Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigerman


 * 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. Not enough reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability.Cúchullain t/ c 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tigerman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, even if the subject's intentions are noble. This article was written by, the creator of Tigerman, which also brings up conflict-of-interest concerns. Tigerman has received outside attention from only one source approaching secondary & independent: an editorial in Nightflying Magazine that looks a lot like a press release (the about the author section is almost word-for-word from here). Tigerman "National Wildlife Humane Society" gets 9 unique Google hits. Fails WP:WEB & WP:NOT. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)




 * Sorry, but advertising one's own story is not what an encyclopedia is for, and potentially means a conflict of interest and a lack of neutrality. Delete.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote to Keep.Chakal 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize you're a new editor, Chakal, with edits only to your userpage & this AfD, so you might not be aware that AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. As such, if you could give any "recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments", it would be most appreciated. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I have worked to try and improve the article it is still too much of an ad for the user's own story. Delete. Xtreme racer 20:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Noting  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt; 's Comment, then my followup comment, made me realize that we are by-passing this link.

This by-passes all of the other exchanges of comments. Please, let us adhere to Scientizzle addition of that link for Further Discussion, in respect of his desire to move comments to the destination of the link he created.


 * It's okay to reply to comments on this page, but in order to keep the page readable, I encourage everyone to use concise statements with proper formatting (indent, you don't need to use line breaks, etc.) so the core of the discussion isn't drowned in minutiae. The talk page is a good place for working out details. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up Scinetizzle. I was getting quite confused with comments on the article's Discussion Page, my MyTalk's page, then this page (which I understand). Then, what really threw me, was a link to another page from this one, "Further Discussion Link". Consequently, that's where I have been commenting and making a case for a KEEP on my article. If anyone goes there, they will see I counter-pointed with logical examples and precedent. (Please let me know if I am doing the "indent" thing right. I know HTML, but Wikipedia has it's own coding system). lol


 * I saw chakal's comment there, and it was obviously unsolicited (eloquently written, but a bit confusing to me). I did however, after seeing his comment, send an email and showed him this link, where people were putting DELETE, and asked that if he felt it was a KEEP, to say on this page (ONLY AFTER he mentioned he would like to see it stay, and gave comment as to why).


 * The one thing I did grasp in his comments, is the Stealth part, to which I quoted and replied. I also quoted you, and replied to it there. I could have had someone else submit the article (stealth?), but my mind doesn't work that way. The subject of the article is a good one, and stands useful merit. So, any editors reading this page, please follow Scien's '', and allow me the respect for my counter-point comments to be read, and replied on.


 * Scien mentioned the article can always be resubmitted, but preferably by someone else other than myself. That makes some sense, since the art has been released by the creator (me) to Wikipedia with no copyright issues to deal with.


 * Although my preference would be to take the existing one (since there has been so much time spent, by so many), to make it acceptable.


 * Please refer to my comments, on the redirect link from here, on how it makes logic to KEEP, and the overwhelming precedent that allows for it to be able to stay.


 * The webcomics and [Category: Albums By Artists] is very compelling arguement for editors here. (especially concerning Advertising, Self Submits and References).


 * Webcomics have been granted sizable latitude (especially concerning one or no References) since 1993 here. Categorizing and putting the Tigerman article in that category (webcomics would make a much better fit here. I have not ever viewed it as a webcomic because of the very intense digital art, but if an existing niche is needed and available, especially for the latitude that category gets, then it's the best fit possible here.


 * This may satisfy all editor's concerns, with the precedent of [Category: Albums By Artists] answering to Self submission of one's own work.


 * In closing (some may say YEAA!!) it is always easier to DELETE than to CREATE, so, please consider that, and Jimbo Wales' quote "Nothing Is Set In Concrete" and "Be Bold".


 * Thanks For your time (for those so patient with me)
 * (sometimes, a newb who works very hard, makes a good future seasoned worker)
 * I look forward to being a seasoned and fair worker here. My nature is to always excel.
 * I feel I have much to offer in filling voids concerning issues of extreme importance, to life, the human condition and the health of our Earth.


 * [We Are The Gardeners Of Earth]
 * Thecatman1 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Previously added comment, in error, to the proposed Scientizzle Further Discussion Link.

I would not be opposed to someone else reading the Tigerman Saga, and then writing the article. My permissions have been granted on the art accompanying it. That's what made it so sure to not violate any copyrights. I really am not attempting to advertise anything, but instead, define a character and exploration of a genre (ie, digital art illustrated e-book) that is somewhat new ground for art.

If it advertises anything, it would be "save endangered species". The profit in that is non-monetary, but it is "noble cause" (that's notable ..) It's uniqueness in of itself, also makes it notable. Don't let my opinion stand in the way of reading it though, at least until the end of Part I, (Chapter 15). ;)

I realize I will probably not see Tigerman in Wikipedia at this point, but people (editors and admin) are certainly welcome to explore it, and decide for themselves whether I am advertising anything. If then, they want to take over that article, for "notable" value they may see, then all conflict of interest, and any other issues would be moot.

Thecatman1 16:12, 27 April 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.