Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billoo


 * 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. --Core desat  03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Billoo


Article about a comic character that provides no evidence of notability. Valrith 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete - A subject's site is not a valid source to cite. Non notable, fails WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ on your point about valid sources. A subject's website is a primary source and it most certainly can be used as a valid resource.  Even though the article needs third-party sources, the primary source is still a valid reference that may be included. OfficeGirl 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MER-C 09:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The article is badly sourced, but looking at the article about the author, this is a very notable comic (it's a character, but also the title of the series). The series is mentioned on the Comiclopedia, one of the most important sites for comics worldwide. He is even shown with a picture in the article about Indian comics on the reliable French site ToutenBD. This two page article about current comics in India by a correspondent of the Hindustan Times mentions it as well. Judging from these different, independent, and reliable sources, this is not only a notable character, but one of the best known series of one of the best known Indian comics authors. I don't have access to any books about Indian comics, but I would urge nominators to at least do a little Google check (or your favourite serach engine) before nominating any article. This article needed some tags (cleanup, source, verify, whatever), not an AfD. Fram 09:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions and in the AfD notices on the WikiProject Comics to get more informed input. -- Fram 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. --Ter e nce Ong (C 12:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ?Of course if does, it's not a website, it's a printed comic. Fram 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm... Terence Ong, isn't that like saying "we should kill this horse because it doesn't lay eggs like a useful chicken is supposed to do"...? OfficeGirl 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep One of the few printed comics popular on a countrywide basis in India, a country of a billion people. Antorjal
 * Strong Keep - Seems plenty notable for a fictional character. →Bobby ← 15:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Antorjal -Toptomcat 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Fram. Bad faith nom. I fully endorse the views of Fram regarding the printed comic. Any article can be deleted by looking for notability under the wrong headings.    Doctor Bruno    16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you heed Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith before you start slinging accusations such as this. Valrith 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What accusation ? I am not able to understand. I am just endorsing the views of another editot that I would urge nominators to at least do a little Google check (or your favourite serach engine) before nominating any article. Can you please explain your accusation that I have started slinging accusations.
 * Also I would like the editors not to confuse POPULARITY with NOTABILITY. Popularity may increase or decrease, but once notable is always notable. For example Phonograph though is not popular today, is definitely notable to warrant an article. I am sure WIkipedia cares about Notability and not popularity. Everything that is popular is notable, but not everything that is notable is popular. Lack of popularity today per se is not a criteria for lack of notability   Doctor Bruno 
 * Your "Bad faith nom" comment is an accusation that I, as the nominator, acted in bad faith. Until there is proof to back such an assertion, you should follow wiki etiquette in assuming good faith. Valrith 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally; You had tagged a notable entity as non notable. But even after the notability has been asserted without doubt, you don't feel to withdraw your nomination like this example That the subject is notable has been proved as per comments of more than one user other than me. But the fact that you have not withdrawn the AFD makes it hard for me to Assume Good Faith in this AFD (It is nothing against you as a whole). A little effort on any search engine would have shown the notability if you had any doubt.     Doctor Bruno    14:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep One of the rare comics to be published both in Hindi and English in India. I had read Billoo 10 years back but i think now its popularity is waning and it maybe quasi notable to people now. I don't think the article will get any credible sources -- Ageo020  ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Agreed that the article needs work, however the subject does appear notable. Xdenizen 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per User:Fram Stephen Day 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per all the Indian users here.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was famous in India when I was a child. Not sure if it's still popular in age of Internet, but this is certainly not an AfD candidate. utcursch | talk 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Very Strong Keep I have heard a lot about this Indian comic charector.Nileena joseph 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to be notable but does need references. Englishrose 22:10, 10 November 2006 (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.