Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic books and terrorism


 * 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. Most agree that the topic is probably notable per WP:GNG, but the "keep" opinions do not address the other principal reason advanced for deletion, that is, that the article's contents are original research. This argument is convincing, given that much of the article contains of unsourced sweeping generalizations like "The portrayal of terrorism in the medium of comic books has increased exponentially", "[Comic books] are used as an effective recruiting tool, showcasing the perceived benefits of terrorism" and "comic books are serving as another propaganda medium". Because WP:NOR, as a core policy, can't be overruled by local consensus, the article is deleted. This is without prejudice to a competent recreation.  Sandstein  14:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Comic books and terrorism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is pure Original Research. It makes broad claims to which there can be no reliable references found, such as the "exponential increase of terrorism depicted in comics in the last decade." Of it's five sources, four merely prove the existance of comics with terroism in them. The fifth is to an article where an anthropologist talks about how, maybe, The 99 could sway youths from terrorism. While interesting, one man's opinon shared in one news article does not make the topic notable. The main idea of the article is about the "two main views" of terrorism in comics, but provides no references for the second view. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Secondary sources do not seem to have discussed the topic. However if they do the article could be restarted.  I was a bit surprised that GI Joe was left out.  They were fighting terrorism before that was cool. :-)  Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is essay material, bizarrely narrow in focus, and not encyclopedic.  Perhaps a proper article on the topic could be written: but I don't see that we'd want to merge any content in from this one.  Morwen (Talk) 12:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I just bumped into a scholarly treatment of "Comic Books and Communism" recently; this isn't an unencyclopedic topic on the face of it. Indeed, THIS PIECE from Newsweek, via the Daily Beast, indicates that this is a topic of substantial coverage in the media. And HERE is an academic study, "From HYDRA to Al-Qaeda: Depictions of Terrorism in Comic Books," by Cord Scott, a PhD who published a dissertation "centered on the use of war comics as a reflection of American cultural history." This IS an academic topic, and this IS a pass under WP:GNG, my friends... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are editing problems with this piece, to be sure, but these are editing matters, not notability matters. This piece is not far enough from the tree that the Holy Hand Grenade of Brother Maynard is called for... Carrite (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast piece by itself is NOT evidence of substantial coverage. I was unable to find any other news coverage for this topic. The academic study, while nice, is a primary source and does not support the ideas listed in this article. It could only be used as a source in the article if secondary sources have discussed it. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on now, that's patently absurd. The Daily Beast piece is a Newsweek story in another form, an academic paper is not a "primary source" — and if I may be so bold, you really do need to look up what that term connotes before you flout it again. We're not here to discuss whether this is a good or bad or somewhere in between article, only whether THIS TOPIC is the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage in reputable sources — which this clearly is. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll concede the TOPIC may be notable, but an appropriate article about it wouldn't contain anything from this article. Everything in it is OR (the "two schools of thought" and the "exponential increase of depictions") or fluff (the examples sections). I believe Wikipedia would be better served by deleting this and starting over from scratch instead of trying to salvage anything from this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Don't we still have the incubation process? The consensus appears from this angle to be that the topic is notable, even though the current article is all over the map. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Rangoondispenser (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is a topic already covered in independently published literature. It might be a defectively written piece, in need of a bit of editorial TLC, but it is not "original research" as addressed by WP's policies. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is original research. You don't need to be so repetitive in your comments. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yowza, I'm staggered, that was certainly a snappy comeback: "Nuh-huh, it is, too!" Original research is a very specific proscription, intended to bar the presentation of novel scientific theories and tinfoil hat reimaginings of history. It is not a prohibition against either originality (everything here that is not a copyvio is original) or research (all articles present some facts and exclude others at the discretion of the writer or writers — which is research). Now this may be a poorly written article, even in the extreme. So fix it or flag it if you can't fix it. But it is simply not original research in the Wikipedia sense. Carrite (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is original research in the Wikipedia sense, its claims are unverified through citations, it reads like a personal essay, it has been tagged as such for over a year, and it is now up for deletion for those reasons, so there's no need for you to tell me to "flag it". If there is some flag you think it is missing, go ahead and add it yourself. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If by "Fixing it" you mean remove information not supported by sources in the article (or the other one you've linked), that would leave absolutely nothing aside from "This guy who wrote this article feels this way. Here are four random examples of comics featuring terrorism and/or Islam." No actual claims in the article, such as the two views, or even the existance of terrorist-recruiting comics, are supported. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 12:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - perthis and this, it definitly falls under WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Those two links indicate the topic is notable, but did you look at the article? It's 100% OR, and a properly sourced article wouldn't contain anything from the current version. It doesn't make sense to me that an essay can be posted on Wikipedia so long as it's title is potentially notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  02:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources found by Carrite and BabbaQ. Meets WP:GNG, even if it need lots of editing. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The purpose of AfD is to determine the mere existence of an article, so lets ignore the content and look at the sources:
 * Cord Scott paper - this is a non-peer reviewed, non-published paper presented at a conference that has never been cited on Google Scholar. It is about as low on the academic totem pole as they come. It would be an "ok" source as a supporting document, but since it's being used here as the main reliable source of the article, it's very weak and doesn't go nearly far enough to show this is a notable topic.
 * Daily Beast - this source is about a single comic, The 99, and really says nothing in general about comics and terrorism. It doesn't support the idea that there should be a Wikipedia article on this subject.
 * Other sources - these show the existence of terrorism in comics. Not inherently notable. The sources need to say something about it beyond just reporting specific existences. Otherwise the article would be List of comics that contain terrorism topics.
 * -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - insufficient secondary sources exist. There are no peer reviewed journal papers or other published academic works on this topic. Claritas § 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when we only consider academic works as RS? -- Cycl o pia talk  10:50, 29 November 2012 (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.