Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.D. Frazer

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was '''8 Keeps / 3 Merge and redirect / 1 Delete. Keep.''' -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

J.D. Frazer
It's not worth to keep this article. Or it's improved or deleted. --Neigel von Teighen 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could an admin have a look at all these votes? I find it highly suspicious that everyone would vote in the same way, contrary to the MO of everyone else on every other VfD item (usually by using "Keep"). Also, most of these people have almost no contributions other than to create a user page and vote on this site. A couple of the accounts appear to be "stealth" accounts in that they were used sporadically to make one or two edits a month, and then suddenly they vote on this account. --Deathphoenix 02:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC). Never mind, looks like everyone's looking into it already.

BTW A quick snytax analysis of the majority of the following vote against deletion entries shows them to be written by the same person.

-- not reallly. you'll note similarities, but the use of the "vote against" would be a very striaght forward notation to make for as the prior votes carried it.


 * edit by Marcus22 --Epideme 22:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be fair to say that has already been discussed, and while a large number of votes were cast by first-edit users, they were not the same person. You have only been a member since 17:59, 24 Jan 2005, so can hardly be called a long-term member, and your contributions appear to be only to vote to delete (even your own article). Epideme 22:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the relevance of that is ??? --Marcus22 13:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of us are probably fairly new to wikipedia, although I have used it before many times, I only edited very recently. We agree that the article needs a great deal more work, and will have a complete reworking within 4 days.  However, having gotten involved in editing now, I will no doubt take a much greater interest in the wikipedia and in correcting articles.  Please do not suggest that simply because someone is new they are false. Epideme 02:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * vote against deletion. I echo kickstart70's views that if we delete this article we'll have to delete others, just to be "fair." In addition to J.D.'s contributions in the cartoons, he is much more then a simple cartoonist. Abaron
 * vote against deletion. If we delete this, how about the numerous other minor celebs that have pages here? Like the people from Slashdot or some minor character from a cut-rate 1960's sitcom? Full disclosure: I am the head moderator at UserFriendly and the initial creator of this page. I have a feeling this is a grudge request for deletion. Kickstart70 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A minor celeb he may be, but as the first person to run a daily online web cartoon, and as the first web comic to be ported to newspapers, he is an important and vital addition to the encyclopedia. Epideme 23:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC). Modified to keep Epideme 22:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * vote against. agreement with above.
 * edit by 68.190.97.227 --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The nominator, by saying that this wiki should be improved, shows that s/he needs to read the deletion policy page, which specifically states that pages that need improvement are NOT valid for a deletion nomination, at best they require a "needs attention" flag. JD is an amazing comedian, artist, and tech and deserves a mention as much as anyone! JeffUK (Vote Against Deletion)
 * Vote against. Seconding Kickstart's reasoning. C. A. Jenson/krikkert
 * Vote against. The nominator claims "It's not worth to keep this article" but fails to say why that is. As can be seen by the votes here, there is a great deal of potential for this article, given time.
 * edit by Ston --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Vote against. Why in the world would you delete information about the first person to publish a web comic?  That's analagous to deleting an article about John Glenn, because we all know lots of people have orbited the earth since.   The guy had a book in Amazon's top ten in the humor category for crying out loud.  Leave the article in place, perhaps expand it.
 * edit by Tengig --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Vote against. Nothing to say that others haven't already said above.
 * edit by Arachnid --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Vote against. Agreeing with Kickstart and others for all the reasons mentioned in this article. Klaranth DragonWriter
 * Vote against. I agree with all comments above. The page should definitely be expanded, though. Michiel Helvensteijn
 * Vote against deletion. As the creative force behind a highly successful web comic - UserFriendly, J.D. Frazier would be worthy of inclusion, but his contributions go beyond that of a typical web-toonist. Utilizing humor, he has been a visible and vocal advocate for the open source software movement since the strip's debut in November of 1997. It should also be noted that the strip has been online continuously since that time. In addition, the standards he has set (and consistently maintained) for the electronic community that evolved around the comic strip have allowed it to become a favored source for not only general discussions, but one which also provides significant contributions in terms of collaborative technical support in a positive, non-threatening manner. As the creator of this presence, his inclusion in this wiki is merited. Dire Lobo 01:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - looks like we've got a horde of UF forum-goers making their presence known. I hate to tell you this, guys, but your votes aren't going to count much. Carpetbaggers don't carry much weight. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not all of us are carpetbaggers...look at our contribution history. Past that, there are very valid points here and I haven't seen anything that I would consider a valid point for deletion, even if it were for something I didn't particularly like on Wikipedia. Kickstart70 02:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added user identification tags to the unmarked votes. Contrary to what Kickstart70 says, all the voters thus far, except Kickstart70 and Krikkert, are first-edit users (well, as if that wasn't obvious to begin with). --Plek 02:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In my case, I didn't even realize you could register on Wikipedia. But before registering, I've used it extensively and made several edits. I understand how this flood of voting might seem suspicious, though. :) Michiel Helvensteijn
 * Alright, so let's discuss what the reasons are for keeping and deletion. He is the creator of a very popular comic strip that has been running for over 7 years and is syndicated in multiple newspapers. I notice there are no VfDs for the Wikipedia page on the strip itself, so I believe that the creator of the strip should have a page. According to Alexa, the site is ranked 17165 in popularity according to its rankings. Other strips' creators have pages that are not disputed. How about you give us a chance to provide content? Kickstart70 02:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So improve the article. And please stop people coming over from UF for the sole purpose of voting against deletion, because it doesn't help at all, as you should know if you've been here long enough. Keep and expand. Raven42 03:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Article much improved. I think that if we get rid of the VfD then no one is going to keep coming here (FWIW, I -did- make a request for registered users to come voice their opinion here. I didn't think anyone would register specifically for that purpose. However, I don't control their extra-UserFriendly actions, so I can't do a whole lot about what they do here. Kickstart70 03:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, your request probably worked. However, I would have done a quite search for notability before voting. To tell you the truth, seeing all the flood voting just brought up my suspicions and I voted for an extreme delete before even making a notability check. Please realise that flood voting isn't the only way to make your voice heard. Often, it takes just one vote or comment with a good explanation and the veterans will vote for your side. --Deathphoenix 03:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Strong, Extreme! Delete. Normally, it would just be a delete, but I hate it when accounts that contribute much less than even me flood VfDs with their votes out of the blue. --Deathphoenix 02:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep. Okay, I looked into UF after getting an explanation from Epideme. UF appears notable enough, with an Alexa rank of 17,165. However, I agree with Raven42, as I explained to Epideme, VfD flood votes out of the blue from new users look highly suspicious. --Deathphoenix 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can understand why we don't explicitly say "no new user voting", but I wonder if it might be a good idea to update the tag to say that new users should probably write on the talk page or make comments instead of actually voting? This kind of flood voting feels like we just got Slashdotted or something. --Deathphoenix 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry to hit the system so hard - "UFies" are a fairly loyal bunch. Apologies if it caused any consternation. It has gotten me more interested in becoming a more regular contributor (if you'll be patient with me while I learn the nuances of the system)! There is a synonym for "Slashdotted" - It's known as "UFied" - and I think you've just experienced it - again, my humble apologies.
 * As far as raving fans go, they're relatively mild, if numerous. At least they can "rite good english", unlike some of the ones we get. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That has a lot to do with the standards and expectations of the community (and it's members). Proper grammar and spelling is an expectation (of course as soon as I typed that I noticed an error in my previous "post" - and had to go fix it). I look forward to learning more about the Wiki and its processes. Dire Lobo 04:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Who does the final decision belong to for the deletion/etc.? When can we get that notice removed? Thx... Kickstart70 07:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep despite (normally suspicious) influx of first-edit voters. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Korath said. I can buy his books at Barnes & Noble, and published authors are notable. The article, when tagged, was a mess, but is much more coherent now. Niteowlneils 17:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to User Friendly. From all available evidence, he is notable solely as the author of the webcomic.  Readers will be better informed if he is discussed in context with his creation.  The User Friendly article is not yet so large that this won't fit in easily. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:40, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep —Mar·ka·ci 18:50, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite controversy surrounding the VfD process above, he is notable - some of his books have been published. Megan1967 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Famous, multiple published books, highly verifiable - David Gerard 16:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable. VfD submitter gave no reason for deletion, which isn't kosher.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I've been a reader of User Friendly for some years and see no reason why JD shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry. However, I agree that it would be wiser to make his entry and User Friendly's entry one-in-the-same.