Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe The Circle

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. --Coredesat 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe The Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article asserts no notability of the comic. Contested prod. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, copyvio for intro paragraph for no apparent reason... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability = CSD A7. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little new to this, so pardon me if this a frequently asked question. When I read the initial proposed deletion item and followed links about notability, I started the task of collecting some of the other things written about the strip, appearances in magazine and other media, etc. From the wording here though, and one of the comments below, I get the impression that it is desirable that the article actually explicitly says something like, "The comic is notable because..." I haven't noticed that in other articles, and if we routinely write that way, it will sounds stilted and formulaic to readers. That said, if phrasing it that way is desirable we should change it. As to whether it actually *is* notable, I guess that's still to be determined.  :-) Yoak 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement for the phrasing "The comic is notable because..." Notability assertions take various forms. If this comic was featured in the New York Times, for example, we might have the article say "Joe the Circle was presented in a New York Times feature on popular web comics." This would be sufficient to qualify as an assertion of notability. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely claiming to be notable for its print history going back over 15 years. Not explicitly saying "notable because" in the article is no good reason to delete, otherwise we're implicitly encouraging everyone to boilerplate their articles, which is a very bad thing. Unfocused 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure where you got 15 years from - the article states it was started in June 1997. Viridae^Talk 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The print version of the comic does go back 16-17 years. (I've been unable to find out exactly.) The origins of the strip were as a print comic in the late eighties and early nineties. The article mentions this. The start date I entered was for its launch as an online comic. Also, I've moved that back to 1995 today to the initial launch of the online comic by SuperNova. The earliest date I could confirm otherwise was the registration of the domain name which was in 1997. Yoak 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Something someone did at college and is now doing on the internet is not what I understand a print history going back over 15 years to mean. No assertion of notability at all. An unsourced quote from the comic's creator has my COI senses tingling. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I can diminish your tingle. This is my first wikipedia project. It's something I'm interested in and think has a place here, but seems to be a better place to work out this sort of newbieness than trying to edit the entry on environmentalism or something.  ;-) If you look at the source of the article, you'll see I included a source for that quote, but apparently wasn't using the rquote template correctly for it to display. I'm attempting to correct this now. Hmmm... I've done so, but put a large external URL in the article. I'll do that rather than leave it unsourced, but perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate way? Yoak 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom... nn, etc. SkierRMH,09:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I've fixed the reference. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --Neigel von Teighen 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — The Great Llama^moo? 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm a fan of the comic, but it's not at all notable to my knowledge. Stebbins 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stebbins. ReverendG 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COI and {{contradict}}. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, no significance according to verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.