Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Howard (American webcomic artist)


 * 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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Howard (American webcomic artist)
Delete this article on a living person which is unverifiable by reliable sources. Per Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Searching through my library, I find no such reliable third party sources for any information in this article. As such, the article can't help but run counter to Biographies of living persons as well, where our official verifiability policies must be strictly enforced. Dragonfiend 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 04:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BIO trumps previous discussion; NPOV articles cannot be written without good sources, and good sources are in short supply here. Nifboy 05:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple interviews from online publications and the artist's own site are sufficient to support the content of the article. If the standard for Wikipedia is to wait for information on a topic to show up in a library it will make it much more difficult to build up and revise content on a topic. If the consensus is to delete, the middle section describing the end of the comics should be merged with the article on A Modest Destiny. For comparison, the article on Dan Piraro offers up his personal website as a source, and a brief bio from the national cartoonists society.--BigCow 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But I have already voiced my dislike for Wikipedia, so anything under which I am the sole documentation could not be taken seriously. It can be assumed that I can, have, and will again pass off lies as the truth just to see it documented here in the very real hopes that I can one day make a public fool of Wikipedia and it's practices. Any page you quote as a reference here on Wikipedia could easily be changed into something wildly different. My website could only be considered a source if I weren't willing to modify it just to manipulate and mock Wikipedia. See, I told you my dislike of Wikipedia was relevant to the article...--SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, you're really just attacking Wikipedia, not this article. Just because you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that you're allowed to falsify articles on yourself. If you do anyway, than you should be treated the same as any other vandal and denied the ability to edit or create articles. If you have a problem with Wikipedia, there are many, many outlets that you can use to express that- deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia for others serves no purpose but to be petty.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. I wouldn't have to touch Wikipedia. About 90% of that article is quoted directly from me or consists of information only I could verify. You'd have a hard time finding enough reliable third party sources to say anything significant about me, and I'm telling you right now - I'm not just an unreliable source, I'm down right hostile. --SeanHoward 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are indeed as much of a source on this article as you claim to be, then I suggest you remove your contributions and let the rest of us, with our NPOV and third-party sources fill in the gaps. I'm sure that it's very possible for us to find the information without your help, regardless of whether or not you want this article to exist.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article doesn't give any information not found in the comic's pages, and Sean Howard himself has expressed a disire to take the article down.  No reason for it to be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elbow.
 * The section on the end of the comics collects information from a few sources not easily available in one place, and the opinions of the subject of the article do not determine its inclusion.--BigCow 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Without me as a compliant and willful resource, the contents of this article would be undocumentable and inaccurate. I am anything but compliant and willful. My accomplishments have their own articles. There is no need for there to be one on my person as well. --SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The previous deletion nominations were pre-WP:BLP, so the arguments for keeping from those discussions don't carry much weight. The article doesn't meet WP:BIO, so just delete it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. No truly reliable sources, and the official site has Alexa ranking 283,594 currently.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is more or less a biography and biography of important people should not be deleted. And biograhpy in nation does not have many citations or sources. &#123;&#123;subst:Zhanster&#124;zhanster}} 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It should be noted that the subject's desire to not have an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant as are his views on the project and his willingness to be a resource for an article (his own statements would constitute original research).  The sources provided in the article don't qualify as reliable sources, but I imagine one could find verifiable information to base an article on.  It's not there right now, so this probably be deleted under WP:BIO, but with no predjudice against recreation at a later date if sources are found.--Isotope23 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has value as a reference for the multiple viewpoints, and public exploits of a major internet celebrity. Vash293 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As much as I loathe Sean's apparent personal vendetta against Wikipedia, this does fail BIO and WEB, not to speak of V. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 06:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Personally, I'm not sure Sean Howard would be considered major enough to warrent a biographical article, especially if he doesn't want one. The only reason Mr. Howard even has his own article is because of the flame war that he accidently prompted, and a couple of (very amusing) web-comics. There are a variety of equally prominant web artists with no mention whatsoever on wikipedia, such as AIMO, Crimson Jassic or Nemain Ravenwood. Also, the only source of information available on this guy is what you can pull out of various forums, many of which seem to have a tendancy to bash him, and are therefore not reliable. To sum it up, what we have is a minor contemporary cartoonist, on whom we can get little to no reliable information.--Ostermana 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, not verifiable = delete. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep complete article, not in violation, clear sources Zaver
 * Delete. Rebecca 09:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh boy, this man is sometimes more trouble then he's worth. The thing with Sean Howard's problem with Wikipedia is that it criticizes him.  Well DUH!  He's a jerk.  I know it, you know, heck, even HE knows it!  He's admitted it.  He likes to cause trouble and call people incompetent, but he can't stand it when there is even a LITTLE bit of bad things said to him!  If people who alter this article can't find sorces, then the reason is because there are no sources to find.  Howard deleates anything that gets pissed on by other people and show him as being wrong (he's even deleated comics because people threw them back in his face).  The thing is, pretty much all this information is true, and I'm sure some searching through the webarchives will prove that.  KevinTRod —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinTRod (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC.
 * He may or may not be a jerk, but he's also a logged-in user, so NPA, fool! --220.237.67.125 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are not enough sources except what he says of himself, which is strictly against NPOV. Lack of information coupled with a lack of importance makes this article something unneeded.--Hawkaris 10:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient reliable sources for verifiably neutral coverage, significant evidence that past coverage has been anything but neutral as a result. WP:BLP says we must take a conservative approach, in this case the prudent thing to do is give up and wait until he is more famous.  The more articles like this I see the more persuaded I am by the "no first biographies" proposal.  That proposal is not yet policy, but this article goes a good way to arguing why it should be. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ora 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know anonymous opinions aren't worth much, but delete anyways, for the above reasons. --220.237.67.125 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm reversing my original opinion from the last time this was brought up for deletion, given the things I've since learned about WP notability, et cetera. Sean's only really known for getting in an argument with actually notable people; he should probably just be referenced in his comics' articles, though I wonder if they're even notable enough.--Spinn 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteTheres no real information here. Just people on both sides using Wikipedia for a vendetta.  I say delete and let's move on with our lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.177.29 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete. Let the baby have its bottle. If nothing else, it will cease his whining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doenherleven (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep but allow sean to add his disclaimer. if not then delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.25.53 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete Remove this page and keep the page for his sprite comics to reference his site and other works in passing. Delusional != notable. --Leth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leth (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep- Sean Howard has created more of a stir on the internet community (through incidents with Penny Arcade, his blog, his rampages, his tantrums, and his attacks on people) than his comic ever did. If AMD necessitates an article, then the author himself does, too. Sean Howard, though I may not like him that much, is an internet figure and a webcomic author of note- if not, then why else would he have been called to participate in a panel discussion? However, information should be updated to talk more about the person and not just the comics. --Wtstar 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This person does not want to be on Wikipedia and you are infringing on his rights by forcefuly putting him on it. If he says he dosn't want it, delte it already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.100.112 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep If you were to delete the article it would undermine many of the principles that make wikipedia what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.212.98 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep There are no rules being breached, just a webcomic artist who is again trying to gain infamy through yet another controversial action. Leave it with no disclaimer as well, succumbing to his petty desires goes against the principle of objectivity of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.68.224 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Man, is it me or do a lot of these 'keep' blurbs take time out to personally attack me? If this is the quality of person who wants an article about me on Wikipedia, what does that say about how the article will be used? So far, the article has been real short on facts and real big on slander, insinuation, vandalism, gossip, and a few guys who want to use me to advertise their forum to my fans, even though it has nothing to do with me (you may recognize them above with the 'keep' votes - wonder why?). What I find amazing is that some of the people most responsible for using Wikipedia as a personal weapon of attack against me have all chimed in to 'keep' the article. Seriously... WTF? --SeanHoward 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * keep, Squidi comics are online once again, therefore people will want to know who Sean is and Wikipedia should be able to provide them with the information, if biographys of TV stars are to be kept, so should biographies of "internet stars" Demonblade 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Honestly I think a major difference thats going unconsidered here is that Squidi isn't exactly rich and famous. He's an internet personality to be sure, but I imagine he doesn't want to be swamped by people, or having his name, location, and picture THIS easily available. I know, I know, information is easy to find on the internet, but the point stands. I also agree with the Bio and infamy stuff. I ALSO also agree that Squidi is being childish and trying to use this as a way to get at Wikipedia, but that doesn't stop him from being right in that this article needs to be taken down--Juron Pilo 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete From what I understand of Howard's old website he neglected to post pictures or much amount of personal information about himself. Delete the article if he (the real Sean Howard) wants it so, or at least take out his personal information and picture and simply refer to his comics and works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.213.167 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete, per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:V, etc., but this AfD is certainly a pain to wade through... &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Whatever. If he wants this gone it's [more-or-less] his right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dejavood0o (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete Aside from the obvious fact that the subject has no desire to be in Wikipedia, the particular article currently posted is not substantial enough to warrent being in Wikipedia. How much non-AMD work is actually related to Sean Howard (and is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia)? To the extend of my knowlege, AMD, TSD, AAA and other related works all fall under the category of "Squidi.net", do they not? If we really need an article that relates all the information, why not put it under an umbrella. We don't have enough information to really warrent a full article on Sean Howard, do we? I mean, does anyone even have something as simple as his date of birth? That's pretty standard information for a biography, isn't it? Yet, there is almost nothing actually relating to Sean Howard himself in this article. If there was enough material to write a full article, this would be a different subject. (George W. Bush, for instance, is well known enough that it would be wrong not to have an article for him.) I'm not saying DOB should be a qualifier, but look at the article in its current state. Judging by the content there alone, I would say Sean Howard is not noteworthy enough to have an article of his own. A few mentions in other articles, possibly, but not a full-fledged biographical article under his name. Figs 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The most notable part of the article, and what largely inspired its content in the first place was a section on the 'end of the comics', which detailed some events and controversies about copyright infringement in regards to pixel art, which is a large part of the reason Sean Howard is known outside of his own comic or worth looking up. An older version that has most of that section: . It's been hard to have a stable version with the edit wars lately.--BigCow 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But that section is crap. The first paragraphi is misleading, factually incorrect, speculative, and unverifiable. The second paragraph has NOTHING to do with why the comic ended. The third paragraph is actually decent, but along with the "Return to Comics" section is now moot because the comic is indeed back. It's nothing more than a footnote in the history of squidi.net, and worthless in the grand scheme of a biography of my life. That section you are praising is little more than gossip, and I'm afraid that you're going to try to use it as some sort of justification for starting a new section on squidi.net, which would just circumvent the (poorly enforced) safeguards on verifibility in bios so that gossip and slander would be more easily introduced. --SeanHoward 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been mentioned in interviews with you, in material on your site available from archive.org, and on other comic related sites discussing your stances on copyright issues. A fair number of people have heard of you because of your stance on copyrights. Whether or not it belongs in the article is another debate, I was just trying to point out that there was more content to the article, even if it currently isn't agreed upon.--BigCow 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - insufficient sourcing to stand up notability. BlueValour 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though Sean is being less than polite about it, he has several points. When someone's major claim to fame is a controversy with another web comic (with sources composed entirely, so far as I know, of people who have taken one side or another), you cannot create an article anywhere near a neutral point of view and have verifyable sources.  Okay, so if that's left out of the article, what's left?  His personal life, his web comic, and his blog.  Mr. Howard has made quite an effort to keep as much personal information about himself off of the internet, except for mentions on his own site.  His web comics already have their own pages.  And his blog?  Well, if wikipedia starts making pages for everyone who happens to have a blog, then I guess this page should be kept.  But last time I checked, there weren't 8 million articles about emo kids with live journals.  Seans blog had a larger audience, but at the end of the day it was a blog (and aside from copies of the blog itself, there doesn't seem to be any mention of it by a news source).  It it's a matter of making easy access for his web comics, a portal page would make more sense than a biography.  If the individual being written about was willing to cooperate with (or even ignore) his own article, there might be other routes.  But someone who is willing to vandalize his own web page to make sure there is no accurate information anywhere about his site (as Mr. Howard proposed above), then there is little cause to keep such an article. Elbow 05:50, 13 August 2006 (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.