Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonbeam and Friends (comic strip)

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 all, no reliable sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbeam and Friends (comic strip)

Not notable; Author has an apparent COI; images used within are copyrighted; appears to be advertising — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as it's a direct copy: — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following category for deletion - not appropriate as a category, and is actually simply a copy of the above two pages (I'm not sure how to handle this, because it's a category; I wanted to bundle it here. I've not yet put a CfD notice on the category)— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moonbeam and Friends (comic strip)

And these images are all related - not encyclopedic and all related to the above pages. (Again, I wanted to bundle them here, but not sure what to do about the IfD for them, so I haven't yet added IfD notices)— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gumballseries.JPG

Image:Snowmanseries.JPG

Image:Birthofmoonbeamcover.jpg

Image:Cstea070726.jpg

Image:Icyfort.jpg

Image:Almostready.jpg

Image:Marea.jpg

Delete I think you are spot on. The most significant press she has outside of her own city is here on wikipedia. Publishing a 65 page book on cafepress doesn't make you notable, and the article is pretty blatently advertising her. Account has same name as article and has only been used for these files and articles.... Pharmboy 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Agreed on the above reasons as well. Sxeptomaniac 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand why some people think it should be delted, I made the article. It was not made with the intent of advertising in any way. Initially, I created an article for Comixpedia, which is a wiki for webcomics. However, I found that other comics were included in Wikipedia, therefore I added the article to Wikipedia. It was not an attempt at self promotion, rather it was to establish the page the article before someone else did with incorrect information or copies of the comics that they did not have permission to copy. And while I appreciate that "publishing a 65 page book on cafepress doesn't make you notable" (ouch), there are many people subscribing to the daily comics, viewing the website, purchasing the book, etc. I would prefer that the correct information regarding the comic strip or the website would be posted to this article, rather than what someone THINKS the correct information is. It is not spam, it is not an advertisement. If it was, I would have included the price of the book, the fact that there is other merchandise for sale, how to subscribe to the daily comics, etc. I did none of this. I have my own website for this, and I do my own advertising. Wikipedia is not the forum to use for self promotion, and it was not my intent to do so. If the article belongs solely on Comixpedia, then that's where it will stay, rather than being posted to both Comixpedia AND Wikipedia. I am just surprised that anybody would have a problem with this article in the first place. This is an actual comic strip. It is posted each weekday. It has been noted as an Editor's Pick] on Comics Sherpa for the strip dated 4/30/07. Comics Sherpa is a site for webcomics through Universal Press Syndicate and UClick, who distribute the likes of Dear Abby and Garfield. Furthermore, there are other comics, such as The New Adventures of Queen Victoria, which have articles on here. Moonbeam28 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Moonbeam28[reply]

However, your adding it is a Conflict of Interest. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that if someone ELSE published this article, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest? What's the difference with the other comic strips that are on here? Or other articles? I am just trying to understand this so I don't violate any policies. Are there ways to edit this article so that it does NOT violate any policies? Moonbeam28 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Moonbeam28[reply]

Well, It might not be a COI if someone else added the article, if that someone wasn't directly involved with the comic or its author. However, it still would likely have issues in terms of Notability. You may want to read about the Webcomics Wikiproject and in particular look up the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) page referenced there. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moonbeam28, the conflict of interest is not what will kill most articles, as that can be fixed by someone else rewriting the article. The problem is notability. COI can often confirm there is a problem with Notability because it can imply that only the original person who added the article knows the subject (ie: a local band putting up their own article). This reinforces the idea that the topic is not notable, as no 3rd party bothered to start the article. This is a weak test, but combined with other issues, such as no 3rd party sources outside of your own city WP:RS, the comic appears to fail WP:notability. It isn't a personal comment on your craft or ability, it is an objective view of the Wikipedia policies. Local only influences tend to not get an article, just as self-published books will not establish notability, no anything on YouTube, MySpace and similar sites that don't meet WP:RS. Next year you may be syndicated in other papers in other area, and then this conversation would be moot, as notability would be established. For now, you seem like a really interesting person doing a comic strip and a couple other things in one city, who has even published her own book on cafepress. Someday you may be famous (ie: notable via policy) but it just isn't today. Pharmboy 12:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamicruft. Bigdaddy1981 22:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of notability for this comic strip Corpx 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- item: there's a RW, published, manifestation. So at least 1 publisher (and some purchasers) find it worthy of note; item: the COI point is well-taken, but must, IMHO, be balanced by the contributor/editor in question is an/the expert on the field, and therefore the closest thing to primary source. If this were an opinion article, I would agree that COI poisons the tree; as it's factually based, I would, for myself, overlook it. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but that RW Published manifestation is actually published via CafePress.com which is actually a place that aids Self-publishing with little investment because they use print on demand— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NotePublishing on cafepress is definetly not WP:RS, takes only a few minutes to do and no 3rd party opinion is involved. Pharmboy 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears, therefore, to boil down to "Unless it's published by a source the cabal approve of, publishing doesn't count. Given the number of "small press" type publications Cafe Press supports, I would rather find them notable than the plethora of vanity houses who then require their authors to do the marketing. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with the assessment that to show notability, publishing a book requires it be from some kind of reputable publisher, just as publishing content on the web needs to be a reliable source. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note Cafepress is SELF publishing. Having a 3rd party publish it (thus put their own money into it) is way up the food chain, as far as notability is concerned. This is standard policy, not an opinion. I love cafepress (and use them for several projects), but they are a 1st party publisher, not 3rd party. They will print anything, from anyone, so they can not be used as a source, because the DECISION of whether to publish or not isn't theirs, it is yours (1st party). If Bantum publishes your book, that has weight, and they are a 3rd party, risking their own money to convert dead trees into your book. Very different matter. Pharmboy 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- I am a reader of this comic strip, and I do not live in the same city as the writer. I was delighted to find this article on here. If it is a question of notability, there are others such as myself who have no connection to the writer who happen to enjoy comics. 66.41.7.251 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Lizzieabe[reply]
Delete. As noted above, a local comic strip and self-published book does not equal notability. Kinda spammy, too. Cap'n Walker 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though I'm sure that the artist means well, this article does appear to be little more than advertising. In order to be on Wikipedia, it needs proof that the subject is notable/famous, meaning articles about the comic strip that are not written by the creator. The work here may well be more notable in the future, in which case this article can be re-created. But for now, I'm just not seeing enough proof of notability to keep it around. --El on ka 16:56, 13 August 2007 (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.