Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob the Angry Flower


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob the Angry Flower

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Bob is somewhat popular on the internet, but doesn't have any verifiable mainstream visibility, so it fails WP:GNG Jordan Bettis (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Six published books seem sufficient for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not independent sources which establish notability. Claritas § 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is unsurprising that most of the coverage of an Internet publication is on the Internet. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where ? Point it out please. I can't find it. Claritas § 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "apostrophe" cartoon frequently cited and discussed. Google on "bob the angry flower" apostrophe -wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just blogs. No reliable sources there at all. Claritas § 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is unsurprising that most of the coverage of an Internet publication is on the Internet. TJRC (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I interpret that as meaning "It's unsurprising an unencyclopaedic topic has received no coverage in reliable sources". Claritas § 00:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're free to interpret it as you wish, of course. I'm not interested in getting into a big argument here, but I think it's a mistake to dismiss a very well-known (which is one sense of the term "notable") subject because most of it's attention has been on the Internet rather than in printed material that's also published on the Internet.  But I tend toward inclusionism, myself. Storage is cheap, and my general sense is that if someone might want to know more about a particular subject, deleting does very little (if any) good and loss of consolidated information about a subject is a small tragedy. TJRC (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not inclusionism. That's simple lack of discrimination.  It's simply not the case that everything "written on the Internet" is automatically fact-checked, reliable, and true.  You could satisfy Claritas' concerns by answering the original question and pointing to where this subject has been documented, on the WWW or otherwise, by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  A vague handwave in the direction of Google Web is not a source citation, by the way, and is worthless.  Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 6 published books (which alone should cover notability). Plus 5 pages about it in this book, and this review in Flak Magazine, and this interview and this interview, and this page at Lambiek, and a couple more potential mentions in subscription-only archives (via google news), |+%60Star+Wars%2C%27+star+watchers%2C+starry-+eyed&pqatl=google eg this article in The San Diego Union-Tribune (anyone have access?). Plus it ran in various regional newspapers, over the years. Some refs might be quibblable, but the comic's notability is demonstrated. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not independent sources which can be used to establish notability.
 * See that "newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-" in the URL ? It's a press release, which certainly is not a reliable independent source.
 * Is Lambiek a reliable source ?
 * I can't see any significant coverage anyway - lots of mentions in passing. Claritas § 10:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re #1, Interviews are primary sources, and they are independent sources if they're not self-published. However, the sites themselves might not be considered reliable or notable. I was mostly mentioning them as supplemental material.
 * Re #2, That google news url is removing presswire, newswire, etc. That's what the - (dash) indicates. It's the same google news link as given in find sources.
 * Re #3, Yes. They don't give the Order of Oranje-Nassau away for nothing!
 * Re #4, How is 5 whole pages about it in a book, not significant? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have access to the San Diego Union-Tribune article and it is not significant coverage of this topic. It is an article about Comic-Con International. Bob the Angry Flower is not mentioned at all in the article. There are three photos with the article. One is of Stephen Notley at his booth, with the caption: Stephen Notley, dressed as his creation, "Bob the Angry Flower," calls his comic books "dessert for your mind."  This is a trivial mention, not significant coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Much of the above keep reasoning is misguided. "Six published books", for example, means little by itself since comics is full self-publishers. Also, reviews on blogs are generally not reliable sources. However, the 5 pages about this comic in Attitude 2: The New Subversive Alternative Cartoonists and coverage in reliable sources that I'm finding, mostly in Canadian newspapers like the Edmonton Journal, shows we can probably make a good encyclopedia article on this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the newspaper articles ? 5 pages in a book is generally not enough, as WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Claritas § 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For multiple independent reliable sources see for example "Bob the Angry Flower wilts with love: Stephen Notley's new comic collection as hopeful as it is hostile", Edmonton Journal November 18, 2003 Pg. C1 and "Bob's 'explosive hope'; the angry flower wants to save the world", Edmonton Sun November 16, 2003 Pg. SL5 and "Bob the Angry Flower: Dog Killer" Publishers Weekly May 22, 2006 Pg. 38. Those combined with a 5-page chapter in Ted Rall's Attitude book should be enough for us to write a good encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per interviews (which are perfectly fine as RSes btw) and book entry. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Quiddity. Newspaper articles, especially an interview, mean it satisfies WP:WEB. Dragoneer (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Hobit. A note about the use of interviews: It makes sense to me to doubt what an interview subject says as potentially unreliable (as with any other primary source), but that's not the issue here. The existence of the interview about the artist and the comic certainly seems to me to directly RS the existence and authorship of the comic, and thus goes toward notability. The book seems clear enough, too. -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  16:07, 23 July 2010 (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.