Talk:Chris Muir (cartoonist)

Deletion
I nominate this page for deletion based on the fact that many hundreds of webcomics have been removed from Wikipedia for similar reasons. No point to keep it. This entry completely fails to assert notability.

The fact is, Wikipedia has set rules for what can and cannot be the subject of an article, and those rules are extremely strict.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.62.137 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Muir's webcomic is far more widely known than most other webcomics. It's also mentioned quite frequently by noted conservative commentators. That being said, yeah, this article could do with some expanding. — Loadmaster 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I nominate for keeping - and agree regarding expantion Oldfarm 04:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I too nominate this webcomic for inclusion due to it's popularity, depth and level of class exhibited in Mr. Muirs comic. I would not think the complaints of a facist lefist would qualify this for deletion because there happens to be a conservative slant to this comic. Given that free speech and expression is so touted by these protectors of freedom, I think the call for deletion rings a tad hollow if not downright disingenuous.68.99.4.24 19:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The comic is in my opinion drivel, what matter is weither or not it's prominant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.15.74 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I nominate this for deletion. It's a lousy comic, it's trivial, and only stupid fascist righties (who can't even spell fascist) like it.  It's trash.  Encyclopedias shouldn't be garbage dumps for Republican detritus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.174.226 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your personal opinion. That carries zero weight on whether or not an article should be kept or deleted, however. Whether the subject is noteworthy is all that is important. Muir's webcomic is one of the best-known conservative webcomics, so that should be enough. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And because people know it exists, it should get a Wikipedia article? It's a free comic on the internet. This isn't like Penny Arcade where the creators started a charity that donates millions of dollars per year to children's hospitals, and one of the largest video game trade conventions in the United States. What has Chris Muir done that is notable? What awards has the comic won?


 * Loadmaster said Day By Day "is far more widely known than most other webcomics." This is untrue, and matters very little in establishing notability. I don't believe that Loadmaster actually made the effort to check whether or not it was true, either. An unsigned user said it should be included because of "it's [sic] popularity, depth and level of class." I don't understand how the comic could be considered either deep or classy. Like most political comics, the opinions and discussion always boil down to "the opinion I disagree with is wrong." There is no depth to the discussion at any point. None of the characters are actually characterized in the comic. There is no depth to their actions: they simply do what they do, and there's rarely any reason for it beyond what the reader is supposed to assume about the political beliefs of the characters.


 * And the idea that it's "classy" is ridiculous. Two of the characters (a husband and wife) were building a bar at some point, but they did it themselves instead of hiring union labor. So UNION THUGS (every single one of them is a fat, ugly, lazy moron, by the way) get beat up by a woman, "the one thing" that's "universally insulting" to every male. Women are drawn in erotic positions for no reason (and this isn't a rare occurrence, this happens extremely often). When there's a joke in the comic and the punchline isn't "those liberals are so dumb and crazy," it's generally about how women have breasts. The misogyny present throughout the comic is gag-inducing.


 * When the married couple were finished building their bar, the husband made a giant nude sculpture of his wife to display in the bar. Her response wasn't to be creeped out that her husband wanted to attract customers with a nude statue of her above the bar, or to be angry that he wasted their money. She literally didn't react to it; all she wanted to know was how her husband (that she married quite a few years ago and had children with) knew what her naked body looked like. The comic is badly-written from an objective standpoint, and there are a large number of examples I could give. Regardless of a person's political beliefs, Day By Day is simply terrible in every aspect. It is of no cultural value, it will be of no historical value in the future, and it is not notable. This article should be deleted because it does not meet the minimum standards of notability as set by Wikipedia. If we want to talk about one specifically, it does not meet the "significant media coverage" requirement. If it's "mentioned quite frequently by noted conservative commentators" then there should be a source. There are only seven external links on the page: one of them is to the comic, and none of them actually establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.42.101 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much to it, honestly. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion, however, the discussion shouldn't take place here. Deletion_policy outlines the procedures. Snowfire51 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First, this is an article about a cartoonist, not his current running (and apparently much-viewed) daily Web comic, which latter has kindled the rage of liberal fascists sufficiently that they want mention of this man removed from "Wiki-bloody-pedia." That alone would seem to qualify Mr. Muir as "notable," wouldn't it? Second, it is entirely true that libertarian and some conservative Weblogs have drawn attention to Mr. Muir's Day By Day comic with favorable comments and active links, the notoriety of the strip growing as the principle targets of Mr. Muir's satirical attention — the politicians and other apparatchiki of our National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) — draw upon themselves the hatred of increasing numbers of Americans. That also accrues to Mr. Muir's notoriety, and serves to justify the continuation of this Wikipedia BLP page. — Tucci78 (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A little known web comic known for dramatically misrepresenting the facts and espousing fascism while calling liberals fascist is not really that notable. Its only selling point is that it's been around for 9 years. If it's not popular by now, it probably won't ever be, and desperately keeping this article alive won't help.Shabeki (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

More recent picture?
That picture has got to be decades old... Chris has white/gray hair now! Can we get a more recent picture? I don't know the legal mumbo jumbo for getting one, though.PokeHomsar (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That picture (ChrisMuir2d.jpg) was one of only two pictures I could find on the Internet of Muir, and it is the one he preferred. I have not looked since then for more recent photos, but anyone else is more than welcome to do the legwork if they want to. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/userphoto/cmuir.jpg for a more recent photograph of Mr. Muir. This may be available for incorporation in this Wikipedia article with the permission of the cited Web site's proprietor.  — Tucci78 (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Is this really notable? There doesn't seem to be much here. -74.249.43.14 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Okay, here we go again... Existence of the article is due to the notability of the subject, which is one of the more well-known and talked about conservative webcomics around. As to the fact that this article is fairly thin, the solution is to improve the article, not delete it. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That IP didn't PROD the article, I did. (Note the time stamp) If you think it's notable, then undo my PROD edit and it can go to AfD. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge?
Argento Surfer has now suggested merging this article into Day by Day (webcomic). I think that would be a good idea.

AFAIK, Mr Muir is not Wiki-Notable in any other context. (I tried searching Google Books and the Google News archive, and found other people named "Chris Muir". So I ended up searching for “"Chris Muir" "Day by Day"” ... which is an argument for a merge.)

BTW, I found two books mentioning Day By Day, neither particularly useful in these articles: Cheers, CWC 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) South Park conservatives: the revolt against liberal media bias (Wikipedia article)by Brian C. Anderson
 * 2) Neo-Segregation Narratives: Jim Crow in Post-Civil Rights American Literature by Brian Norman.


 * I would support a merge. Perhaps taking most of the biographical text and image from here and adding it to a new section in the Day by Day article would be sufficient. Muir is mentioned occasionally at National Review online. Here's an interview with Muir:
 * MensNewsDaily.com, 2004-07-29.

— Loadmaster (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)