Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters

I refactored some of the comments from the discussion page to here as they were making the debate too long. Stifle 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Crazyswordsman 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * True, NC may not be as notable as Penny Arcade, but the fact that it's the first known sprite comic should mean something. SPKx 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is notable as the originator of sprite comics, but it's a footnote, at best.-Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And is a footnote going to sink this information into the minds of Bob and George fanboys?Crazyswordsman 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Spite, or Internet rivalry, is not sufficient reason to create a Wikipedia article. I couldn't care less about Bob and George, (personally, I hate it) but I think an article in Wired magazine, several hundred thousand Google hits, and an Alexa score of 33,455 makes it notable. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But is still didn't come first. Crazyswordsman 19:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We're still waiting for proof that Neglected Mario Characters was the first sprite comic.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If by "766", you actually mean "1490", then yes. Not to mention the fact that it's often not referred to by the full moniker. CaptHayfever 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do you see 1490? I still see 766. Pandaman87 23:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just did the standard type-it-in-with-quotes routine, and it's still showing me 1490. CaptHayfever 00:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did it (quoted) and got 764. RJFJR 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why the raw _numbers_ aren't usefull for much. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He combined the results of "neglected mario characters" and "neglected characters". That doesn't count. Manmonk 03:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that I didn't. That's why I said "not to mention the fact..." CaptHayfever 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then your number is just plain wrong. Sorry. Manmonk 05:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I did the exact same search everybody else did and that's what happened. From what I'm seeing, the smaller number is the one that's just plain wrong. CaptHayfever 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it is notable enough for someone (actually many users collaborated on both pages) to have put hours into writing not only the article but also a list of culture references from the comic. Bobby1011 03:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Effort put into something, while noble, doesn't nessecitate notability. If you wanted me to, I could put hours into writing an article on my artist/musician friend who I think is a fucking genius, but it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. The fact that multiple users collaborated gives the article more credit, as it's not just vanity. But the fact of the matter is, I don't think it's notable, and the Wikipedia's guide to website notability seems to agree with me.-Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you are arguing on whether or not NC is a notable website. NC is NOT on wikipedia because it's a website, it's on wikipedia because it is the first known webcomic.  Just becuase NC isn't known to the mainstream doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia. SPKx 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between not-mainstream and not-notable. 12 Oz. Mouse isn't mainstream. Masonna isn't mainstream. Female circumcision isn't mainstream. A sprite comic that has 700 Google hits and has to have at the most, two or three dozen regular readers, is not notable. And if it is notable, it shouldn't have two articles on Wikipedia dedicated to discussing it, one of which that is almost as long as the article on Jesus Christ and has 29 pictures, an article in Wikiquote, and a brief stub-article about the otherwise completely-non-notable (but brilliant, and, on a personal note, a nice guy in my experience) author.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification I didn't vote, I only left a comment. That's because I know that effort doesn't equal notability, though it does show a perception of notability that exists primarily within the subjects intrested party. Bobby1011 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. However, I must note that subsequently after nominating this article for deletion, I discovered that the creator of this article, SPKx, is a staff-member at the site that hosts this comic, and that The author of the comic has frequently edited it as well. Not only making this not-notable, but a possible (if not blatant) vanity article. I wouldn't say that many people have edited it, and if they have, it's not out of enthusiasm for the comic, but, and I don't mean to sound rude, enthusiasm for the poor quality of the article. (Ever since the beginning of the creation of the article, edit summaries have been critical; "(Fixing the typo in the FIRST WORD of the article.)", "(removed comentary)", "(Cleanup on aisle 4, cleanup on aisle 4...)") The comic is not notable and this is a vanity article. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, hi there. I just wanted to add a couple of cents.  Mainly just to say that you can say what you want about NC and this article in Wikipedia, but it is not a vanity article.  I have done very little to edit this page, and have not "frequently edited it" as you say I have.  I have only made a few small edits, mainly to just correct typos or fix vandalism.  I think I have edited it a total of three times.  But I have done nothing to add to this article, and have not made frequent edits.  I had no part in the creation of this article, and I have not promoted this article on my site at all.  I do not see how this would be "vanity".  While I can't speak for SPKx, I would guess that he made this article simply as a fan of NC.  On discovering of this article's existence, I was touched and humbled that so many people would come together and create a small tribute to my site.  And their work means a lot to me, since it shows that maybe my hard work at NC hasn't been for nothing, and some people actually enjoy my work.  It's a nice feeling to be given a little credit for your work.  Personally, I believe that as the first sprite comic, this fact gives it some notability, and NC deserves a little respect.  But as I said in the other article, the "List of References" one, I am not a person who wants to impose myself onto other people.  If you all at Wikipedia decide to delete this article, then I will have no complaints and I will not have a fuss.  This is a public website, afterall.  If this article is deleted, I would be interested in putting this material onto my site, since it would be a shame to waste the efforts of everyone involved here.  So yeah, that's all I wanted to say for now.  Whatever you all decide is cool with me.  I think Wikipedia is a great reference, and I am not going to fight it.  All I will say is that, personally, I think the article should stay up.  If other sprite comics have their articles, then I don't see why the first sprite comic shouldn't.  But that's just my opinion.  If your main complaint is that it is too large, and there are too many articles devoted to NC, then why not simply scale it down?  Simply leave a small article, recognizing NC for what it's worth and giving it the credit it deserves.  Just a suggestion.  And like I said, this is not vanity.  I have done little to create and promote this article.  And whatever you decide to do, it is fine with me.  Thanks.-jayJay Resop 06:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Let's see it from my point of view. I have a friend. He is a painter, a musician, and the dishwasher at the place I hang out often. We have another friend, who thinks this guy's really cool, and he's done a lot for this guy; created him a website, motivated him to go out and play in various venues, and started a band together with him. Now, what if my second friend created a Wikipedia article about my first friend? What if it was dozens of paragraphs long and had dozens of pictures? And then what if both the second friend and myself continuously edited it, and the first friend occasionally edited it as well? What if when the notability of our friend was brought up, we claimed he was the originator of some popular musical innovation without offering any proof to back up our claim? Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, who died and made you king of wikipedia? You are not a wiki administrator? The NC article has been a work in progress.  It definitely not vanity.  Sprite comics like Bob and George and 8-Bit Theatre have wiki pages and there is no reason why NC shouldn't be allowed to have a page, especially since it's the first one!  Why don't you stop your complaining and leave us in peace!!!! - SPKx 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't know that this is what we as Wikipedia users can do. It doesn't take a mod to SUGGEST deletion nor does it take one to argue for its deletion. This is vanity and it's not notable and thus that means it should be deleted. It's not a personal attack on you. Pandaman87 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a Wikipedia administrator, I'm not even a veteran of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and voice their peace on, and I am perfectly free to cite numerous official Wikipedia guidelines that basically say that this article is not Wikipedia quality and deserves deletion, or at least significiant cleanup. "8-Bit Theater" has 196,000 Google hits. "Bob and George" has 93,500. "Neglected Mario Characters" has 764. Neglected Mario Characters is allegedly the first sprite comic, so it may be notable in the history of webcomics, but not notable enough to merit two massive articles, an article about the author, 20-something uploaded pictures, and a Wikiquotes article. It's not a matter of "leav[ing] [you] alone", since Wikipedia is not LiveJournal or Geocities, it's a public encyclopedia that has an official, well fleshed-out, well agreed-upon (and relatively pendantic) official policy. I also would like to argue that your tone is highly uncivil, and thus you are not an authority on Wikipedia ettiquite. Sinatra Fonzarelli 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Two or three dozen? Where did you get those numbers mister?  For your information SMBHQ gets, on average, 3,509 visits and 17,722 page views a day!  And since NC is one of the top sections at SMBhq, I'm sure a good chunk of those hits go there. - SPKx 03:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being hyperbolic. However, a couple thousand visits a day is actually not that large in terms of websites, and the website, nor the webcomic, is notable in termsd of Wikipedia policy. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's truly not that large, why don't you try creating a website and see if you can get that many hits in a YEAR. - SPKx 04:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Relax. assume good faith. I was not insulting or attacking your website or your ability to create a website, nor defending my hypothetical website or website-creation-skills. I am merely arguing that according to Wikipedia guidelines, your website and your webcomic are not notable, and the fact that you, a SMBHQ.com staffer, authored this article and the Jay Resop article, makes this vanity/boarderline autobiography. Sinatra Fonzarelli 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight. Just because the NC article was created by the people involved with it and not some Joe Blow off the street makes the article vanity?  What kind of garbage is that?  You can't take away the fact that there were no known sprite comics before NC, as such NC should get some credit on wikipedia. - SPKx 04:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some credit, yes. Not a gigantic several page article. Sorry. Pandaman87 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "What kind of garbage is that?" Official Wikipedia policy. The driving ethos behind Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia written by millions of "Joe Blow[s]". Jesus Christ didn't write the article on Jesus Christ. Adolf Hitler didn't write the article on Adolf Hitler. The Beatles didn't write the article on The Beatles, and you shouldn't write an article advertizing your website, anymore than I should write an article (or use a comment in the talk section of an AfD discussion) to advertize my friend's artistic career. Sinatra Fonzarelli 04:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NC isn't his website. Sure, he writes for NC, but as a fan of the comic.  He's not an "official staff member" of NC, Jay is the only one who is.  He is webmaster of SMBHQ, which is merely the host of NC, and his site is SMBHQ Mysteries.  And yes, he created the article, but many of the major edits were done by fans such as myself.  Therefore, vanity is limited.
 * You think that if the maintainer of a website that hosts a comic creates a Wikipedia article about the comic, it's only limited vanity? I disagree. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You want notability? Last November, NC was mentioned in a 1up.com artcle. - SPKx 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of 1up.com, but apparently it is a rather large gaming site. However, being mentioned on a moderately large website is not the litmus test for this sort of thing. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, your credibility just flew right out of the window if you never heard of one of the biggest gaming sites on the web, which is run by the same company that own's Electronic Gaming Monthly. - SPKx 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my credibility regarding video games, video game websites, or video game journalism, ("Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, in order to provide articles for people who can't read."-Frank Zappa. What does that make video game journalism?) none of which are on trial, (especially as I don't regularly play video games, and video games are marginally connected to the issue of whether or not this comic is notable) you have yet to refute the basic fact that according to the Wikipedia notability criteria guideline for websites, this webcomic is not even remotely notable. Sinatra Fonzarelli 04:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither are Google and Alexa tests. Crazyswordsman 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that a whole independent webcomic wiki had to be created demonstrates how biased against webcomics these so-called "guidelines" are. I don't want to be banished to that B-site, webcomics should have the right to be at wikipedia like everything else. - SPKx 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir regarding bias against Internet culture in the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. This awkwardness is what resulted in the creation of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Until someone, possibly you, authors a brilliant, more-egalitarian guideline for Wikipedia regarding what Internet culture is notable, and has it sucessfully proposed and agreed upon, every two-bit website will have to remain in the B-list. However, even in the world of webcomics, yours isn't very notable, in my opinion.
 * "Penny Arcade", a universally known webcomic in the world of webcomics, has about 6,570,000 google hits.
 * "Sinfest", a pretty popular webcomic, has 1,090,000 Google hits.
 * "Achewood", a somewhat well-known one, has 429,000.
 * "Cat and Girl", "Jerkcity", and "Perry Bible Fellowship", three relatively obscure webcomics that have moderately-devout cult followings, have about 300,000 each
 * "Bob and George" and "Elftor", two webcomics that are pushing the envelope on webcomic obscurity, but are still notable enough to merit Wikipedia articles, both have about 100,000 each.
 * "Neglected Mario Characters" has 764
 * Just as a [somewhat narcissistic] contrast, my full name has 947. Do I get a Wikipedia article about myself? Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as a further narcissistic display, I'd like to point out that I have more Google hits than Jay Resop, who also is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article in your mind. In fact, I dare you to emperically prove that Jay Resop has done more to shape Internet culture than Nevin Zehr. Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you knew how Google truly worked (like I do), you wouldn't be so egotistical. Google finds the keywords you enter and matches it to links to the site.  Sure the words "Bob and George" may give you 100,000 hits, but only 564 sites actually link to the webcomic, which is roughly the same number of sites that link to SMBhq (though admittedly NC is linked by only 46 sites). - SPKx 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "though admittedly NC is linked by only 46 sites". I rest my case. Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a Wired News article that essentially states that before Bob and George hit is big there we NO notable sprite comics. It is next to impossible to prove that NC was the first sprite comic, other than it came before the other, more notable, comics.  I admit, I knew next to nothing about wikipedia when I created the article 9 months ago, and I actually had to use the Bob and George article as a template.  Back then I didn't know the guidelines and such.  Would I have created the page if I knew the guidelines? Probably not.  You guys are so concerned about "reference this" and "prove that" that you don't realize that there are many people who have enjoyed NC.  Sure, some major publication may not have written about it (the 1up article is actually the first known major reference).  Sure, NC may or may not have inspired other sprite comics (the wired article says the guy from Bob and George got the sprites idea on his own).  But, NC is still a prized part of SMBHQ.  Go ahead and delete it, what do I care?  To you, I'm just some crazed prejudiced fanboy that has no idea what he's talking about.  Good bye! - SPKx 13:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you're joking, Sean. Crazyswordsman 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If Wired News delves into the art of sprite comics and the popularity of Bob and George without mentioning Neglected Character Comics in passing, I think that alone not only is not sufficient evidence to prove that this comic has a claim to fame of being the originator of sprite comics, but sufficient evidence that it doesn't. "Many people" may have enjoyed this comic, (I myself was one of them) but that does not negate the fact that it is not notable. Wikipedia contributors are concerned with "reference this" and "prove that" for a reason, we are trying to create a credible encyclopedia. I know that NC is a prized part of SMBHQ. My feet are a prized part of my anatomy, that doesn't mean they deserve an article either. If you are really apathetic to whether or not this article is deleted, I suggest we go ahead and delete it. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being unreasonable. Wikipedia should be a place for people to read about things that aren't notable to the outside world.  Yeah, I could come here to read about a bigshot celebrity, politician, game, or movie, but I could also read Sports Illustrated, go to the IMDB, or watch MSNBC for the same information that's here.  Wikipedia should go above and beyond this, and stick up for the little guys.  And he WAS joking.  He's just really passionate about NC, as I and many others are.  What you are saying, to me, at least, is that Wikipedia shoud just go ahead and claim that Bob and George was the first sprite comic.  Anyone who says this needs to get their facts straight.  We're not saying NC was first, either.  It was, as far as we know, the first known major sprite comic.  And what are we do do with our hard work after this is deleted?  Consider this a warning: if this gets deleted, I will reccomend it be undeleted in Deletion Review IMMEDIATELY.  The article needs a fresh start, if anything. Crazyswordsman 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia should be a place for people to read about things that aren't notable to the outside world". To an extent, yes, I agree. That's the charm of Wikipedia; the arcane knowledge. But there has to be a line drawn. Wikipedia's agreed-upon notability guidelines do a good job at drawing the line. To have every Joe's garage band, or every Tom's autobiography on Wikipedia would be lame. I think that a Wiki dedicated to freely cataloguing every piece of creative expression ever, no matter how unnotable, could possibly be a good idea, but that's not Wikipedia's goal. There are plenty of places on this wonderufl Internet for people to freely express themselves; LiveJournal, DeviantArt, MySpace, GeoCities, Creative Commons, so on and so on, it's almost silly to expend so much energy pushing to keep this in Wikipedia. You folks obviously resent this Bob and George comic, and I think that's what's motivating you. However, I must note that
 * A) you haven't proven that this comic predated Bob and George or any other sprite comic, despite numerous requests to do so.
 * B) You yet to realize that even if this article is deleted, it will still be fully credited as the first sprite comic in the article on sprite comics until someone changes it. It's never fun to lose hard work, but this article is fully replicated on the webcomic wiki, and Jay Resop has offered to host it on your website. You could register 50 LJ accounts and post it 50 times on each one if you wanted to. Is this an issue of hard work and dedication to creating encyclopedic knowledge, or an issue of wanting your friend to be recognized as a talent? I understand you fully if it's the latter. I have myriad friends whose artistic genius is unrecognized by the ignorant masses, but Wikipedia is not the place to fight these kind of battles. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One more comment. If this DOES get deleted, and this is only if it gets deleted, and the reasoning is good, which I fail to see coming out of deletionists' mouths, we could create an NC/SMBHQ Wiki. Crazyswordsman 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How is direct citation of Wikipedia policy regarding the manner not goood reasoning? -Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because that's not Wikipedia policy. It's a general guideline that many Wikipedians follow, and is open to interpretation.  I believe that it does not only follow those guidelines, it passes them with flying colors.Crazyswordsman 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you point to where NC has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? Where it has "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Where it has "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? (this is the closest it gets to any of the three, although I'd hardly call Comic Alert well known.)Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * These comments don't seem to end Starmen.net has a lower Alexa rank than NC/SMBHQ, and don't tell me we should be deleting that as well. Crazyswordsman 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (In my opinion,Starmen.net is not notable either, but this is the battle I chose to fight) Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As such, you are being biased. Be consistent.Crazyswordsman 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't fight every battle. My arse starts to hurt from sitting at this computer too long. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, is it just me or are website AfDs trending towards ridiculously long debates about notability & WP:WEB criteria that end up degenerating into non-WP:CIVIL snits? There is something wrong when the debate is longer than that article...--Isotope23 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why discussion is inappropriate. Obviously there are those of us who feel passionate about the already-fragile support beams keeping Wikipedia from being overrun with myriad self-authored articles about alleged Internet prenomenons that aren't notable and aren't interesting. To allow these to exist and not provide an article for every person who has a local band or a Xeroxed book is not NPOV, in my opinion. There is a highly popular, if not slightly snarky Wiki about Internet phenomenon that warmly welcomes contributions.Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said discussion was inappropriate, I'm just commenting that several web discussions I've followed over the last week (not just this one by any means) seem to be getting into long, meandering back-and-forth over notability that ends up degenerating into snarky attacks on peoples' reasoning... don't take it personally, it was just a comment.--Isotope23 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But who visits that wiki? Crazyswordsman 19:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe SF is referring to Encyclopedia Dramatica which has a higher alexa rank than NC. Manmonk 01:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly disgruntled ex-Wikipedians (especially those that had a pet article deleted). In the case of Comixpedia, anyone who wants to know anything about webcomics. The article is replicated in full over there anyway. Nifboy 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * About the google numbers there appears to be some mental energy being devoted further up the page to if google returns 750 or 1500 results. First, remember that the results of a search depend on some dynamic and complex interactions between sampling, servers, frequency of spiders, and phase of the moon.  Second, the difference between the two numbers isn't going to influence the result of this debate one iota.  So, let it go, ok? -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You want proof that NC was around before Bob and George? Thanks to the magic of The Internet Archive here is NC circa October 1999, a good 6 months before Bob and George saw the light of day.  You will notice that this is around the time NC's third (and best known) series "Bill and Fred's Quazi-Mediocre Adventure" was just getting started. In addition, check out the NC Update archive and scroll down to the 9/26/98 update for the announcment of the beginning of NC comix. - SPKx 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Get this straight man, it's not a battle with BOB and GEORGE. Besides, that still doesn't prove it's the very first. Pandaman87 19:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then let me see someone prove it's not. - SPKx 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your job. Not mine. Pandaman87 00:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To prove it's NOT the first sprite comic? - SPKx 01:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.  Pagra shtak  02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing
I'm not sure it's worth doing a lot of work on this one. I don't see how it can be anything other than a "no consensus". Friday (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)