Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big is Better


 * 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. If anyone feels that a redirect would be useful please feel free, but the target discussed doesn't currently mention this title.Michig (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Big is Better

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable comic book series. A search fails to find enough significant or reliable coverage, just sites affiliated with the series. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  01:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My opinion: You can not determine the influence of a gay erotic comic if you simply google the title "Big is Better". This is comic book in a specific genre, for the LGBT community. You have to google "Big is better gay comics", and you will get enough results. The comic was published in two paperback books and sold thousands of copies worldwide. I am shocked by how irresponsable you are simply because you ignore the LGBT community with your "failed search" without any real depth . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophetdenton (talk • contribs) 01:41, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)
 * I had a quick look using those search terms and while I got lots of results nothing leapt out from a WP:N point of view - I was looking for independant reviews, interviews and profiles. Adding that sort of thing to the page, if you can find it, is going to be what makes a difference. Artw (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * looks like it made the long list for the Lamba Literary Award, though it is quite a long longlist. Artw (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources cited in the article, and when I Google searched (adding the terms gay and comic to the "big is better" string), I found 0 relevant news results and no independent coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

'''I just provide you with secondary sources on the talk page, and take a look at it before you jump to your harsh decision. You are not taking any time, it's not responsable.'''Prophetdenton (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

'''You only take one second to google it, and when I offer you the secondary source on the talk page, nobody even take a look. The whole process of deleting this article only takes seconds, it's kind of laughable. Please be serious for one second.'''Prophetdenton (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am extremely frustrated and disappointed at how you guys work here at Wiki. Nothing serious. If wiki is running into its financial crisis, it get to have something to do with this. Don't expect any donation from me in the future, cause I will not support this group of people who are not devoted to their work. The ignorance should not win. But sadly it does right here. I am not calling you C.Fred ignorant, but you are in this case.Prophetdenton (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Other Secondary Sources as requested

 * 1) Video Review
 * 2) Review by the Artist


 * Delete. Although it may not be immediately obvious to newer editors, Wikipedia has inclusion criteria.  The fact that we don't publicize this better is an issue that I'd like to see addressed.  In this case, I can not find any reliable sources that discuss the subject.  A review of the comic by the artist himself, bloggers, etc is not good enough.  Basically, what we need here is a review by a professional journalist.  It doesn't have to be The New York Times; see this list of vetted resources by WikiProject Comics.  The quality of the artwork, number of fans, etc do not matter.  We need professional reviews, and these apparently do not exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Example: Existing Wiki Page: Paris Hilton Sex Tape
 * It's not Superman comic! It's a gay erotic comic book in a very specific genre for a small community! What journalists like to talk about is celebrity's sex scandal and TV drama gossip which wiki seems to cover plenty.Prophetdenton (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Delete. We could redirect the article to Bruno Gmünder Verlag, its publisher. Or redirect to an article about gay erotica, if there is one. Also User:Prophetdenton might consider mentioning this comic in article about erortic comics. The threshold for mentioning something in an article is its verifiability, not WP:GNG. Imho the article doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG in a demonstrable way and then it can't be a standalone for as long as it doesn't. AadaamS (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We should totally keep Paris Hilton's sex tap wiki Paris Hilton Sex Tape Wiki and delete an author's published art work.Prophetdenton (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have every right to investigate the sources for that Paris Hilton article and nominate it for deletion, although that article isn't the subject of this disscussion. Back to the actual topic: I can only assume since you are not providing more links to WP:RS and start to talk about publication, that you simply have given up on finding more sources? Publication doesn't imply notability. AadaamS (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think Paris Hilton is worthy of being noted for an encyclopedia but Wiki has its own standards, not to mention her sex tape make a complete wiki page is just not serious. I am sure you will find enough sources for her sexual intercourse recording. Ridiculous but No discussion there.If you only find things people talk about on the internet worthy "notable", then we don't need an encyclopedia like wiki.Prophetdenton (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * by saying that you are simplely denying years' hard work of an artist while admitting if a celebrity had sex in a hotel bathroom and wiki found enough links googling it, it's more notable than a published book.Prophetdenton (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * People wonder why Wiki failed on such an epic level for the past few year, this is why. If wiki could add more flexibility to its rigid standards and stop discouraging the contributors by saying "your stuff is not good enough for us", maybe it would make a change somehow.Prophetdenton (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Imho the sex tape article is a worthy candidate for merging into the Paris Hilton article. The only reason I can identify for its current existence is a reference in the form of a book about that tape in the "Further reading" section of that article. Back to the topic: hard work doesn't imply notability. You will not find many Wikipedians that interpret the notability guidelines to mean "what people talk about on the internet", such an interpretation would clearly be in the minority and since Wikipedia is consensus based, keeping an article on such an interpretation is likely to fail. AadaamS (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote your own words"The only reason I can identify for its current existence is a reference in the form of a book about that tape in the "Further reading" section of that article." Which is still not a good argument for why the current existence of Paris Hilton's Porno DVD is notable enough for a whole wiki page, it's the most trivia thing one can think of for a published book - my sex tape reference.Prophetdenton (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Litterally seconds after the article was published, it was nominated for deletion, so if you are convincing me that "You will not find many Wikipedians that interpret the notability guidelines to mean "what people talk about on the internet", it's clearly not the truth. Back to the subject, I've provided enough sources, they are being ignored or marked "not notable". Not keeping a book worthy of being noted is the reason to fail, not what you think the reason is. Prophetdenton (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If an article is published without reliable sources (please read this link) it is likely to be nominated for deletion, yes. You have provided sources and the consensus is that the sources don't measure up. I can only encourage you to find more. It doesn't have to be published on the internet, if any expert in the field have written about these comics in paperback, that is good enough if you give the ISBN number. Please stop writing to me as if I want to keep the sex tape article, when I have already encouraged you to have it deleted or merged to Paris Hilton article. I have no further interest in that topic. Also please correctly indent your responses. Good day, AadaamS (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

you know what else is trivial? Your mother. And I don't care about her at all and she's probably also on Tumblr reading "Big is better". It's the same thing when you say to an author who went through all the trouble creating the book, finally getting it published and had a small success inside the community... trivial.Prophetdenton (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete. I like the idea of the redirect to the publisher that AadaamS suggested. That seems like the best option. However I see no reason to keep the article as a stand alone article as there is not any listed RS. VViking Talk Edits 12:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Counting google links seems to be the only standard here.Prophetdenton (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to Bruno Gmünder Verlag - I simply couldn't find anything that wasn't a trivial mention or Tumblr. Artw (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Read This This comic book already has its wikipedia like page click here! on the official website, it says clearly "This gay erotic comic book didn’t receive any coverage in the mainstream media. And it only received mild publicity inside the LGBT community, which includs:


 * A four page coverage on the 97th issue of Euro Bear Magazine, 2013.
 * Exhibition on the Tom of Finland Fondation stand in 2013 Bentcon.
 * Nominee for the Lambda Literary Awards on Graphic Novel category in 2013.
 * "Prophetdenton (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is all the more indication that the comic book isn't notable. That's not enouch coverage to meet WP:GNG, and I don't think the Lambda nomination would clear WP:NBOOK. —C.Fred (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not notable by WP:GNG standard, it's not Paris Hilton playing with male genital sitting on a luxury hotel toilet Paris Hilton Porn DVD wiki, a fact which Wiki happily agrees it's notable and dedicates a whole page to it.Prophetdenton (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Delete. It may be that in the future there will be enough coverage for this to have a place on Wikipedia, but until then it may be best to either house it under its publisher or get rid of it entirely. Prophetdenton, don't forget that a delete isn't the be-all and end-all. If the comic gains more coverage, the article may become eligible for recreation. DiscantX (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Just curious: is there any precedent for your suggestion? I know that articles on non-notable books are sometimes merged/redirected to the article on their author, but I don't recall ever seeing a case where they are redirected to their publisher's article instead. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I only suggested it because the creators of this comic don't have a Wikipedia page. It was just an idea on the spur of the moment, but if no other cases redirect to the publisher, I will change my vote to Delete, or perhaps there is an article named "List of manga comics" or somesuch? So what do you think, what is your stance on this article? AadaamS (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While, as nominator, I'm leaning towards a delete, I'm not against a redirect to the publisher's article, provided that there's a precedent for this case happening before. Doesn't really matter in either case, as either way I don't think this comic book satisfies our standards for notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.