Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser Known British Comic Strips


 * 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. Renaming can be considered as part of normal editing and development. JohnCD (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lesser Known British Comic Strips

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article appears to embody the very antithesis of WP's notability requirements in that it actively seeks to list comic strips that are lesser known. This is besides the fact that it is a list and should be named as such. Rubiscous (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC) An encyclopedia should be a collection of fact without the qualification of how important they are. The strip cartoons in this entry, although relatively lesser known today, were highly popular in their time and individually lasted for decades. Rather than have a group of stubs it is, in my opinion, better to collect them in a single article. The importance factor will be different for different individuals. How can any person or group take the right for deletion of an item that was highly accepted in its time. This becomes sencorship. The entry could, however, be combined with another relavant entry, but never deleted!
 * Keep and move to List of British comic strips. At least one of those in the list is notable Tim, Toots & Teeny Spotlight on Sally gets a few hits also Darkness Shines (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently OR. If you're going to make a list of British comic strips, start with the ones that already have articles, not this mass of non-notable examples. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DonJay (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that "lesser known" is highly subjective. What constitutes "lesser known"? There's no way you can objectively define that term, putting it in direct violation of WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the cartoons in this list were highly popular and notable in their time, then considering that notability is not temporary it is inappropriate to describe them collectively as 'lesser known'. The notability in its own right of each individual strip in the list is not in dispute right here and now, just whether the article should exist as a whole. You are correct about things being different for different individuals - the degree of how 'known' a comic strip was is completely arbitrary. Unless a notable list of 'lesser known british comic strips' exists off-project in a reliable source, or we have reliable sources for each individual strip describing each one as 'lesser known' then putting together a list in this manner is original research. To cut down on stubs by collecting together a list is fine, the above suggestion by Darkness Shines of List of British comic strips, or by publication for example List of Daily Mail comic strips would be more acceptable alternatives because the criteria for inclusion in such lists would not be subjective. Note that such lists would have to include all the more notable strips that fit the criteria which have their own articles, and that these strips should be given appropriate prominence, thus the current article would make a poor starting point compared with simply starting another list from scratch. Rubiscous (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is for deletion, not modification. Consequently it should be rejected. The original entry was not a true list, but rather a collection of stubs, which it was hoped could be enlarged. A better title might have been "British Strip Cartoons of the Early 20th Century". It was my hope that, when each item had been enlarged, that a separate entry could be made, By collecting the stubs together it would be more obvious that additions to them was needed. There has been several edits of this nature. My objection has not been because of change, but rather of deletion due to the use of "Lesser Known" in the title. DonJay (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason as to why "British Strip Cartoons of the Early 20th Century" would not also be completely arbitrary? Was there a notable change in the nature of British comic strips circa 1950? Whilst Wikipedia is a work in progress, each article should stand on its own merits, not by what other articles it might encourage to spawn. Your intentions are noble but such project-work is best confined to the project-space. Consider getting involved with WP:WikiProject_Comics, in particular WP:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group. Rubiscous (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The majority of items in an encyclopedia are "lesser known" (in fact, unknown) to an individual. That is why they are there, to become "better known". Deletion is to destroy this possibility of becoming known. Unless the information is preserved within the encyclopedia, the information is likely to be lost. Consequently a deletion should not occur unless the content is elsewhere.
 * Delete "Lesser known" anything is problematic. If something is both notable and verifiable enough for a general-interest encyclopedia, in would generally not be "lesser-known" by definition.  Looking at the article, I'd say neither of the first two entries are "lesser known": the first ran for 23 years and the second (apparently) almost 30.  A better approach to the same material might be a (non-list) article on 20th century British newspaper comics or similar, but since fixing it would require a total rewrite up to and including the title, my vote is to delete. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One reason that a collection of stub articles is attractive, is that a peson with knowledge on a subject can easily see where information is sparse, and can possibly add to it. This cannot be done with descrete entries, as it would be necessary to refer to a list and examine each independantly. DonJay (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Robofish (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The opening sentence of WP-INFO is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia". The definition of Encyclopedia (OXFORD) is "a work containing general information on all branches of knowledge". Rejection of this 'request for deletion' should be made. DonJay (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the material in this article is interesting, and I have no reason to believe it isn't true, but I agree that as it is it fails WP:OR (containing no sources) and WP:IINFO. 'Lesser known British comic strips' is simply never going to work as a topic of an article. However, a List of British comic strips, or an article on the History of British comic strips, would be acceptable, providing that they were properly sourced.
 * The reasons given by Robofishtalk are not relevant . Sources (WP-OR) are given within the text as being the newspapers.  These are available in many public libraries.  WP-INFO does not apply as the entries are not indiscriminate, by any of the categories given in WP-INFO.  In fact they are part of a set.   Also the statement  "never going to work as a topic of an article" can not be proven, and is unlikely to be true.


 * Keep and reanem, per DarknessShines. This is a good example of just where a list article can be useful. We don't have to show formal WP:Notability for each and every entry here, and it can defuse much of the trouble over just such an argument. Besides which, several of these are almost certainly notable anyway: Varoomshka was the infamous "Tits in the Grauniad" strip, Lord God Almighty was an early work by Steve Bell and both Sporting Sam and (the utterly ghastly) The Larks are noteworthy on the basis of their long-running.
 * If anyone is itching to delete British comic strips, then I suggest starting at the mess that is Category:Beano strips, where any number of unreferenced one-para and entirely trivial articles refuse to die, despite regular attempts. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep and rename. Lesser known does not mean not notable. Cavarrone (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep That something is lesser known does not make it unimportant, or even non-notable. WP should have appropriate coverage for subjects depending on their importance and the extent of sourcing available, and in many cases this will be less than a full article, if if the notability guidelines permit an article to be written, they do not require that there should be a separate article in all cases--we have the flexibility to do what is suitable to the specific topics. And if these are regarded as non-notable, the guidelines are all very specific that notable does not apply to the content within an article--logically, how could it, because then every event in a person;s life would need to be separately notable if it were to be mentioned at all.  DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I've added two more sources to the article. It's a list article with a focused, discriminate criterion for its entries. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - User:DonJay started this article in July of 2007. After a comparison, one will find that all of his original contribution still exists within the article, with others having added bits and pieces over the years.  His original comment was "Created page with 'A number of comic strips in British newspaper ran for many years, but little information is still available on them", which leaves me to question any kind of move as it would defeat the purpose of the page's original creation.  We understand User:DonJay, you started the article, and while you have mentioned in this afd that "The original entry was not a true list, but rather a collection of stubs, which it was hoped could be enlarged".. What have you personally done with the article since its original creation in 2007 to ensure this was indeed the outcome?  Telling other users like Robofish that their opinion is "not relevant", is hardly productive, and is actually frowned upon by administrators that close AFD's.  Instead of fighting with others here as to whether or not their opinion is valid, why not make improvements to the article itself while this discussion is taking place such as Northamerica1000 has done?  You've been a contributor for a long time, you should know how this process works by now. SaveATreeEatAVegan 03:29, 13 February 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.