Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comics Bulletin


 * 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 per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comics Bulletin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable or not? Comics Bulletin is mostly a review site. It contains reviews of comics. It contains lots and lots and lots of reviews of comics. And comic publishers, authors, artists etc. cite the site (online and offline) lots and lots and lots of times, although these are citations usually refer to their own reviews, and not their opinions of the site. The article cites few reviews of their reviews - surely that's not very surprising? Who'd bother to review the reviewers? (Apart from the crazy folk at Eagle Awards who have recognised the notability of Comics Bulletin in its previous carnation as Silver Bullet Comic Books four years in a row). So Wikipedia, if someone compiled a list of all the thousands of sites that cite this site, would that count as notability? Because if that's sufficient measure, there's no question about the notability of Comics Bulletin. Vegetationlife (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A Question -

This a site of long standing which is quoted by a vast number of publishers and creators in connection to their work (though those references are rightly not useful as citations here), and has published the work of many creators w**ho appear to have passed the notability test in the past. It would seem odd if an individual's work was of note but not the publication the published it. MopyNZ (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability
 * The flaw in your argument is the references you claim are not useful here, when in fact those citations are exactly what the Notability guideline requires to prove the site's notability. The question at issue is "what makes this particular website more authoritative than some random WordPress blog?" If there if significant published proof, it needs to be added to the article as references. -- RoninBK T C 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that answers it for me. Stick in some more references and a BIG FAT KEEPVegetationlife (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Notability needs to be established independently ; notability is not inherited. The existing links seem to be self generated press releases and trivial coverage or mentions which are not sufficient to establish notability.--Hu12 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * notability is not inherited???? What about Kelly Osbourne? Vegetationlife (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ? Read the first line in the article →"Kelly Michelle Lee Osbourne (born 27 October 1984) is an English television personality, singer, actress, radio presenter, and fashion designer.". Obviously these claims are supported with the requirements of verifiable objective evidence and support her claim of notability. Thustly Kelly Osbourne meets the inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability for having a stand alone Wikipedia article. Her father is also notable;). See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm only toying with you. Have you seen the latest batch of citations? And there's millions more that could be used - I really think anyone would be hard pressed to deny the site is notable in the comics community. That may not be worth much to the rest of society, but hey - don't they have a right to have their culture represented in Wikipedia? Vegetationlife (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding references such as a Google Link Search isn't the correct path towards establishing notability.--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want fries with that? Vegetationlife (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going through and cleaning up some of these added sources. Granted, some of them are tripe, but I think that the Eagle Awards and Gibson Awards mentions might satisfy WP:WEB enough to pass my Heymann test -- RoninBK T C 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up now, (a rough sanding to be sure.) Links to the site do not establish notability in and of themselves, nor do quotes of positive reviews. However, there do seem to be some diamonds in the rough here, and I've left those to stand. Let's see what can be found in the next few days. -- RoninBK T C 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the site is, in my experience, a notable and important comics site. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - if CBR and (particularly) Newsarama have articles here, I don't see why SBC/CB shouldn't. Kelvingreen (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A further comment - I find the programatic and dogmatic approach to notability evidenced by this nomination deeply problematic. It seems to me an attempt to remove all aspects of big picture and holistic thought from the matter in favor of a numerical threshold that can and will be applied without reference to the actual purpose that notability is supposed to serve for us. Things like this are why we routinely get bad press for our notability standards - they are so often phrased as arbitrary litmus tests and not considered with an eye towards the real questions: is this something we can write a good article about? Will that article be viewed as useful by our readers? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you wholeheartedly Phil. Unfortunately, when editors can't get past the knee-jerk "WP:IDONTKNOWIT so therefore must be non-notable" response, the dogmatic test of "multiple non-trivial published works" has to be applied to prove the case. Until Admins routinely throw out AfDs that clearly have not had the minimal amount of vetting though, we're going to have this situation though. -- RoninBK T C 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried that once. It turns out you get angrily RFCed if you do that. :( Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly didn't help that the article was about a site registered just last year and created by an WP:SPA (the publisher/editor Jason Brice). Usually articles created like this, cited with blogs and trivial covererage doesn't make for a controversial or problematic AFD. see Notability_(organizations_and_companies) & Notability--Hu12 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The new site was explained away by the fact that the site went through a relaunch. And for the record, I agree that at first the page didn't look like much. I do however credit the fact that there were a few people who were both vocal enough to see it kept, and were willing to learn about the process. The COI aspect does admittedly need to be addressed. I've left a note on the Comics Wikiproject to see if they want to take !ownership of the page. -- RoninBK T C 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go you! Down with the bean counters. Vegetationlife (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple award winner whose notability is obvious and well sourced.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there is an unfortunate tendency both here at at WP:SPAM to judge the quality of contributions by the apparent COI of those who make them. Except for banned users, I don't see why we care from whom content comes, as long as it's suitable.DGG (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests. Which is What Wikipedia is not. Editors with a conflict of interest are permitted to contribute to Wikipedia, so long as they abide by other policies and guidelines, including avoiding controversial edits on articles where they have a conflict. This was not the reason in the AFD summary, however it was based on the articles content at the time. There has been some improvements but the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. A site launched on January 14, 2008 and an article created by the publisher/editor 5 days later is problematic. --Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Though as has been explained, the site was not launched on January 14th - it was renamed on January 14th. And, yes, the original author issue is substantial, but it is not a trump card. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:COI explains that COI in and of itself is not a grounds for deletion, and I don't believe anyone here is claiming that it is. That doesn't make COI good, in fact part of the reason we're at AfD in the first place is that the interested parties did not know how to write an article from an encyclopedic stance, and approached it as advertising copy. However, nstead of the typical "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, we managed to recognize good faith, and find the notable article buried in this interesting confluence of circumstances. -- RoninBK T C 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, Johnson's column for the site was reviewed quite extensively in The Comics Journal. Hiding T 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. When did WP:N become a test articles have to take? Guidelines are different from policies, and it is policy an admin refers to when closing a deletion debate, not guidance. Hiding T 16:24, 29 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.