Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boycotts Against Wikipedia


 * 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 Speedy delete per Author Request by Kwsn. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Boycotts Against Wikipedia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

One boycott does not make a list, it makes a ridiculous attempt to grab attention. As an article it would never pass notability criteria, hence should be deleted. carelesshx talk 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the citation I added. I believe it makes the article notable.  Also, I added a {stub} tag, since you are right...one item is not a list.I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are doubtlessly many people who are declining to donate to Wikimedia for any of a large number of reasons, good or bad. Instances where such "boycotts" are somehow notable may belong in the Criticism of Wikipedia article or something, but this list is just someone seeking attention for themselves.  Delete as self-promotion.  Chromaticity 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the citation I added. I believe it makes this article.  I honestly just like webcommics!  I only mentioned that man's name because I thought it would help people who wanted to find out more information about the boycott.  I don't know or like him, and I'm not familiar with his work...and he definitley is not me...I am not a webcomic, just a fan!I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as Coatrack. AnteaterZot 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand why you would consider this coatrack, but please read the article again since I have made significant changes to try and avoid deletion All the article says now is that a boycott exists againts Wikipedia donations on the grounds of excluding webcomics.  It does not say anything that is not cited, and it does not mention any names or (like always) it does not link to any outside webpages.  I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the creator of this article, and before this boycott, I had never heard of Howard Tayler, but I do enjoy webcomics in general, and I enjoyed wikipedia being a reference of webcomics, and of all artists in general. I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC) — I love webcomics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I have removed the item in the list about webcomics since it provided almost no information if the name of the person who began the boycott could not be included. I change my vote to delete, since this is now an empty list.  Alienating webcomics will have a lasting effect on the comic communities view of Wikipedia.  Comic artists have been marginalized and been denied the title of artist since before anyone in this discussion was born.  With how progressive and open minded most people in the Wikipedia community are, I am amazed and embarrassed that Wikipedia has unofficially denounced all web comics as artists.  This obviously is not the only account I have for making contributions to Wikipedia, as I have made both monetary and informational contributions to many articles without controversy (on other accounts).  I am sad to say that I will be unlikely to make edits to Wikipedia in the future.  And that I will not ever again contribute money to Wikipedia, even after the boycott ends.  So let's censor it!  It's unanimous!


 * Keep & modify I understand why you would think that I am somehow trying to support Howard Tayler.  It's kinda silly, since he has a BLP that is not up for deletion, but either way I am removing all names from the article, so there can be no doubt that this article is promoting nothing more than webcomics in general.  I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Having changed the name in the article to 'webcomics', you have removed any resemblance the article had to an actual list. It is now a single-line article, and the single line is completely unsupported by any facts, including the citation you yourself gave. I would be tempted to recommend a Speedy Delete on the grounds that the article now contains almost zero actual content (A3) --carelesshx talk 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep & expand I know one item is not a list. If anything this article should be tagged as a stub so it can be expanded.  Boycotts by definition are not official, so pointing out that this is not an official boycott is redundant.  I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep & cite I have added citations to the article.  I had some problem with the formatting, (so it might be a broken link right now), but I am doing my best to figure out what went wrong and correct it.  I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't !vote more than once. One recommendation to keep per user is more than sufficient. -- Kinu t /c  18:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I am new to wikipedia.  I wasn't trying to trick anyone!  I intentionally signed each one so that everyone would know I made all those points.  I just had a lot of points to make and I didn't want to create one endless paragraph!  Sorry ... won't happen again!  I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, anything that may be relevant (and, of course, cited) could theoretically be included at Criticism of Wikipedia. This article, however, seems to be a blatant WP:COATRACK, especially given the unnecessary biased commentary added by the article creator (In general, news of these boycotts are censored from Wikipedia by editors who do not support them.). A list of one so-called boycott? Ooh. -- Kinu t /c  18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed that commentary. It was true, but the only sources I could have cited for it would be other Wikipedia talk pages and that is inappropriate.  Please reread the article.  I have made significant changes to avoid deletion.  Although my frustration may have shown through in the original draft of the article, all the article says now is that a boycott exists.  The article now cites it's sources as well.  All names of people (living or dead) have been removed, and there is not and never was any links to outside webpages.  This is not a coatrack...maybe it should be deleted so it can be moved somewhere else, but I genuinely am a webcomic fan and honestly my only interest in this subject is that I want to be able to use Wikipedia as a reference to find information about webcomics.I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete How do you boycott a service that you don't have to pay for and that carries no advertising? Assuming this isn't a "look at me dammit" hoax, Howard Tayler, the internationally known superstar, is boycotting the current fundraiser.  Should bring Wikipedia to its knees any day now.  Mandsford 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As described both in the article and in the source that the article now cites, the boycott is boycotting donations to the current wikipedia fundraiser. Howard Tayler had nothing to do with the creation of this article.  If you want to know where I learned his name, look at the source I just added to the article.I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Censor this obvious deviation from the Wikipedia party line. Or maybe just delete because it isn't notable in any way, shape or form, and of course, we are applying notability criteria only against webcomics. All of the other entries on AFD are merely a smokescreen. There is no cabal. Fnord. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Objecting to the exclusion of webcomics because they are not notable, is not a notable suggestion, because webcomics are not notable. This is a great example of the petitio principii fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love webcomics (talk • contribs)
 * The point is that if a webcomic is notable it is kept, if it is unnotable it is not kept, just like the thousnads of other articles nominated at AFD. Nor is this boycott notable in any way, shape or form. I don't know what you're on about regarding fallacies. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Drivel. Pity there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy96 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A speedy delete for Drivel? Can you please explain your objection more thoroughly? I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on how you view it, it might be a CSD G3. Depends on your interpretation of where the line is between a "WP:POINT violation" and plain old "vandalism". -- Kinu t /c  20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If necessary, add a little to Howard Tayler, but I really don't think it necessary. LukeSurlt c 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable subject matter. -- Boreas 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should be possibly mentioned in Criticism of Wikipedia. Not notable alone.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Should have been speedy deleted already. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yup...but if we speedily delete it now, then no one can read the rant I put at the top of this AFD entry!! ;-)...anyway...I agree it should be deleted...but who cares if it is deleted speedily or slowly... it's just an empty list, it can't hurt anybody! Everyone I meet on Wikipedia is so dramatic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love webcomics (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagged as db-author, as this comment appears to indicate that sole contributor to this article consents to deletion. -- Kinu t /c  00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys are jerks. Read through this page and count how many nasty jokes, or mean things people said that did not at all help them convey what they were trying to explain. Most of the people here assumed I was trying to self-promote or vandalize or whatever...no one thought for a minute that I might genuinely be a fan of webcomics. No one thought that I might like Wikipedia and want Wikipedia to be a useful reference for people looking for information about webcomics. You guys just saw me type in the name of someone who was still alive, and assumed I must be that person or that I was trying to help that person get famous or some other paranoid idea. The reason I wanted people to know about the boycott was not so they wouldn't contribute to Wikipedia... It was so that wikipedia would start re-including webcomics and the boycott would end! Now I am on my own personal life-long boycott of monetary contributions to Wikipedia...not because of Webcomics...but because of how the Wikipedia community treats new commers.

It is obvious that I would not spend all this time and thought on this if I wasn't seriously trying to help improve Wikipedia...this is not vandalism.

It is obvious that I have some intelligence and that I have command of the English Language.

And it is also obvious that I am a newcommer to Wikipedia...If it doesn't seem obvious by the way I act...then look at my contribution list! Even though I am a newcommer...it is also obvious that I am working hard to collaborate, to learn the guidelines, and to make changes to my article so that tags can be removed.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong...infact I changed my vote...I'm just saying you guys are jerks. That's all.

I love webcomics 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right about us being jerks, but if your intent was to lobby for inclusion of articles about a particular subject, this was even less effective an idea than a boycott. There's no reason that you can't add to existing articles about webcomics.  Bear in mind that the reason that we don't include every article about a particular weblog, website, webcomic, youtube page, internet book or other internet creation is that there are so damn many of them.  They lack the permanency of published material (a lot of which isn't considered notable either), and the vast majority are unknown outside of cyberspace.  With the exception of the Montgomery Transit System in 1955, I can't think of many boycotts that actually worked. Mandsford 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Boycotts work all the time. And these artists have published material.  You can buy their books from their website in bound form, often with ISBN numbers and everything.  And they are permanent; some of the artists I read have been producing strips every week for many years.  I love webcomics 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nonsense, possibly WP:POINT or trolling, and certainly nn. JJL 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record Webcomics does have an article in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you figure that this boycott was my idea? You assume ill faith from the beginning, that I made this up?  You know where I heard about this boycott?  From the "Why Wikipedia does not Using Ads" article that I cited.  Of course I already was aware of how Wikipedia treats webcomics, but until I read that article I had no idea there was a boycott, and that article is where I got the name of that guy who you paranoid editors keep accusing me of being.  I know webcomics has an article...if you looked at my contributions you would see that I tried to mention this boycott there and it was removed because it was not appropriate for that article, which is why I created an article for which it would be appropriate, because I honestly and in the most innocent way thought that it was notable enough to be in Wikipedia even though it may not have been appropriate for the webcomics article itself ...you are missing the point you idiot...webcomics are people...we are talking about Biographies of notable people who are webcomics...not the webcomics article itself... Why would you make a stupid argument about something that you didn't even bother reading about, when there is no one to argue against?  Do you realize that no one is voting to keep this page?  You aren't arguing against anyone...everyone agrees with you...plus your argument is the most idiotic one on this whole page because you obviously don't even know what the boycott or this discussion is about.


 * 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.