Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Circus (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jersey Circus
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

As was said in the previous discussion, the article is sourced almost exclusively by blogs acting on Recentism, and it fails the notability standard of significant coverage. A paragraph in Family Circus and Jersey Shore's respective parody sections is good enough, but a separate article for the blog is in no way needed. ~jcm 03:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article crosses both the notability and verifiability thresholds. Unclear on the benefits to the reader of a merger with the Family Circus and Jersey Shore articles. Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Dravecky (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources are just brief blog posts, failing the "significance" standard of Notability. It has no awards which would meet Notability (web). All sources are from a three-day period in 2010, so it's pretty clear this has no historical significance (See WP:NOTGUIDE). Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rangoondispenser. This site may have received brief press coverage, but there's no sign of lasting notability here. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. Since Martijn Hoekstra didn't think the consensus was strong enough to punch this 7 days ago and there have been no comments since his relisting, let's give this some more time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, all sources are incidental one-off coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NPASR By the recentism argument of the nomination, 1930 Palm Island tragedy also has a WP:Recentism problem, because the article depends on 1930 newspapers.  The recentism argument was used in the first AfD, which lacked the perspective of time that we now have, and what we have now is that this blog is as timeless as Family Circus.  I've looked at four of the sources and the blog itself, I glanced at the first page of the Google results, I don't see spending more time working up the nomination rationale, which work may or may not lead me to conclude this article should be deleted or merged instead of kept.  Are these writers well-enough known for these blog sources to be considered reliable?  What happens on the second page of the Google links, etc.?  I don't see that a contributor to the AfD here has reported on a search for more sources.  Is there any evidence that we are linking to a page of copyright violation?  Is there already material on the two merger targets mentioned by the nomination, or is this a do-it-yourself merger project?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, others (at least me) have taken the time to extensively look for significant coverage, and we have failed. I found one single sentence on this in the Winnipeg Free Press, but that's just more insignificant coverage like what is already in the article. I've also waded through the numerous false positives looking for any significant coverage of this topic. For example, the Providence Journal-Bulletin writes about "Vidbel's Olde Tyme Family Circus ... Ringmaster Dan McCallum ... is from New Jersey, has been with the circus for five years." The Zanesville Times-Recorder writes that "The Zerbini Family Circus really emphasizes family ... Having come in Sunday night from New Jersey, the circus was ready for its first performance." So after extensive searching, I've found no significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic, and no such coverage have been provided by others. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE, the webcomic has been noted by several independent reliable sources that provide enough professional coverage to write a well-sourced critical reaction section. That this section can be created is proof that coverage for the topic is significant. Diego (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, copying and pasting a few sentences off blogs doesn't suddenly make a few sentences on blogs significant coverage, or even "critical reaction" for that matter. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoondispenser, maybe nobody has pointed you before to the Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guideline. Even then, you should know better than inserting your opinion about the sources in the article given that you've been here for almost a year and you're participating at AfDs.
 * We may disagree as to whether the sources in the article confer notability. But either they're reliable sources and thus should be used to support verifiable and attributable opinions, or they are not and should be removed altogether; trying to discredit the sources in the article's body is disruptive, since that should be done at talk pages.
 * I've already stated why I think the sources establish notability. Both the spirit and the letter of WP:N are concerned with having enough content to write articles, and in this case that's exactly what the sources allow. Your stated concern that these are blogs is not relevant; the format in which a source publishes information doesn't affect its reliability. What matters is that these entries are published at sites with editorial guidelines and the professional authors that wrote them will be held responsible by their publishers. Diego (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Diego Moya, maybe nobody has pointed you before to the article talk page which is where we discuss disputes over the content of the article. This is the AfD page, where if you'd like us to keep this article you could tell everyone which sources you believe meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard of Notability. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, the sources are those currently used in the article for reference, of course. In particular, the ones that allow each sentence in the start-class article to be verified. The ones from Time (magazine), VH1, Tosh.0, Gawker Media and Paste (magazine), those unreliable and not-independent sources. Diego (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are not examples that meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard of Notability. They look like they are each less than a hundred words. For example this is the entirety of the Jezebel blog entry (the Gawker Media site you refer to): GTL has even infiltrated the Sunday funnies. The creators of the blog Jersey Circus are on a mission 'to reconcile our guilty delight in Jersey Shore, a bastion of trash, with our eye-rolling fondness for the Family Circus.' That's it, 38 words. That's not significant coverage, that is not a source "addressing the subject directly in detail", it is instead the very definition of "trivial coverage". It is also a far cry from the WP:PROFESSIONAL "critical commentary" test of the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay you've cited "Has the item merited comments that suppose a value judgment or elaborate critique by critics? (i.e. information other than a routine description of its properties)." No, this is not an elaborate critique; it is just a routine description. This is exactly the type of brief coverage that Notability (web) describes as "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" that is not an indicator of notability. These types of blog entries only describe the nature of the website, and as our What Wikipedia is not policy says, "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." So, no, you have not provided any examples of sources that meet our significant coverage standard. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're measuring significance by the number of words, instead of their meaning? I'd say that the assertions provided by those people are value judgments (not "the nature of the content" nor just its URL), that they are professionals, that they address the topic directly and not while talking about other things ("in passing"), and more importantly - that they give enough details so that that "no original research is needed to extract the content" (WP:GNG). The Reception section is exactly what the guideline means with achievements and impact as opposed to mere description. Diego (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. the Jezabel example was mentioned as a source that "allows each sentence to be verified", not as critical commentary, since it's not used at the Reception section. Diego (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the length of the coverage is one long-standing standard we wikipedia editors use to judge the significance of coverage, as per our policies and guidelines. See Notability: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ... ... The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton ... is plainly trivial." See WP:WEB "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content." These sources do not address the subject in detail, they are very brief summaries, they are plainly trivial, they are not elaborate critiques by critics. For you to describe these brief blog entries as providing "a well-sourced critical reaction section" is completely incorrect. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The guideline that establishes notability is the WP:GNG proper, not the alternate way to provide notability that is WP:WEB. The sources are not used to talk about the nature of the content but about its significance, as in "having something to write about"; remember that significance!=importance, because obscure topics are also allowed by Notability. The length of sources is deliberately never mentioned; instead it talks of depth and quality. The criterion for significance as agreed by the community is that several sources can provide notability, and that secondary ones are the best for that. The measure by which significance is gauged by the guideline (and thus the community consensus) is not the number of words as you say, is the fact that it allows us to write neutral content in the article. This is exactly the situation here.Diego (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. The "Three Blind Mice" quote mentioned in the guideline is trivial precisely because it doesn't make judgements of value about the band, it uses the name while talking about Bill Clinton. The sources in this article are making judgements of value about the webcomic, and thus are direct and significant coverage of it - because WP:RSOPINION allows us to use them to state their author's opinion: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources [...] that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format". Diego (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've made it clear to the closing admin that you believe a 38-word blog post saying simply GTL has even infiltrated the Sunday funnies. The creators of the blog Jersey Circus are on a mission 'to reconcile our guilty delight in Jersey Shore, a bastion of trash, with our eye-rolling fondness for the Family Circus' represents a source of significance, depth, quality, deals with achievement and impact, addresses the subject in detail, and is well-sourced critical reaction. I think I've clearly stated why I believe otherwise, so at this point I'm going to just agree to disagree with you. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I repeat it, since you obviously haven't read my previous P.S.:
 * P.S. the Jezabel example was mentioned as a source that "allows each sentence to be verified", not as critical commentary, since it's not used at the Reception section. Diego (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I.e. this is the significant content as noted by independent commentators.Diego (talk) 17:36, 22 March 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.