Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeneyes (second nomination)
- 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 delete. - brenneman 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable webcomic, fails WP:WB, no reliable sources. I was quiet baffled reading the first AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeneyes, where arguments for keep are used like "Simultaneous story threads as an approach is of artistic signficance. Use of elements for chapter headings is of artistic significance. Anonymity of writer and illustrator is of artistic significance." (by a current admin, no less!) I don't see how the way this comic is created is in any way an indicator of notability. The only claim to notability is that the author of another webcomic liked the way Greeneyes played with colour, and imitated it, and that another webcomic artists contributes to it,and mentions that in passing This is rather trivial, and does not constitute multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources (the bare minimum asked by most WP:NOTE guidelines. This webcomic has only 18 distinct Google hits[1] (looking for greeneyes without the author gives many, many unrelated hits, and it seems hard to have a non-trivial mention that doesn't name the writer of the comic anyway). No significant awards, no significant reviews, no independent book published, no major reviews, ... Fram 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, absolutely no suggestion of reliable sources. This seems to have been created entirely from primary sources and tends towards an original write-up. The comic itself appears to be on hiatus.--Nydas(Talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline speedy delete - The only assertion of notability is that two other web comics referenced it tangentially. —Dgiest c 07:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'weak delete' Comic is notable soley for longevity. You should retry your searches with other members of the staff, since there is not just one author, it's a collaboration. But I suppport delete UNLESS there are some substantial references added to the article in the next few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timmccloud (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete I'm sorry, but it hasn't even got a domain name of it's own. Hard to consider notable. JackSparrow Ninja 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, it is very interesting to read the previous AFD for this article. It is truly remarkable how much the standards for a webcomic article staying on Wikipedia have changed in a little over a year. That said, while Greeneyes may be artistically stunning, unusual in being a comic published under the CCL, and may be slightly better known than it was then (constrast, say, Google hits on the previous AFD with what they are now), I have a lot of trouble with the idea that this is notable as a webcomic. Delete.Balancer 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That said, the original request above appears to have been generated with a biased agenda. Searching for greeneyes+Hecke on google.com - not google.be - turns up 1050 hits[2] and similar numbers fall out when we have searches like greeneyes+webcomic-wikipedia[3]. While I can't see this as meeting notability by the current standards of Wikipedia, I find myself having a great deal of difficulty in assuming good faith on the part of the person starting the AFD, who has misrepresented a weak case as even weaker. Balancer 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply living in Belgium does not make ones google searches evidence of intentional harmful editing. --Dragonfiend 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but even just searching on google.be for Hecke+greeneyes generates 242 hits. "Greeneyes"+"jetfuel" is the singularly lowest combination of all possible search term combinations I could come up with, with a raw hit count of 27. If this was by chance, it's quite remarkable. As things currently stand, though, the only argument I find even somewhat plausible is that it was very resoundingly kept in the last AFD; however, it's quite clear that standards of notability have shifted substantially since then. Balancer 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google.be or Google.com gives exactly the same results, it's just a language skin. This is the search from the nomination via Google.com: [4]. Still 18 distinct Google hits. Anyway, the number of hits is not the only argument: we need WP:RS sources to establich notability. I don't like you doubting my good faith, and certainly not when you do so on faulty grounds. I think my history on Wikipedia shows more than clear enough that my AfD's (and other contributions) are done in good faith, no matter if they are met with agreement or disagreement. I always search for (web)comics with the name of one of the authors added, because the chance that you have a serious discussion of a comic without even mentioning the author is very small, and because for many titles, searching without the author gives many false positives (hits that aren't about the comic at all). e.g. for Greeneyes, the first hit already is this completely unrelated page[5]. Please check your accusations more thoroughly before making them in the future. Fram 22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And following that policy would have led you to search Greeneyes+Hecke - the name of the author, rather than a random handle - first. In the first place, however, Google (or Alexa) hits aren't a basic measure of notability. My apologies if misfortune has led you to select the singularly least appropriate search term combination of all those, but I am not particularly happy to have stumbled upon this corner of Wikipedia and found rife misrepresentation in use in nearly every active webcomic AFD. Balancer 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article gives Jetfuel as the name of the author as used in the comic, and Hecke as his real name. It is normal to search on the pseudonym. Smurfs plus Peyo gives 59,800 (non-distinct) hits[6], Smurfs plus (real name) Culliford gives 795 (non-distinct) hits[7]. I have taken the name which was given in the main text, not the one given in parentheses. If these is the less obvious search term, then the article should be rewritten to reflect the name most used in references to the comic. Anyway, this "corner" of Wikipedia (the main deletion discussion board) is open for everyone to contribute, so if you have any evidence that there is rife misrepresentation, please provide it. The problem with most of the webcomics is that there are a number of hardcore fans, but very little reliable sources about them. Too bad, but until those sources pop up, they don't have a place on Wikipedia. Fram 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should have emphasized the name Hecke indeed, given that the real name is in much more frequent use in discussion of the comic. Someone should pass that suggestion along to Comixpedia. As far as showing that there is rife misrepresentation in the recent spate of webcomic AFDs, I recommend you consult my recent contribution history in the past three days. I've been pointing out lots of misrepresentations - of article content, of traffic statistics, of search statistics, etc. Most, though not all, has been from users trying to delete a wide assortment of webcomics, including some clearly notable ones. My apologies for snapping at you; you haven't been the worst offender, and I can readily believe now that you were simply careless in trying only one search that happened to produce ~18 related hits when several others produced close to ~1000 related hits. Balancer 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article gives Jetfuel as the name of the author as used in the comic, and Hecke as his real name. It is normal to search on the pseudonym. Smurfs plus Peyo gives 59,800 (non-distinct) hits[6], Smurfs plus (real name) Culliford gives 795 (non-distinct) hits[7]. I have taken the name which was given in the main text, not the one given in parentheses. If these is the less obvious search term, then the article should be rewritten to reflect the name most used in references to the comic. Anyway, this "corner" of Wikipedia (the main deletion discussion board) is open for everyone to contribute, so if you have any evidence that there is rife misrepresentation, please provide it. The problem with most of the webcomics is that there are a number of hardcore fans, but very little reliable sources about them. Too bad, but until those sources pop up, they don't have a place on Wikipedia. Fram 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And following that policy would have led you to search Greeneyes+Hecke - the name of the author, rather than a random handle - first. In the first place, however, Google (or Alexa) hits aren't a basic measure of notability. My apologies if misfortune has led you to select the singularly least appropriate search term combination of all those, but I am not particularly happy to have stumbled upon this corner of Wikipedia and found rife misrepresentation in use in nearly every active webcomic AFD. Balancer 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google.be or Google.com gives exactly the same results, it's just a language skin. This is the search from the nomination via Google.com: [4]. Still 18 distinct Google hits. Anyway, the number of hits is not the only argument: we need WP:RS sources to establich notability. I don't like you doubting my good faith, and certainly not when you do so on faulty grounds. I think my history on Wikipedia shows more than clear enough that my AfD's (and other contributions) are done in good faith, no matter if they are met with agreement or disagreement. I always search for (web)comics with the name of one of the authors added, because the chance that you have a serious discussion of a comic without even mentioning the author is very small, and because for many titles, searching without the author gives many false positives (hits that aren't about the comic at all). e.g. for Greeneyes, the first hit already is this completely unrelated page[5]. Please check your accusations more thoroughly before making them in the future. Fram 22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but even just searching on google.be for Hecke+greeneyes generates 242 hits. "Greeneyes"+"jetfuel" is the singularly lowest combination of all possible search term combinations I could come up with, with a raw hit count of 27. If this was by chance, it's quite remarkable. As things currently stand, though, the only argument I find even somewhat plausible is that it was very resoundingly kept in the last AFD; however, it's quite clear that standards of notability have shifted substantially since then. Balancer 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply living in Belgium does not make ones google searches evidence of intentional harmful editing. --Dragonfiend 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to establish notability under WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It would probably be better to search the author William van Hecke as "van hecke" rather than just "hecke". "Hecke" is the German word for "hedge" and shows up in unrelated contexts such as "Ab durch die Hecke" (Over the Hedge). --Metropolitan90 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few German pages contain the exact compound "greeneyes," which filters those out pretty well. In general, if you're going to check search results - which don't in principle establish notability or lack thereof (see WP:N) - you should try a good number of different searches and look at the sort of results you're getting. Balancer 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It would probably be better to search the author William van Hecke as "van hecke" rather than just "hecke". "Hecke" is the German word for "hedge" and shows up in unrelated contexts such as "Ab durch die Hecke" (Over the Hedge). --Metropolitan90 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after transwiki. It doesn't have WEB or sufficient sources for Wikipedia, so it should ease on to Comixpedia, to be kept until it become sufficiently notable. The google search just give an idea, and may lead somewhere the subject is represented by multiple non-trivial published sources. There aren't any, it can't be verified, so it should go. Agree with nom which does not misrepresent. MURGH disc. 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete along with images; still no reliable sources. Sandstein 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete comic has not had "...a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. " - Francis Tyers · 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the sourcing here is a problem. Wikipedia has established standards for verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards, which don't seem to be met here. The suggestion to transwiki is a good one, as the material itself is not so poorly written as to be of no worth. The issue here simply is sourcing, and the article does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion here. We have a responsibility to readers to assert notablity and importance, by citing multiple non-trivial published sources, and to adhere to web content guidelines. Should the consensus favor inclusion, then this article still is in need of serious cruft cleanup. NetOracle 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Never notable, only sources are other (not major) webcomics. Original AFD was railroaded by Sidaway's Wiki-philosphising and some really incestuous "oh but webcomic webcomic webcomic webcomic" rubbish. - hahnchen 00:48, 16 February 2007 (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.