretty certain that Campbell did really ask for this page to be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BURO The policies cited in defense of keeping this page are completely arbitrary. The existence of this page is preventing access to the actual work it's about. How can anyone claim generic guidelines are more important than this? (Clearly fans of the comic all know that the author no longer goes by John Campbell. The insistence that we find 'reliable sources' is ridiculous given that the author is known for their lack of an online presence.)Dollotron (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Dollotron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whether or not this is a case of deadnaming is irrelevant to deciding if this should be deleted. If it can be reliably shown that the cartoonist has changed names/gender choice (or whatever this is) then the article can be changed. As User:Dane2007 has already pointed out, the cartoonist trying to force Wikipedia into removing the article by removing the cartoon's online archive is also irrelevant to this AFD. Meters (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be irrelevant but the insisting on impeding all efforts to at the very least redress the harm of using manifestly incorrect names and pronouns with the question of 'reliably show[wing]' that this person has 'changed names/gender choice' is willful obstinance. There are countless ways the article could have been fixed prior to now based on manifest data but the encyclopedia has instead opted to apply a rigid standard respecting 'reliable' documentation to an individual whose entire m.o. has been the refusal of this. This seems political. This goes beyond deadnaming but the standard may be usefully considered: the use of any name is incorrect and harmful. The article itself is incorrect and harmful. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you agree that the issue is irrelevant to this AFD, please stop raising it here. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page, where it belongs. Meters (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an extension of my point that the defense of keeping this article and general unquestioning adherence to policy with respect to this topic are irrational and arbitrary. And User:Dane2007's claim that the comic's accessibility is irrelevant is part of what I'm refuting. To claim that this brief article is more important than the existence of its subject matter is unreasonable. The guidelines being cited here serve no real purpose.Dollotron (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the author removing the archive and requesting the article come down may be irrelevant to Wikipedia's deletion protocol. But also note that there's no evidence that removing the archive was an attempt to 'force' Wikipedia to do anything, and that assertion shouldn't be considered. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you agree that the archive issue is irrelevant to this AFD please stop raising it here. It's odd that you don't see the author posting "pictures for sad children returns with archives when the wikipedia entry has been removed" (see the ref already on this page) as evidence of the attempt to manipulate Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that you don't think the author wants the Wikipedia page removed? Meters (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter what the author wants or doesn't it? How exactly is Wikipedia being 'manipulated' by the notion an archive it doesn't own or control might be reinstated if it makes an edit already in accordance with its own policy? Or by a person expressing that they are being caused harm? Is the question of the archive relevant to this AFD or isn't it? I think it's not-- I think the article is bad, uses trivial non-verifiable sources, barely treats the subject it's ostensibly about in lieu of any verifiable information, is given predominantly to hearsayish discussion of a non-event only referenced in passing to dissimilar 'events', (WP:GNG) and uses Wikipedia for a destructive purpose in that it gives misleading unsubstantiated impressions of a person of intentional low-profile (Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, WP:IAR). Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not irrelevant. It's very related to my point that all challenges to the existence and/or validity of this article have been met with references to policy with no reasonable justification nor consideration for the nuances of this particular situation. Dollotron (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible you're failing to convince us that the claimed nuances are sufficient to ignore all that - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is generally the nature of disagreements. I'm simply explaining my argument. Dollotron (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator filmed himself burning books people had paid for and posted it online. That doesn't seem like someone who has "avoided high-profile activity" to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Doesn't matter that it is offline now, the comic's history makes it notable. It was a finalist for an award, there's been an expo about it, the whole 'burning books' thing, etc. In my opinion it (just) meets WP:WEBCRIT. If the author doesn't like being on Wikipedia, well, bad luck, that's completely irrelevant. Yintan  07:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just found another source, notability-wise; an interview with the New Yorker. [2]. Yintan  15:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is that irrelevant? This is a unique situation and should be treated accordingly. There's no reason for this page to exist other than an unquestioning fealty to guidelines which are specifically stated to not be taken overly literally. Dollotron (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question why Campbell's wish is irrelevant has been answered three times already. And no, it's not a "unique situation" at all, there have been other people who didn't like being mentioned (or see their work) on Wikipedia. Yintan  17:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and my point is that this insistence of irrelevance is unreasonable. WP:BURO Dollotron (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. In that case I suggest you start a movement, get consensus, and change the way Wikipedia works. Yintan  17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to since I just referenced a policy which specifically states that the guidelines are not always meant to be unreasonably interpreted to the letter. Dollotron (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You said so before. And before. But repeating your argument doesn't make it any more valid in my book, sorry, and I don't like going round in circles. You may call me unreasonable (again) but I'm dropping the stick too. Yintan  17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you seemed to either not understand or choose to ignore that point, hence my repetition. I don't expect you to agree, I'm just explaining myself. Really not that complicated. Dollotron (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I'm on the fence about this one. I think maybe, possibly this could skirt by WP:WEBCRIT as stated above but, I'm just not seeing it. This one is close, but the article seems to be more about the artist and their Kickstarter issues more than anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Between full Google searches and news-only searches, this seems to be on the bubble of notability. It averages 100+ views per day, so users are still interested in it. It has a high ratio of primary to tertiary sources, but that's no reason to delete. Nominator's rationale isn't in line with policy. Assuming the claim that the archive will be put back online if this page is deleted, then Parabolist's argument becomes self-defeating. Thoughtmonkey dismisses it as an event by a non-notable person, but the comic and events themselves seem notable per coverage. NoThanks fails to understand WP:NTEMP. Relaxing links to relevant essays, but does not actually make a point with them. A quick search of Google News shows at least two articles from 2016 that give coverage to the story, so the WP:RECENT claim doesn't hold water. Xaxxyxxxyx makes a lot of unsupported claims. aslamp is refuted per Dane. Bottleofink makes an emotional appeal, but I side with Dane - removing sourced (and undisputed!) information because the subject doesn't like it damages the integrity of Wikipedia. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the 2016 links Google News turns up, you'll find they are clickbait-type sites making passing reference to the book/kickstarter issue. You can't even call that "coverage". This is not good evidence of the subject's notability. Refer again to WP:WEBCRIT's use of "non-trivial" and "reliable" when evaluating sources. Relaxing (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take your word for it - I can't view those websites at my work computer (content filter). Perhaps merging this information to Kickstarter#Controversies would be a good compromise? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would the deletion of this page damage the integrity of Wikipedia more than keeping it around solely to demonstrate baseless allegiance to guidelines which are meant to be interpreted by their 'principles?' Right now this article is nothing but a barrier preventing access to the work it's about, and the author doesn't want it removed simply because they 'don't like' the information; they are struggling with mental illness and want their internet presence minimalized, especially when they are being referred to by an incorrect name. What is integrous about ignoring these factors? This isn't some noble preservation of information; there's nothing in this article that can't be found elsewhere. Dollotron (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. "this article is nothing but a barrier preventing access to the work it's about" That's the creator's decision, and the availability of the material actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. "[the author] want[s] their internet presence minimalized" Baloney. You've already implied that if this page comes down, the author will return content to the internet. Furthermore, if the true goal was to minimize internet presence, why bring attention to this issue on Twitter instead of...not being on twitter? "referred to by an incorrect name" This name was provided by the author, and it's who published sources credit. I'm more than a little confused that no one in this discussion has mentioned what the "real" name is supposed to be, let alone provide a source for it. "There's nothing in this article that can't be found elsewhere" That's true of every Wikipedia article that follows WP:OR. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'If you hate protesting so much why are you protesting'. Please don't presume to have a semblance of understanding of the motives of this individual. We don't know what the 'real name' is-- we have no verification one even exists. All we have is the currently published one is not verifiable as currently in use and has been actively denied to be in use by the human it at one point referred to. Its use by private publications is non-pertinent-- they share none of WIkipedia's burden of standard. The source is that there is no source, just as with the rest of the article. Xaxxyxxxyx (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't presume to have a semblance of understanding of the motives of this individual." Is this directed at Dollotron? Because that user is the one who mentioned the motives. I just point out the lack of coherence in them. "the currently published [name] is not verifiable as currently in use" It doesn't need to be verified as "currently in use." It's verified as the name used at the time, and it's the name used on the work being discussed. Created works are always listed as being made by the name used in the credits. Hence why the Wachoski Brothers wrote The Matrix. "The source is that there is no source" I don't know how to respond to this, other than that you don't seem to grasp how Wikipedia works. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood a few points. Xaxxyxxxyx was referring to the motives of the author, as you clearly aren't very aware of their history and behavior(; that's not a dig, it's just true). The availability of the material actually has plenty to do with Wikipedia, since the article's existence is preventing it; ignoring this because it does not fit a policy does not make it untrue. As far as the supposed inconsistency in the author's wish to minimalize their internet presence, I don't think either of us can pretend there is not a clear difference between their own publishing of their original work and a Wikipedia page about them. It's not unbelievable for them to be OK with one and not the other. I'm not really sure why there is so much suspicion with respect to this and the matter of their name. And my point about this article containing no unique information was a further example of my assertion that there is nothing integrous about its preservation. Dollotron (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Xaxxyxxxyx was referring to the motives of the author. I pointed out that you are the one who stated the motives, not me. I only responded to your statements. Also, the Wikimedia Foundation is not preventing the creator from making the material available. If I said I won't eat any vegetables until you change your vote here, would that mean you're responsible for my unhealthy diet? The creator is choosing not to make it available, and could change that decision at any time regardless of any action taken here.

And sure, I see a difference between publishing your own work and someone publishing comments about your work. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of dictating when, where, or what other people choose to talk about. Nothing in the Wiki article is a copyright violation. The only thing reproduced from the comic is the logo, which is fair use. If John Campbell (or whoever) chooses to publish accurate (or even inaccurate) information about Wikipedia, I doubt anyone would suggest it be taken down. I'm certain no one would remove Wikipedia from the internet until he complied with the request. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a deeply strange AFD. Is there any policy-based reason to delete this article? We wouldn't delete the Harry Potter article if JK Rowling asked us to. A Train^talk 20:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of the webcomic had even a sliver of that sort of notoriety, this discussion wouldn't be happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forpfsc (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that if the creator was more notable, that we would remove the article? Or that we're keeping it because the creator isn't notable? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forpfsc seems to be saying that if the author of the comic was notable (he/she now has no article) then there would be no nomination for deletion. I agree. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? Notable works can be created by non-notable people, and notable people can create non-notable works. SeeWP:INHERITED. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's suspicious that since this started the demand for the "Wikipedia entry removal" has been taken down on the supposed official website. Not that it has any bearing on the AfD but since it's been brought up so much I thought I would comment on that. What reason would the author have for suddenly removing this if not trying to manipulate wikipedia? -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the best way to avoid being manipulated be judge the article on its own merits and ignore the other stuff going on? Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Whatever is happening on that website is not important for this AfD and should be ignored. If the owner of that site has anything to say about this AfD he/she can do that here. Yintan  17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if that's not the author's name, then of course we should use their current name. Do we have a good source on the current name? - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked earlier, and the answer was that, apparently, we aren't even sure the creator has one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: Campbell was the author's name when the webcomic was online and the books were printed, sources in the article prove it. Current name could be the same, could be different, it's anybody's guess. So far there are no reliable sources for a name change. Yintan  21:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A creator asking for their page to be removed is not a Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion however if there are other personal issues such as a desire to avoid deadnaming or a desire to erase their work from the Internet then perhaps the article can be adjusted to be sensitive to that without erasing all mention of the comic itself. The comic is notable and it existed. Would we delete Why_the_lucky_stiff just because the person asked? A creator puts their work out into the world with a certain desire for its effects, but they don't get to dictate to the world what those effects will or won't be. Sorry Prince, I respect you, but there's no File:Prince logo.svg key on my keyboard. -- Tollsjo (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that we are being manipulated regardless of how we decide. After all, an artist has to sell him/herself.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page views for the article have gone up 482% in since this AFD went live, so there's that. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was talking about. :)Thoughtmonkey (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is irrelevant except for the issue of notability. Can you point to what makes it notable? The sources turned up by the tools on this page do not suggest notability. Relaxing (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "The creator of the comic has asked that this page be removed" isn't a valid reason to delete an encyclopedia article, therefore at least as currently stated I don't see a justification here. --Delirium (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a mistake by the nominator to take that position, but aren't we still allowed to consider the topic's notability? Thoughtmonkey (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Unless Campbell were able to convince The New Yorker, Mashable, The Daily Dot, Killscreen, Slate Magazine, Bleeding Cool, and Comic Alliance that their work isn't notable, I see no reason for it to be deleted here. We could rename it to Pictures for Sad Children controversy for all I care, the topic is highly notable. Hell, Campbell is still making webcomics. ~Mable (chat) 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but wouldn't an article about Campbell him/herself make more sense? I don't see a person's work and actions being notable without the person themself also being notable.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources, save for the Comics Alliance one covering Birdman, are about this work. A think an article focused on either subject could work, and have no strong feelings about a change in focus. It would take some work, though. ~Mable (chat) 22:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the author of "Pictures for Sad Children." I asked for this entry to be removed according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which was not done. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Am I an acceptable source for my name and gender, or do I have to get interviewed somewhere? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC) — Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• A reliable source must be used to confirm any name changes. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Gender change can be announced through any kind of confirmed social media post or whatever. I'm not sure you still have such a thing, though. We can't confirm your identity based only on your IP address. As you can imagine, if we trusted your word for it and you ended up being an impostor, we would end up misgendering the actual Campbell. Do you know any way to announce your gender that we can confirm? ~Mable (chat) 19:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How would I confirm that I am me? What would we be confirming this "with"? If the announcement is that I don't have a gender or a name, and to take them both off this page, would this be respected? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very probably not. Wikipedia wants reliable sources and an announcement made on (for example) Twitter doesn't count as such. Yintan  20:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If some "reliable source" runs an announcement by me, and in it I say that I do not have a gender or a name, would Wikipedia stop referring to me by my old name and gender? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If a source said you didn't have a name, I would discount the source as reliable. Legally, you have a name even if you don't associate with it anymore. As such, likely it would just change the article to "was known at the time as". -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How about gender, if I say in a "reliable source" that I don't have a gender, would you "discount the source as reliable"? Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I would say something like "Campbell does not identify to any specific gender" or remove it altogether, depending on what consensus was. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't refer to me as "John" or "Campbell" or "John Campbell" even if the rules say otherwise. That's all, please. Gender neutral. The New Yorker is not going to interview me again. Thank you for your time. Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have no way of knowing if you really are who you claim to be. I believe it is possible to make requests such as this through the WP:OTRS system. The user would have to contact the OTRS team, and prove his or her identity first. Meters (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the comic was published under the name "John Campbell". I did try to edit the entry to the effect of "past name John Campbell - current name and gender unverified" but it was removed. However, the work was done by an individual named John Campbell at the time. Caitlyn Jenner has gone through a very public transition in both body and name, but nobody pretends her name wasn't Bruce when she won an Olympic gold. IMO, even if a new name (or non-name) could be verified, it would (should) not change the article, besides a footnote.Kaitzi (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations, Dane2007, Kaitzi, Meters, Yintan, and Maplestrip: Hello! I came here following a notice on the WikiProject LGBT Studies talk page. The notice said that it would be useful to provide support to correct a name and gender in an article. The Wikipedia community is still developing its process for managing new information like this, but we have some processes which have resolved this in some cases. If any of this seems like too much, then I would offer to advocate for anyone who emailed me. Here are some ideas for how this is usually managed:

1. By default, Wikipedia will reflect what has been published in third-party reliable sources. See WP:BLP and WP:RS.
2. If there is information available about gender beyond what has been published in third-party reliable sources, then Wikipedia might be updated with that information. Some source is needed, because Wikipedia should not misgender anyone, but it need not be a published source. Sources which have been accepted in the past for a name or gender correction include any of the following:
   1. Post an update to an established online identity which was known to be used by the person. An update to an established website or twitter account might work. Anyone should be able to see and confirm this.
   2. Send an email to Wikipedia's email queue with an image of an identification card with the publicly known name and a note saying what kind of correction should be made. Corrections which can be made are name and gender. There is not a dedicated review team for this, but I work with Wikipedia editors in New York City who have more LGBT-related partnerships than any other wiki-organization. That does not mean this group has authority, but at least it demonstrates that this group is trying to offer support on this issue and wants to make this process quicker and easier for all involved. Wikimedia New York City can handle this request if anyone writes to wm-nycwikimedia.org. A phone call could also be scheduled through this email address.
   3. A reliable third-party publication is always acceptable but may be too complicated to manage for these things.
3. In cases in which a person was publicly known and described by one identity, then has a change to their public image, Wikipedia might still reflect old publications in some ways. However, the intent in Wikipedia is to present a person's identity in whatever way is the most respectful to all involved. If there is something else to discuss or anyone wants Wikipedia's best practices or rules to change, then as with everything else on Wikipedia, changes can be made.

Further documentation on this issue is available at Manual of Style:Identity and WP:Aboutself. I hope this helps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on available sourcing and cut down on the primary sourcing in the article. Name issues are separate from deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was ready to come in here and argue for inclusion until I saw that the artist formerly known as John Campbell (who has since changed their name to something I don't know after revealing that they are transgender) has repeatedly asked for this article to be deleted. Here's my rationale for this:

Ultimately it all boils down to coverage. The coverage in the article is predominantly about the whole Kickstarter debacle, which looks to have come about because of issues with severe depression. For those of you that haven't dealt with this as far as yourself and your family goes, consider yourself lucky. Severe depression doesn't mean that someone sits in a corner and cries all day - people can act extremely erratically and so some pretty "crazy" things. As someone who has family members with severe depression and who works in a hospital that deals with mentally ill patients, what Campbell did during the Kickstarter debacle is actually not all that surprising. My point in going into all of this is that I don't think that it's appropriate for us to decide notability when notability is being primarily based on coverage of a person in the throes of a mental illness. Especially when the artist herself is asking for the page's removal because they want to vanish from the Internet.

The coverage that doesn't deal with the Kickstarter is fairly light. Two of the sources (both by Comics Alliance) are about non-PfSC material. Of the other sources, this one is an interview that talks about PfSC but is also more general. This one goes into how much Campbell really, really wants to vanish from the Internet as far as PfSC goes and likely in general.

Now what's left after that is a brief article from CBS Chicago... and that's it. If we remove the non-PfSC coverage and the Kickstarter coverage, that leaves us with at most three sources to establish notability - and one of those is about how much Campbell doesn't want any material about PfSC on the Internet. If we were to turn this into an article about Campbell then the material about the Kickstarter issues would pose a BLP issue about what, if anything, should be included much like we'd have a similar discussion about anyone who had a visible mental breakdown on the Internet. Odds are that it'd be a 1-2 sentence mention at the most and we'd still have to provide a lot of coverage to justify including even that.

My basic point is that ultimately we have a webcomic that was popular but didn't receive a lot of coverage. Most of what it did receive comes from something someone did during a very dark point in their life. This isn't the equivalent of Megatokyo, to where Wikipedia would genuinely be the worse for its removal. Maybe if the author wasn't lobbying for the page's removal my answer might be a bit different, but the point here is that she is and she's asked for this multiple times. I'm really uncomfortable with us keeping an article that is apparently causing Campbell no small amount of personal distress. I say that if Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations wants to disappear from the Internet then we should let her. I can't remember the name of the article, but I remember deleting an article for an artist's work that had more coverage (and in academic sources) because the retention of the article was actually hurting her life and career, which had taken a far different turn since she made said artwork. This situation is no different, except that the coverage is smaller here than it was there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all TL;DNR, but the basic is that the coverage here is light and primarily based on something that happened due to a mental illness. Considering that the author has apparently been asking for its deletion for years, I don't see where it would hurt Wikipedia to remove it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a very sad situation, I agree, but the thing is, even if the Wikipedia article was taken down, a single Google search still brings up all of the other sources. Kill Screen decided long after the controversy that the incident was still worth covering, while Comics Alliance has covered some of the author's other works. Everything this Wikipedia article has to say has been covered by all of the other top search results. I find it important that we don't hurt this person, but their actions just got a lot of attention from sources, good and bad. I just hope we can somehow get through this whole gender situation, though it seems like Elmyr de Hory has left the discussion... We could use the Kill Screen blog as a source for the author being transgender, perhaps, but based on what they said in this discussion, that doesn't even seem accurate now. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm just really, really uncomfortable with the fact that the bulk of the coverage for this webcomic center upon one event, an event that came about because of the webcartoonist's public breakdown due to what looks to have been a very serious mental illness. Wikipedia is under no obligation to record everything and ultimately what's on the article right now is essentially it. Ultimately what I see here is that we have an article that's of borderline notability. Most of the coverage came about because of something that would pose a definite BLP issue if this was a biography instead of an article on a webcomic, so we have to question whether or not it's really right to base this webcomic's notability on the author having what was by all accounts, a messy public breakdown. This same webcomic artist had repeatedly requested that the article be removed. While yes, the coverage for his mental breakdown is more than just one or two sources, the fact is that the bulk of the coverage is still for this one event. If this coverage didn't exist, it'd be far less likely that there would be as many keeps in this AfD. We need to look at this from an ethical standpoint as well as a notability standpoint. The webcartoonist has repeatedly stated that they want the page removed and has given every indication outside of Wikipedia that they want to disappear from the Internet (and have the webcomic disappear as well). The bulk of coverage comes from an event stemming from a mental breakdown and what's left over from that is actually pretty light. Wikipedia has generally granted requests from people requesting the deletion of their pages and the only time that they don't is when the article topic is so extremely notable that there would be a huge gaping hole left behind in Wikipedia by its removal. We wouldn't remove an article on say, Rosie Ruiz, but Campbell and PfSC haven't reached that level of notability. I also need to note that if we're going by the amount of Google hits, the top results that come up for me are places that Wikipedia would't consider to be RS, like Reddit, blogs, and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Basically, just because we can keep an article doesn't really mean that we should and we really need to take into consideration the potential for continued harm, the overall lack of non-mental illness related coverage, and the author's wishes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Now as far as potential concerns that this is something that the cartoonist is doing in order to get things a certain way, this would actually backfire quite solidly because a delete here would prevent the article's recreation unless the webcomic has a very substantial amount of coverage beyond the webcomic currently has. Ultimately at the time of the meltdown Campbell was a WP:LOWPROFILE person who doesn't seem to have sought out coverage and has since seemed to have studiously avoided gaining any additional coverage. In other words, they'd be doing themselves a bigger disservice by seeking deletion rather than doing something like holding an interview with a reliable source and/or posting something in a verified location that contains whatever information they wanted changed or added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm definitely going to place a note over at WikiProject BLP. Maybe someone there has a better idea of how to deal with the situation. I'm sticking with my opinion that there is too much coverage for this article to be deleted, but I agree that the situation is incredibly uncomfortable. ~Mable (chat) 15:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tokyogirl79 The BLP issues are valid concerns, regardless of whether the article is about the comic strip or about the artist. Meters (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too many issues to address in detail (some are related by other editors above), but here are my big ones. This looks like a COATRACK about the non-notable author thinly disguised as being about the comic strip. It also has serious WP:1E issues as most of the coverage revolves around the claims of depression. If you take that out the alleged subject of the article has insufficient coverage to meet GNG. Nominations for awards generally don't count towards notability in the absence of in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there any actual, verified evidence that the artist requested deletion? The reference provided as proof that the artist wants the page deleted just links to a page with clouds. If we're going to consider deletion based on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, we have to make sure that the request is at least real. The sources provided in the article show that the person in question has at times been less than honest in their dealings, but as Tokyogirl79 has shown, it's possible to make case for a BLPREQUESTDELETE even if it's not a perfect WP:LOWPROFILE fit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: There hasn't been any actual confirmed request from the author. Even the website has expired at one point so I don't trust that as reliable either for deletion request. The twitter account no longer exists. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without a confirmed request then, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE wouldn't apply, so I stand by my above !vote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Killscreen article does strongly suggest that the author would be interested in getting this article down and going through a change in pronouns and such, but that's probably all we can technically rely on... ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: As far as I can tell WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE wouldn't apply anyway since this article is about the comic. It's not a Campbell BLP. As an aside, disappearing from the internet is impossible, especially after you've been using it the way Campbell has. Even if this article would be deleted (which would be a big mistake IMHO), other articles about Campbell and the comic are still all over the net. And will be for years to come. In that respect this deletion request is pointless. Yintan  11:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been longstanding policy to apply WP:BLP across all Wikipedia pages where living people are discussed and given how so much of this article is about Campbell's actions it would apply if the consensus was that both Campbell and the comic were sufficiently low-profile to warrant deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (which is debatable given the facts). I would support your viewpoint if a debate were to be had, but without a verified request (Killscreen just confirms that the artist wants the actual comics themselves off the web, not the Wikipedia article), it's academic to have one. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.