Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Fanboy


 * 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, article does not have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Project Fanboy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Was speedied twice under Projectfanboy. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly promotional piece for a non-notable website; none of the sources seems to be reliable or significant. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

— Millennium Cowboy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see the discussion page for Project Fanboy found here for examples of noteworthiness.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

— Millennium Cowboy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thank you TenPoundHammer, according to that citing "Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god." Since many Indy titles are specialized to a certain audience one may not find thousands of hits about specific titles. Furthermore, it reads... "It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest" but doesn't say what a minimum number of google hits is required to be notable, only that 345,400 is clearly notable. A google search of "Project Fanboy" reveals 4020 hits. I've cited several searches relating to comic books where Project Fanboy is in the top ten rankings. I'm afraid I don't understand why it is being considered not notable. Can you please explain? Thanks. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of notability is in regards to WP:WEB; it seems to fail all three criteria established there. The site hasn't been covered in any reliable sources (criterion #1); it hasn't won a well-known award (criterion #2); and it isn't distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators (criterion #3). #1 is probably the most important here — pretty much everything on Wikipedia is considered notable if multiple reliable third-party sources have given it significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The following is from the Broken Soul Press Website...

posted: 2008-02-24

'''Project fanboy has just posted a brand new interview with Kincaid Scribe and BSP owner, Curtis Lawson. Head over and check it out! www.projectfanboy.com'''

This is from the Septagon Studios Website...

In conjunction with the Project Fanboy, Kevin Moyers, writer of the independent title, Scorn and Nick Defina, President of Septagon Studios, publisher of the aforementioned title...

This is from the Cinemacomics Website

Project Fanboy Interview

'''Our interview with Project Fanboy has now been posted on their site. Click HERE to read it.'''

This is from the Pulp Factory Website

Bobby Nash interviewed by Project Fanboy

The great folks over at Project Fanboy interviewed me for their site where we talked about some of my past, present, and future projects.

I hope you will check it out at http://www.projectfanboy.com/?pf=interviews.

Bobby

Posted by Bobby Nash at 7:29 PM

This is a reference to the Project Fanboy Award on the Greenie Gobbie Spiderman Blog

Project Fanboy Fansite Award

Monday, February 11, 2008

'''Yesterday I nominated my site on the Project Fanboy Fansite Award. To see my site on the nomination list, click on the link below that says "Project Fanboy Fansite Award". If you want to submit your own fansite, click on the same link below for instructions. Good luck to anyone who is nominating their fansite, and also wish me luck too.'''

Thanks,

GreenieGobbie

Project Fanboy Fansite Award

All of which are third party coverage of Project Fanboy events and happenings, and all of which were used as External Links in the article. I'm afraid I still don't understand. How does it not meet the criteria? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — Millennium Cowboy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— 90.194.235.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <--- Completely wrong. I have made 100's of contributions.
 * Delete -- not notable. No Google News hits, no Google News archive hits and of the 99 unique hits found with Google's web search, none of them meet the reliability requirements of our Notability Guideline. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject doesn't assert notability. Zero ProQuest, Google News, Ebsco, Infotrac hits.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sign for notability. Looks like pure advertising. --Abrech (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is it always assumed that a website added to Wiki is self-promoted? It could be a fan. One of the many fans that this website has who simply want it listed. Lesser sites have wiki pages without any problems. This site has notable interviews with people who themselves are justifiable wiki entries. Definitely keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.235.35 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between the Comic_Book_Resources Page and the Project Fanboy page? Comic Book Resources was nominated and competes for the Eagle Award a few times and won it twice. Project Fanboy has other websites compete to win the Project Fanboy Award. The Project Fanboy page denotes several people in the comic book industry who have been interviewed by Project Fanboy. Project Fanboy has been covered on several different third party sites Comic Book Resources lists two. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Project Fanboy has also been listed on MSCH.COM LINKS Under "Guides".

Also listed here Book Character Comic Name - search resultsMillennium Cowboy (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP Looks like it meets the guidelines to me. Looks like they have another interview reference on Comic Ne.ws Tracker too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.143.10 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide.  Testimonials are not going to be relevant, and Internet hosted objects have Internet hits.  Alexa rank does not inspire, and the length of existence is not sufficient to make this particularly old.  18 months old or thereabouts?  The mayfly-like lifespan of websites is well known.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Interviewing notable people doesn't allow a site to inherit notability.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Can someone please explain to me why you believe the Comic_Book_Resources Page is allowable and the Project Fanboy page is not? They're both comic book websites with articles and reviews. What makes the CBR page any different than the Project Fanboy page?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentI haven't read the CBR wiki article, so I'm just going to go off the top of my head since I have a knowledge of the subject matter. 1.CBR has been around for over a decade. 2.CBR has had many staff writers go on to become notable comic book writers 3.CBR hosts major events at several comic conventions that generate publicity for themselves. 4.CBR is one of the top five comic book news outlets in print or otherwise. 5.CBR has won over five Eagle Awards (an award that has been around for over 3 decades) 6.The alexa rank is very high for a comic book website. 7.They have been listed as a reference for pop culture information by numerous universities. All of these things can not be claimed by the Project Fanboy page. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it describes the argument you're raising by comparing CBR to this page. If for whatever reason CBR didn't meet with the criteria it too would find itself in this same situation.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for clarity's sake, CBR has won two Eagle Awards and been nominated for several others. Project Fanboy has been nominated for the 2007 Eagle Awards as well for Favourite Comics Related Website. (Reference has been added to the article.)Millennium Cowboy (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it wins that might be enough to make it notable.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, there seems to be some confusion. I don't see Fanboy Project on the ballot for the Eagle Awards as you claim Eagle Awards Voting, nor can I find reference to a reliable source of this information in the article. Can you please help me clear this up?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I think you're confused. This website was not nominated, someone used the online form to submit the page for consideration. Only five sites were actually nominated.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comic Book Resources and Newsarama tick the WP:WEB boxes in a number of ways - they are described as good sources for comic information by independent and authoritative sources (for the former The University of Buffalo and College & Research Libraries News) they have been nominated for and won a number awards. You also seem to be mistaken about the Eagle Awards - in the first phase anyone can add a recommendation via a web form so getting on that list is easy. The people who count as being nominated for the award are those that make the shortlist from which the winners are decided and I listed the at Eagle Awards and Project Fanboy doesn't make the list. It is also worth noting that it has taken quite a bit of work to prove the notability and CBR has been put up for deletion so even they weren't sure things. Comparing them to Project Fanboy just underlines how far off proving notability it is. This doesn't mean it isn't possible. If you are interested (and if there are no WP:COI issues, as some have claimed) then save it off to your sandbox and work on it there. If it is looking solid then post a note to the Comic Project and they can have a look over it for you and let you know how it is going. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

A) It follows very similar trends to sites that are on here such as Comic Book Resources and Newsarama (both are listed on wikipedia). I also noticed newsarama uses a lot of google related references. B) They did make the news for Septagon studios @ http://news.septagonstudios.com/?p=102. Kevin Moyers does have an article on wikipedia. He is the creator of septagon studios. Even if other sources on here do not count as notable, Kevin Moyers and septagon studios are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.78.175 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — 24.108.78.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I say keep it.

Keep Keep it. Chumble_Spuzz has a reference to project fanboy in their article. If they are being referenced on here, definitely notable. Also, it looks like Ape Entertainment has been having Project Fanboy review their products. They recognize this at http://www.ape-entertainment.com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I also noticed that someone from the Werewolf Cafe posted links to Project Fanboy's reviews. In the same post the poster references other sites too. Since this post is not just a project fanboy spam post, it proves that Project Fanboy is notable enough to be referenced on other sites. http://forum.werewolfcafe.com/viewtopic.php?pid=185880#p185880 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Another note. I know Septagon studios have been mention already, but I think its important to note they felt the project fanboy interview was enough of a reliable source that they placed it on their blog too. http://septagonstudios.asoboo.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Another note. I know Septagon studios have been mention already, but I think its important to note they felt the project fanboy interview was enough of a reliable source that they placed it on their blog too. http://septagonstudios.asoboo.com/. Under "comics" on "A twisted outlook" (http://www.twistedoutlook.com/links.php), they are within the 3 listed. This is important because one of the other three is Comic Book Resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You're using circular logic with this Septagon thing. You're claiming it's a reliable source but it's actually just an article talking about the article that Fanboy wrote about them. It's not a third party source because the thing they reference Fanboy about is directly related to them. I'm also hard-pressed to see this as a reliable source even if it was third party.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I felt that it was worthy of a reference. I understand that Wikipedia will make the final decision, I'm just trying to do my part in helping both sides be seen.

Pit Bros Productions also lists Project Fanboy as reviewers for their products. http://www.pitbrosproductions.com/press/review.html. Fandom Comics also has them on their links page. According to the dates on the bottom, Fandom Comics has been around since 2005. http://www.fandomcomics.com/links.php

SuperHeroNews (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SuperHeroNews/msearch?query=project+fanboy&submit=Search&charset=ISO-8859-1) also has a list of references to Project Fanboy. Is this not a new source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Forums and press releases are not really reliable sources for notability. Please read WP:RS and Reliable source examples for what is and isn't generally accepted. You mentioned Newsarama before. Newsarama made huge mainstream business headlines when it was bought by Imaginova, I would say that alone makes it notable. Also, please sign your posts. You were instructed how on your talk page. It makes it much more helpful to keep the discussion organized.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and sorry for the signing. I didn't see that note. Anyway, many of the other points here are valid. I'd especially like to re-point out the couple of the references here to people/companies that have wikipedia articles already (and therefore have been seen as notable) -- Chumble_Spuzz and Ape_Entertainment (Chumble Spuzz has a reference to on the wikipedia page and ape entertainment has posts on their site)Thunderstrike123 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS We're not debating other articles, just this one.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really not trying to be rude, and I hope you're not taking it that way. But I do need to point out that your article says that sometimes the points will be valid. I think you missed the point I was making (which makes it valid). Anyway, on the Chumble_Spuzz article, it references Project Fanboy. I know page edits are removed ALL the time because wikipedia doesn't feel that the reference was valid (or perhaps they think it was spam). Since this reference has passed wikipedia's guidelines, I feel that it helps make Project Fanboy become more significant (ie. Wikipeida itself is a 3rd party). The second thing I was pointing out is that Ape_Entertainment is a notable source, and therefore counts as coverage from a reliable source. Finally, I'd like to point out that most of my point have come from searches from Google, Yahoo and Altavista. There are loads of references to Project Fanboy out there and therefore should be allowed an article. As I mentioned, I'm really not trying to be rude, and I hope its not taken that way. Thunderstrike123 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DELETE - Not notable. After reviewing all ELs, refs, and Google searches, failed to find anything that met requirements for a reliability requirements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

KEEP I don't know how you can honestly say that...

The site is notable in the fact that it is:


 * Listed in the top 10 in over 30 comic book related Google searches.
 * Site staff have interviewed figures in the comic book industry who were notable enough to have their own wiki pages and aforementioned interviews were published to their site.
 * Site holds a comic book related award other comic book related sites compete for.
 * Site was nominated for the Eagle Awards in 2007. (Sorry Torchwoodwho, no disrespect intended but I believe you're actually confused. When someone 'submits something for consideration' in any sort of competition, they have nominated that individual or thing. That's what the word nominate means. Nominate - "To propose for an honor. Obviously someone proposed the Project Fanboy website for the Honor of competing in the Eagle Awards therefore nominating it. The fact that it did not make it into the final voting process is irrelevant.)
 * Site has been shown to be covered by several independent sources referring to various interviews and reviews of authors and works in the comic book industry.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the site didn't warrant to be included in the judging for the Eagle award I hardly call it a nomination. Not every film considered for an oscar is nominated, but from the four or five nominees come the winner. In either case the place at which this website reached in the Eagle Awards process does not meet any of the notability guidelines.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Despite multiple creatiations, and multiple votes, by the articles creator, this does not contain Reliable and Verifiable third party sources. "Verifiable Reliable Sources"--Hu12 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Emperor (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, as I say above there is nothing to stop someone storing a copy in their sandbox and working on it further and I'd be happy to look it over (I've helped dig up resources which helped with this issue for other comics websites) and will keep an eye out for good sources at the moment it really doesn't measure up, which doesn't mean it can't. (Emperor (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Agreed, there is no prejudice against future developments but there isn't enough in the way of 3rd party sources to support an article as yet.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are six official comic book publisher websites, referencing Project Fanboy interviews and/or title reviews in the external links. Not to sound disrespectful, but how many third party sources does one article need? Emperor, I would be interested in taking you up on the offer to look over the article and see if there is perhaps anything that might be added to the article to strengthen it's case as a wikipedia article. I've added the code to my sandboxMillennium Cowboy (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK great - I've left you some thoughts. To answer your question though: You could find hundreds of third party mentions and it wouldn't help. You need non-trivial mentioned from reliable sources - having a good hard look at Comic Book Resources and Newsarama who have recommendations from academia, big name magazines, etc. which itself might not guarantee they are safe but the awards help tick another box (and bear in mind even then CBR just passed an AfD). So there are a number of hoops to jump through to really nail down WP:N and at the moment what is there doesn't make it through one. That isn't to say it can't but there are a vast number of comic sites out there and the bar that WP:WEB sets is high and only a few will make it. Sorry for the mixed metaphors ;) (Emperor (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2008 (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.