Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computious


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 09:00Z 

Computious

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prodded as a non-notable fictional character, subsequently removed stating... actually, I'm not sure what the argument was. Something about women purchasing the cards a lot. Anyway in addition to notability, there's a sourcing problem. By which I mean government records are the only reliable sources. Amark moo! 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

--N Shar 06:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let's go through those sources one by one, shall we?
 * 1. Trivial.
 * 2. Trivial.
 * 3. Probably not reliable.
 * 4. Who knows? Legitimate.
 * 5. Not reliable.
 * 6. Not reliable.
 * 7. Citation is not of a specific article.
 * 8. I would find it odd if this source were about the subject, since no one would refer to a greeting card using the verb "deal." Paragraph referenced by notes 5-8 also suggests that these sources are not independent.
 * 9. Trivial, merely a catalog listing.
 * 10. Trivial.
 * 11. Irrelevant to subject.
 * 12. Not independent -- there is a conflict of interest, as you will see if you read the text.
 * 13. Irrelevant to subject.
 * 14. Irrelevant to subject.
 * 15. Not independent.
 * 16. Irrelevant to subject.
 * Delete This thing reads like an advertisement, complete with embedded (tm) tags. CoI AdSpam.  /Blaxthos 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of above. Edeans 10:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: #4 is listed as "Who knows?"  I think it unlikely that  this article is about a different "27-year-old Washingtonian who discovered she had a yen for cartooning while studying Chinese  selling her own line of greeting cards".  This does not dent in a major way the notability argument, in my opinion, but it challenges the nom's assertion that "government records are the only reliable sources". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Heh, that's my list, not the nom's. The word count reveals that the source is non-trivial, which was what I was concerned about -- thanks for doing the research. And, as you say, the notability argument is not seriously changed. --N Shar 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --DMG413 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You editors are tough, but I respect your intent to maintain integrity. Haven't done enough homework to understand publication requirements. Looks like it will take a few years to meet notability standards (one book has been published, but more in the works). Comment to N Shar: not everyone engages in fiction when presenting references! We have hard copies and pdf's of all references, including the article referenced in Note 8 -- newspapers take liberties with word play in their headlines when the subject allows it. Ciao, Neutralw 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't mean to accuse you of faking anything (although I guess it came across that way). However, the number of times I've thought I knew what an article was about and been wrong, or cited the wrong article, etc. is quite astonishing. You are certainly right about people taking liberties with wordplay, though. --N Shar 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to get your reply, N Shar. It's great that there's a community like Wikipedia with collaborative brainy types. I'll contribute when better prepared.Neutralw 03:13, 9 February 2007 (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.