Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EGS: El Goonish Shive


 * 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. The one "keep" opinion does not even attempt to address the detailed analysis of sources presented by the "delete" side. Also salting just like El Goonish Shive.  Sandstein  17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

EGS: El Goonish Shive

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG: there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article mentions a few dubious claims to fame: a passing "pictorial reference" in the probably-unreliable T Campbell's The History of Webcomics, being "featured in the September 2006 issue of Edutopia magazine" (which is literally a mention in a single sentence), and appearing on a user-voted list of webcomics. Google found 6 pages of results, all primary sources, open wikis, sales sites, and forums. I am unable to find any coverage of this webcomic in reliable sources, significant or otherwise. Note that this article has been deleted several times under the title El Goonish Shive and was only named "EGS: El Goonish Shive" to bypass salting. That version was eventually userfied to User:Mèþru/El Goonish Shive and will likely stagnate because there are no sources. In addition, the Characters and Reception sections (at least) are COPYVIOs because of unattributed copying and close paraphrasing from the userfied version. Woodroar (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a breakdown of the sourcing issues that I made for the article author:


 * 1) The Webcomic Book Club is not reliable because it consisted entirely of amateur user-submitted reviews. We require reviews from professional critics published by reputable media.
 * 2) Sequential Tart likely isn't a reliable source—for example, it's not mentioned at WP:CMC/REF and I can't find it refenced by other reliable sources—but that doesn't really matter because it's from an amateur reviewer that's not even part of the site's staff, plus at four paragraphs it's borderline trivial coverage.
 * 3) The History of Webcomics likely isn't a reliable source and it's a "pictorial reference" which isn't significant coverage.
 * 4) Edutopia may be a reliable source but it's a one-sentence passing mention in an article about something else entirely, which isn't significant coverage.
 * 5) The Reflection isn't a reliable source, the reviewer isn't a professional, and it's one paragraph long which isn't significant coverage.
 * 6) Appearances on lists aren't significant coverage, especially when they're based on some kind of user-voting.
 * 7) Bisexuality Research Today was not a reliable source—there is literally 1 Google result for it—and the reference doesn't even mention which paper it's from. None of the abstracts mention it so it's extremely unlikely to be significant coverage, either. Woodroar (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article in question you speak of was deleted in 2011. There are more sources now than there were then, and I would say it is enough to keep, even if it does need to be shortened significantly. KMWeiland (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I must note that this article already exists in several forms of Wikipedia other than the English language one. KMWeiland (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a French language article that uses all primary sources and a German language article with those same trivial references in The History of Webcomics and Edutopia, plus unreliable user-submitted reviews at a defunct "webcomic book club". Those don't matter because we have different notability requirements on the English Wikipedia. All of the additional references on this version are trivial, passing mentions in yet more unreliable sources. GNG requires multiple sources that are significant and independent and reliable all at once. Woodroar (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I want to comment on this more, but some notes before I do. The Webcomic work group's page on webcomic sources discusses both Sequential Tart and A History of Webcomics – the former was classed as reliable, the latter as situational – but see the page for full information on both. Also, the title of this article if it is to be kept should just be El Goonish Shive and I agree with the original poster that this current title was probably chosen to get around admin restrictions on the proper title. HenryCrun15 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that! I should have known that there'd be a separate page on Webcomic source reliability. I can't say that this changes much for me, however. The discussion on Sequential Tart brings up valid concerns about that site's editorial process and its contributors' lack of credentials, and I can't find any evidence that this specific reviewer is a well-known critic. And, of course, being mentioned in the situational History of Webcomics would still be trivial coverage. That being said, I'm looking forward to your comments. Woodroar (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, an article on my favorite webcomic was recreated again? I have been keeping my eye on sources for El Goonish Shive constantly with the intention of creating an article on it as soon as I feel confident there are enough reliable sources. Alas, we're not there yet. El Goonish Shive is probably the most impactful webcomic that doesn't meet notability guidelines, and it frustrates me greatly, but I have to !vote delete as well. There just aren't enough reliable sources to write an article with yet. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found five additional reliable sources in addition to (and better than) the ones above. Would you say there are enough now? KMWeiland (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The The Avocado source is new to me. I have a hard time figuring out if it is actually an editorial website or if it's a blogging platform; there's no about information anywhere on the website. The "Needs More Gay" video does not seem to be related to After Ellen in any way. the video doesn't even link to it. Digital Strips is a fairly random podcast; I host my own podcast about El Goonish Shive too so :p – The Sequential Tart source has always been a strong one, and the Women Write About Women and Geek Reply sources seem fairly good as well (though I don't know these two publications very well). I am starting to think that keeping might be possible, though all the unreliable sources really need to be trimmed out and I'm still not sure if those last two are usable. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 16:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While Digital Strips is a podcast, yes, their website also does have actual articles as well, which are what the sources link to. KMWeiland (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Avocado is an offshoot of the AV Club comments section, anyone can create an account and start publishing. Women Write About Comics and Geek Reply are both trivial, a mere 3 paragraphs and 1 paragraph, respectively, even if they are reliable further research and discussion determines that they're reliable. (The fact that Geek Reply offers a writing job to literally anyone is a strong indicator that it isn't, at least.) Even the Sequential Tart, at 4 paragraphs, is borderline trivial, plus—as I mentioned above—the author doesn't appear to have any background or history in criticism. Woodroar (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Updated this to clarify my meaning. Woodroar (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the articles aren't as in-depth as I would like them to be, and if just one of those three fall out (like Geek Reply), I again feel there's just not enough to write a fully sourced encyclopedic article.
 * Looking a bit deeper into Digital Strips, I really thought it was just some random website, but the about page does say: Maybe this is more usable than I thought? ~ Maplestrip/Mable  ( chat ) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. That interview in the New York Times? It's a pullquote in an article about someone else. And these specific articles were written by an archeologist who hasn't been cited by anyone that I could find. It looks like the site is really eager to hire just about anybody, too. That doesn't instill a sense of confidence. We even have precedence at Articles for deletion/Joe Loves Crappy Movies for it not to count towards notability, and it doesn't appear to have developed a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the 15 years since then. Note that I discovered that deletion discussion while doing a Google search for "digitalstrips" and "digital strips", which found the New York Times mention and basically nothing else. Woodroar (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So Digital Strips is apparently seen as a reliable enough source for it to be cited in the Wikipedia pages for Kevin and Kell, Scott Bieser, Wendy Pini's Masque of the Red Death, Kris Straub, Templar, Arizona and Inverloch (webcomic). Does this count for anything further speaking as to supporting the website as being a reliable source in addition to what you mentioned above? I would think it should. KMWeiland (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am voting to keep the page by the way; it does need work, but I do believe there are just enough sources to keep it for now, in the long run I do believe it is worth keeping. KMWeiland (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Note that !voting continues after this source discussion!)

Source discussion

 * Given there are 17 references in the article, I thought I'd do a proper Source Assess Table on them. I've been cautious so far, with a lot of "?"s, while people discuss the validity of sources. I would encourage people to edit the table once consensus is reached, for example, on the reliability of a given source. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a breakdown of the sources in question. I tried to format it so that other editors can intersperse their own comments.


 * Geek Reply
 * Unreliable: The publisher isn't widely cited or referenced, there's no masthead, no editorial policies, no editorial credentials. Their Jobs page indicates that they'll hire without experience. The author isn't widely cited or referenced, but has written for publications that we consider unreliable (Twinfinite, ZergNet). The source is 1 paragraph long, so trivial as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sequential Tart
 * Unreliable: The publisher is considered reliable at Webcomic sources but notes that its reliability has been contested. I would consider them unreliable. Their Masthead and bios don't include important details like editorial credentials and experience, plus there's no editorial policy. (These issues are exactly why its reliability has been contested.) The author isn't widely cited or referenced and doesn't appear to have a background or history in criticism. The source is 4 paragraphs, which is borderline trivial as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The History of Webcomics by T Campbell.
 * Unreliable: The source is considered situational at Webcomic sources. I'm also not sure why they give it any credit at all. Who is T Campbell? What are his editorial or writing credentials? It seems like the only person saying he's an expert is T Campbell himself. Webcomic sources mentions issues with the book's claims, and even T Campbell seems to have distanced himself from it. Our article EGS: El Goonish Shive cites a "pictorial reference" in The History of Webcomics but nothing more. Virtually everything else here is a trivial mention so I'm inclined to believe this is trivial as well. Ultimately, per WP:BURDEN we can't consider this source until its actual claims can be verified. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Reflection
 * Unreliable: The Reflection was a monthly newsletter of a chapter of a Transgender organization. The publisher isn't widely cited or referenced, there's no real masthead (only first names and pseudonyms), no editorial policies, no editorial credentials. The author is named "Barbara" and we know nothing more. The source is 1 paragraph, which is trivial as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Top Webcomics
 * Unreliable: It's an open voting page where anyone can vote, which is WP:UGC and by definition unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Webcomic List
 * Unreliable: It's an open directory of webcomics. Literally anyone can add their webcomic and even get it featured for $15 per month. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bisexuality Research Today
 * Unreliable. This is not a respected journal. There aren't even any Google search results for it. In addition, the reference doesn't even indicate which journal article supports the claims. None of the article abstracts mention El Goonish Shive at all. I suspect, like so many other "sources", this is simply a trivial mention. But again, per WP:BURDEN we can't consider this source until its actual claims can be verified. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Update: after further research, this was just a mirror of our article on Bisexuality, which definitely makes it unreliable. See further down for details. Woodroar (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Digital Strips 2017
 * Unreliable: The publisher isn't widely cited or referenced, the About page includes scant editorial credentials, and there are no editorial policies. There are plenty of impressive-sounding firsts but no evidence. The owner/editor-in-chief's claim to have "been interviewed by the New York Times" was a one-sentence pullquote in an article about someone else. I suspect that all of these claims-to-fame won't stand up to scrutiny. They also appear to hire basically anyone. The author isn't widely cited or referenced and has a background in archeology, not criticism. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Needs More Gay
 * Unreliable. This is a self-published YouTube video. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Women Write About Comics
 * Reliable: The publisher has a masthead of sorts, editorial credentials, editorial policies, etc. The author is also an editor—which can pose issues—but her background and credentials are also good. However, at 3 paragraphs, this is a trivial source and wouldn't count towards notability. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Digital Strips 2018
 * Unreliable for the same reasons the 2017 article was unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Avocado
 * Unreliable: This site is where AV Club commenters went when The AV Club closed its comments sections. No, it's not affiliated with The AV Club, it's a comments section turned into a site. Anyone can create an account and publish an article, which makes it WP:UGC and therefore unreliable. The author also isn't widely cited or referenced and doesn't appear to have a background or history in criticism. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Edutopia
 * Probably reliable? It doesn't matter because it's a trivial passing mention in an article about hybrid animals. This doesn't even approach significant coverage of El Goonish Shive itself. Woodroar (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have institutional access to most of the journals listed in the Bisexuality Research Today link. Do you know which article the praise appeared in? I did a quick check but didn't see anything but I may have overlooked it. Perhaps the issue date was wrong? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be sometime in-between January 2002 and February 2007. If that’s too-wide a range I can see about shortening it. KMWeiland (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look but that is quite wide. Do you remember what the article was called? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not, though I can say what it was about, being discussing the depiction of bisexuality in the series, specifically the character Ellen Dunkel, as well as the comic’s popularity. KMWeiland (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked through all the journal articles with titles that sounded promising/related and couldn't find it. Was it in a journal article or in some kind of editorial section of Bisexuality Research Today? I can't find pdfs of the actual collected magazine, fwiw. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was an article, although I can’t be certain. I would be surprised if it wasn’t. KMWeiland (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not seeing it unfortunately. Do you remember how you came across knowing about this article? Just trying to jog your memory or find an alternate way to locate it. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The note I made on it references 17 February 2007 and both the main and about sections of the website, so it should still be visible on the archived website by at least that date at the latest? KMWeiland (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done some digging and this claim doesn't appear to have ever been made in the journal. It was pointed out in one of the earlier AfDs that Bisexuality Research Today simply mirrored Wikipedia's article on Bisexuality. Sure enough, if you check an archived version of their About page from July 2007, you'll see that it's virtually identical to our article from June 2007. (The exact version may be off by a few days or weeks, but I've spent more than enough time on this.) That archived version doesn't mention El Goonish Shive, but in February 2007 we did. Of course, the mention in our article was entirely unsourced and I'm assuming removed as such. So the Bisexuality Research Today source is actually a WP:MIRROR of Wikipedia, which makes it unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And we are certain it was mirroring Wikipedia, and not the other way around? Just to clarify? KMWeiland (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the archived version from July 2007 had our article from the month prior. It also says "The content on this page was obtained from the Wikipedia and is therefore licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." at the bottom of the page. Woodroar (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

!Voting continues below

 * Delete per Woodroars conclusion on sourcing. I don’t see how this meets the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  01:30, 2 June 2020 (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.