Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob and George (4th 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 keep. Consensus. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob and George
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This webcomic, while long lasting and pretty fun to read, is not currently notable (WP:N and WP:WEB) by our standards. It is not covered in reliable sources; it reads like a fan guide, which is already available on that site; and it does not seem to assert any possibility for improvement. While it may deserve coverage on some kind of notable webcomic list, it does not require an article. TTN (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep _ Why would you consistently nominate the article for deletion? The piece has already gone through FOUR Afds with a clear census of Keep. There are clear, reliable, Verifiable and creditable courses.  Give it up. Shoessss |  Chat  19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that three. This is the fourth. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has only gone through two valid Afds, while the other one was just a mistake. This is technically the third one, and it has been created over a year after the last valid one. Standards change a lot every year, so this is quite valid. Please base your argument around policies and guidelines. TTN (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Claims to have a significant following; however, I don't see any reliable sources anywhere. The only third party cites are trivial in nature and don't seem to meet WP:RS. A search for any good sources turned up only forums and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I know it's going to come up various times, the fact that this is signifcant to the webcomic community is a fairly subjective claim, and even if fully true, the topic can easily be covered within other articles (Webcomic, Sprite comic, an expanded List of webcomics). We do not need an article on it to understand it. TTN (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources arise; appears to fail WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this is a ludicrously long article with way, WAY too much fancruft, that doesn't make Bob and George non-notable in and of itself. This is the first sprite comic ever, and also the most successful except for Clevenger's 8-Bit Theater (which didn't launch until B&G had been around for a year). In fact, Clevenger (a clearly notable webcomic creator with several non-webcomic credits) calls the creator of B&G "the Father of Sprite Comics" in this essay, a view which is shared by the Webcomics Examiner here. Trim the article? Oh, hell yes. Delete it entirely? No, not if we want anything resembling an encyclopedic treatment of the topic of webcomics. Whether or not Bob and George is notable for itself, it's notable for the influence it had on later sprite comics, and deserves a (much briefer) article based on that alone. Ig8887 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ig8887. To say that Bob and George doesn't have real world relevance is silly.  However, the fancruft needs to be tapered off. JuJube (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you two please take into account my above comment? As I said, it may be important to the webcomic community, but that does not mean that we need to describe everything that can already be found on the website here. It would fit nicely in a referenced version of Sprite comic. Either way, real world relevance is shown in reliable sources, so you should provide some. TTN (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I provided two, actually: An essay by a notable creator in the field and an online magazine with an editorial staff devoted to webcomics. Reliable sources do not need to be printed on paper just to be reliable; these aren't blogs or forums. And you'll note that I agree that not everything in that article needs to be mentioned; that's what cleanup is for, not deletion. Ig8887 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the sources in the article, a book source: . Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, it's a book about webcomics, which I'm suggesting that this topic be part of instead of holding its own article. No source that deals with general webcomics and sprite comics is going to give this enough independent notability. TTN (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a book about webcomics--this is a webcomic we're talking about! If you're going to dismiss a source as being unreliable because it covers the very topic it purports to be about, then I dare say that most of Wikipedia will be unsourced. It's silly to suggest that because an article falls under a category, it should only exist as a part of the article on that category. Let's delete the article on alligators and merge that information into the reptiles article while we're at it.Ig8887 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. This is odd to say the least; the article doesn't have any reliable sources anywhere. An AfD is a bit odd, unless the article asserts notability using reliable sources, the only reasonable option is delete... surely. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ig8887. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete page has no secondary sources, on top of that, it's fancruft. Does not pass notability, I'm sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete we need multiple independent reputable sources on a topic in order to write an encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per all of the above. This page is just mostly fancruft among other things according to TTN.  Greg  Jones   II  04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – I believe Wired is a verifiable and secondary source as shown here . In addition, I believe you may find some substance here.. Shoessss |  Chat  05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Ig8887 - also, as has been dicussed in prior AfD's, this is most likely the first of its genre, thus notable. Any type of Web comic Article would also be severly lacking if it did not have a example of the earliest notable types. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IT may be, but that needs to be proven using reliable secondary sources. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up per others above. --Merovingian (T, C) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added two secondary references: the Wired article and a student newspaper. I don't have high hopes that they'll be enough to save the article (are student newspapers considered reliable?), but it's a start. Kamek (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the article has improved and asserted notability. Kamek (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Some people have said things along the lines of this being "first sprite comic ever". This is not true, as we have an article on another sprite comic which predates this one by two years. --Dragonfiend (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I did not know that. However, the reliable secondary source at Wired tells me, "While Anez wasn't the first person to create a comic strip from video-game sprites, his strip was the first to gain widespread popularity, and it inspired others to create their own sprite comics. One such person was Brian Clevinger." And I believe taking the word of secondary sources over our personal views is what Wikipedia is all about, right?Ig8887 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the arguments by Shoessss and Ig8887, and extra refs provided by Ig8887 and Tim Q. Wells.--Alf melmac 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK, I've gone and edited in a section on the strip's significance with a bunch of references. As far as I can see, that is one of the only two arguements for deletion. I will now go to work on trimming the fancruft. Hopefully, when I'm done, those who have voted to delete will take a second look and see if this won't be a worthwhile article at that point.Ig8887 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There, since no one else was willing to clean it up, I took a hacksaw to the Plot and Cast sections, and pretty much deleted completely non-notable stuff like a list of the Locations, subcomics, and running gags. Hopefully, people who ARE fans of the comic can make sure that anything truly crucial that I slashed will make its way back in WITHOUT reams of fancruft. Ig8887 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The information added to this is much more relevant to Sprite comic than this one. Seeing as this would be covered in a fixed up version, it's fairly redundant. TTN (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How?!? How on earth can something that is directly speaking about the topic of the article by name and creator be more relevant only to the broader topic? This is the very assertion of notability that everyone asked for: sourced information that this is the first major sprite comic. You're saying now that I've provided it, it's not what the article needs anymore? Those quotes and sources directly name THIS comic, not any other, as the source of the sprite comic movement. That is its notability, that is why it deserves to stay. Yes, it can ALSO be added to sprite comic article, that just makes sense, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that they establish notibility for Bob and George, specifically. Being "fairly redundant" is not enough reason to delete a notable article with sourced information. I've answered both of your criticisms of the article now, and everyone is grasping at straws to delete something they just don't like. I don't like it either; I think Bob and George has mediocre writing and abyssmal visuals. But you know what? My opinion of its aesthetic value doesn't matter. Neither does yours. It is NOTABLE for its influence on other, better works, as described in several reliable sources. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The information deals directly with the history of sprite comics, rather than the specific comic. It does not establish a need to cover the minor details of the topic, as it just fits directly in Sprite Comic. It's essentially giving undue weight (see the third paragraph) to a minor topic. TTN (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just incapable of understanding how information that names a specific comic and details its place in history doesn't deal with that specific comic. For that matter, who decided it was a "minor topic" in the first place? Your arguement requires everyone to accept on faith that Bob and George is inherently incapable of being important to anyone, and therefore any notability that can be proven isn't "owned" by Bob and George, but by the broader topic of sprite comics. And if everyone agreed with that view, then your suggestion to put the references into the sprite comics article would go unchallenged. But I strongly disagree. If a topic is proven to be notable, for whatever reason, there's no need to eliminate its article because one editor arbitrarily deems it a "minor topic". In essence, I don't believe it to be "undue weight", because I believe that the small amount of weight that having a single short article on Wikipedia carries with it is, in this case, due. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Slight lack of reason to delete the article. Article appears to have refs and there would be no benifit in a merge.Geni 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced. Good sources appropriate to the subject. I havent the last idea by any personal standards of what webcomics are notable, and so i'm not going to judge personally, just see if here are suitable sources to support the notability. I don't see why anyone should accept the assertions of editors here about it, because they are no more RSs than I am. Even if eds think they are qualified experts on the subject, they should write a published work about it to quote. I dont even judge academics in my own subject here, but look for external sources. The sourcing ought to be enough to have obviated an afd altogether. I am beginning to wonder about  this and other nominations, because when the information asked for is provided, the afd is not withdrawn. DGG (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonably well sourced, long history. Further, <40,000 at alexa (which appears to be about the same over years) which hints at actual notability.  Hobit (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2008 (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.