Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes


 * 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 three issue raised notability, sourcing, original research still remained unaddressed. While there is a significant group that offer the opinion of keeping none of issues were addressed, they only highlighted the quality of the writing. The alternative suggestion of merging is problematic as is means taking the problems from here and placing them into another article. Gnangarra 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not not meet, nor do I think it can meet, Notability (fiction). It is unlikely that there exist enough reliable sources (apart from the strips themselves) to cover an encyclopedic treatment of this sub-topic of Calvin and Hobbes. Without sources, the content of this article constitutes original research. Feezo (Talk) 23:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for a trivia spin off this is surprisingly well-written. It clearly identifies the major points of the comics. It was an entertaining read and is not necessarily original research. Saying something appears in the primary sources is not research. -N 00:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seconded. It's mostly unsourced and possibly non-notable, but it's not original research. Anomie 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is an excellent treatment of the subject matter. Bigwyrm 01:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, exactly per nom. This is an extended essay by a fan or fans. It should be on a fan site, not on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Weak keep, these are all commonly cited as recurring themes in the strip. It is a bit fancrufty and could be trimmed. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It's a long, well-reasoned essay, but contains no references to third parties that are discussing these points. It really should be online somewhere, but without attribution that place should not be Wikipedia. It really does come off as original research. -- Charlene 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. It is well written, but it does not belong on wikipedia. Also, it is full of OR and it is not something that you can really find any reliable resources on.--†Sir James Paul† 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed. will be almost entirely OR when done. Bulldog123 08:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Calvin and Hobbes per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is definetly original research, but works well as an essay. Could make a interesting basis for ma thesis. Author should approach the public affairs office of the American Psychological Association to see if they would be interested in publication. --Gavin Collins 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Calvin and Hobbes as suggested above. Plenty of the content here is good, but it is currently more of an essay than an article. Merge a shortened version, delete the rest. Emmett5 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and Redirect, as this depth of content is more appropriate to something like The Calvin and Hobbes Wiki on Wikia. The redirect should point to Calvin and Hobbes. BTW, this sort of situation is addressed in the proposed rewrite to WP:FICT. Anomie 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If transwiki is not done, Merge into Calvin and Hobbes even though it'll probably quickly be unmerged per WP:SUMMARY. Keep because a merge would just be unmerged per WP:SUMMARY. Anomie 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where it was split from per WP:SUMMARY back in November. C'mon guys, work together here. AFD is not cleanup. I'm missing the part where that notability guideline it fails is an inclusion policy rather than a notability guideline, and I'm also missing the part where you define stating that something occurs within the strip a lot is original research using our actual policies. Hiding Talk 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. WP:FICTION is part of the inclusion guidelines table IncGuide. Per RfD 14, isn't failure of the relevant notability guideline a criteria for deletion? Feezo (Talk) 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, someone rewrote that did they. It used to say consider merging.  Ah well.  Instruction creeps everywhere. You guys knock yourselves out. Hiding Talk 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been mentioned on Talk:Calvin and Hobbes to inform other potentially interested editors. Anomie 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Identifying "recurring themes" is the definition of original research. Anyone here written a paper for an English class? It's an interesting article but to include it here you'd have to be citing another author who states, for example, that "Santa Claus and "being good"" is a recurring theme in C&H.  Since currently it's unsourced and I doubt that such analysis has been done, I think it should be deleted. Calliopejen1 08:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You don't need a secondary source for something that's bleeding obvious in the primary source. In the section you cite, there is one clause of one sentence that is not directly supported by the primary source. The rest of the article is the same: mainly summary of events illustrating each theme, with a few statements here and there that contain any sort of analysis. If "identifying" something is OR, then everything is OR. It's ok to use your brain. Anomie 12:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I remembered Bill Watterson mentioning many of the recurring themes in the Calvin and Hobbes 10th anniversary book. Hence it's not original research, and it's quite notable, being about this well received comic strip.--Kylohk 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, by the way. Hiding Talk 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is woefully undercited... oh wait, there isn't a SINGLE credible source. It is all based off of primary sources---thus clearly Original Research.  It may be an interesting read with an interesting issue, but is it clearly OR and thus in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.Balloonman 03:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's interesting how many people think "Stating a fact that is in a primary source" == "Original research". As for the article being undercited, since when was that criteria for deletion? Anomie 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At issue is the lack of secondary sources. From WP:NOT, quoted in WP:FICT: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance[...] These sources don't appear to exist. in 100 years, perhaps, there will be sufficient scholarly analyses such as, from which we can draft an article that is not original research. Feezo (Talk) 20:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These themes have been discussed in secondary sources, The Comics Journal, issue 127 for example. The sources exist.  Besides which, those words are taken somewhat out of context, since they allow for sections to be split into new articles per Summary style.  Although I'd like to shoot whoever added them to policy. Now, since I've demonstrated the existence of secondary sources, are people going to change their opinions? Hiding Talk 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt they will, but please add your references to the article! Anomie 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is an extremely clear-cut violation of Wikipedia's policy of original research.  The article is just as much a clear-cut violation of Wikipedia's fiction standards -- there is little, if any, real-world context to reinforce an encyclopedic background to this topic.  People, will you please read how to ensure the notability of a topic, and not indiscriminately draw together your own primary reading experiences? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry boss, I was too busy writing them to read them. The topic is notable, it's just that the article as stands is currently badly written. I missed the part where Wikipedia gained a deadline.  When exactly is that? Hiding Talk 20:10, 3 July 2007 (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.