Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spamusement! (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. LFaraone 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spamusement![edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Spamusement! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Previously deleted and recreated, but still not notable: links are the official site, one review from an anyone-can edit site and a two-dozen word directory entry. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The webcomic has been the subject of newspaper and magazine articles. It was described in T. Campbell's book, The History of WebComics: The Golden Age: 1993–2005. Notable enough for me. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I added nine references to what was a completely unreferenced article. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It was going to go with "keep" after 9 references were added, but looking at the nine references in the article to see whether they meet our notability standard of multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources, I see that the references come up far short:
- 1. "Web Life" is only 3 sentences on this topic. That is not significant coverage.
- 2. "Strip down and enjoy a good funny page or graphic novel" is only a single sentence on this topic. That is not significant coverage.
- 3. "The History of WebComics" seemed promising but it is a small press book that has no index or page numbers (!?) and after way too much time going through this mess all I can find are about 6 rambling sentences on this topic. That is not significant coverage (and this book is so bad I don't think it's even a reliable source).
- 4. "For Your Spamusement" I can't find anything other than a google preview of this[1], so I'll leave it to others to provide details on why they may believe this is significant coverage. However, we need multiple examples of significant coverage, and I haven't found any.
- 5. "Webcomics! Taking the 'paper' out of the funny papers" is five sentences in a monthly student publication.
- 6."Online Diary: Art From Junk (Mail)" is a brief 11 sentences. The actual title of this is "Online Diary" and "Art From Junk (Mail)" is one of three sub heads -- don't be confused (as I initially was) into thinking that this topic was in the headline of the article.
- 7. "Spam's role as muse" is again not the headline of this, the actual headline is "Site seeing," so don't be fooled into thinking this topic is in the headline of an article. This is only 4 sentences, and it's just an edited version of #5, so don't be confused and think these are two different sources. Compare "Deleting spam is a nuisance, but to Steven Frank, the inevitable daily chore doubles as a muse. He draws on the subject lines -- literally." from #5 to this source's "Deleting spam is a pain, but to software developer Steven Frank of Portland, Ore., the inevitable daily chore doubles as a muse. He draws on the subject lines – literally ..." These are the same source. I'm not sure why they are both listed.
- 8. "Email Tyranny, HP's Q2, Outlook Tips, and more..." is 3 sentences. One of those sentences is one word.
- 9. "Spam-Based Webcomic" is only a 5 sentence blog post.
- So, looking at the available sources, I only see one that is over a half dozen sentences, and it is only 11 sentences. This means we have trivial coverage but we do not have the detailed significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required to meet our notability standard. I considered Steven Frank (developer) as a potential merge target, but that article looks even more problematic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you call 11 sentences "brief" in referring to "Online Diary: Art From Junk (Mail)", the article in The New York Times? That much coverage is significant, as is the How magazine article called "For Your Spamusement". Two significant sources satisfies WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) It is called a brief because it is short. It looks like it is under 250 words; brief writing is generally under 300 words. 2) Have you read the How piece? If so, can you, as I asked above, provide more detail on the contents and an explanation of why you believe it provides significant coverage? Simply linking to a three sentences in a google search preview does not show any significance to this source. 3) At least we can agree that the other 7 references do not meet our notability standards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT 11-sentence section is significant coverage in that it focuses on Spamusement alone. The How magazine piece also focuses on Spamusement alone, and it covers the page. That piece includes a Spamusement drawing: Stop the pain indefinitely. It discusses the hardware and software used by Frank: a Wacom tablet and Photoshop Elements. So to sum up, we have the significant NYT piece and the significant How piece; both national sources. WP:GNG is satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that brief is not significant coverage. And no, you have not provided any information that would show that "For Your Spamusement" is significant coverage either. The way you have cited that source (providing no publication month, providing no author name, and listing a range of three different issue numbers?!), along with the way you have similarly mischaracterized and misused several other citations, makes me strongly doubt your ability to assess these sources. I'm not even sure you are actually looking at them. For example, what passage from "The History of WebComics" (you got the title wrong, by the way) are you using as a source? Rangoondispenser (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no page numbers in the Campbell book The History of Webcomics (no, really!), but one whole page is devoted to Spamusement, including one of Steven Frank's cartoons: "Too many decisions". Regarding the section of The New York Times article called "Online Diary", the section titled "Art From Junk (Mail)", you and I clearly have different ideas about what is significant. The NYT piece is about 1300 characters of text exclusive to Spamusement. By itself, that is significant. Add to that the fact that the piece was syndicated nationally, appearing in total or in modified form in other papers such as The San Diego Union-Tribune (which you removed), The Toledo Blade, and the The Detroit Free Press. The syndication increases the coverage beyond the NYT which is already adequate alone. In February 2005, The Times Herald featured Spamusement as their "Wacky Web site of the Week", saying that Spamusement had a kind of "Far Side style of humor". I have added another source from PC Magazine, an article dedicated to Spamusement and a similar web site called Innocent Spam. So to sum up again, we have enough good sources to satisfy GNG. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Binksternet is wildly misrepresenting these sources. I'm not sure why. I found the cartoon Binksternet is referring to on page 107 of that book. That is not "one whole page devoted to Spamusement;" There's maybe two sentences about this topic there. Half the page is instead about Jeph Jacques. If any other editor wants to see what this page really looks like, let me know. Rangoondispenser (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no page numbers in the Campbell book The History of Webcomics (no, really!), but one whole page is devoted to Spamusement, including one of Steven Frank's cartoons: "Too many decisions". Regarding the section of The New York Times article called "Online Diary", the section titled "Art From Junk (Mail)", you and I clearly have different ideas about what is significant. The NYT piece is about 1300 characters of text exclusive to Spamusement. By itself, that is significant. Add to that the fact that the piece was syndicated nationally, appearing in total or in modified form in other papers such as The San Diego Union-Tribune (which you removed), The Toledo Blade, and the The Detroit Free Press. The syndication increases the coverage beyond the NYT which is already adequate alone. In February 2005, The Times Herald featured Spamusement as their "Wacky Web site of the Week", saying that Spamusement had a kind of "Far Side style of humor". I have added another source from PC Magazine, an article dedicated to Spamusement and a similar web site called Innocent Spam. So to sum up again, we have enough good sources to satisfy GNG. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that brief is not significant coverage. And no, you have not provided any information that would show that "For Your Spamusement" is significant coverage either. The way you have cited that source (providing no publication month, providing no author name, and listing a range of three different issue numbers?!), along with the way you have similarly mischaracterized and misused several other citations, makes me strongly doubt your ability to assess these sources. I'm not even sure you are actually looking at them. For example, what passage from "The History of WebComics" (you got the title wrong, by the way) are you using as a source? Rangoondispenser (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT 11-sentence section is significant coverage in that it focuses on Spamusement alone. The How magazine piece also focuses on Spamusement alone, and it covers the page. That piece includes a Spamusement drawing: Stop the pain indefinitely. It discusses the hardware and software used by Frank: a Wacom tablet and Photoshop Elements. So to sum up, we have the significant NYT piece and the significant How piece; both national sources. WP:GNG is satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) It is called a brief because it is short. It looks like it is under 250 words; brief writing is generally under 300 words. 2) Have you read the How piece? If so, can you, as I asked above, provide more detail on the contents and an explanation of why you believe it provides significant coverage? Simply linking to a three sentences in a google search preview does not show any significance to this source. 3) At least we can agree that the other 7 references do not meet our notability standards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you call 11 sentences "brief" in referring to "Online Diary: Art From Junk (Mail)", the article in The New York Times? That much coverage is significant, as is the How magazine article called "For Your Spamusement". Two significant sources satisfies WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rangoondispenser, by your actions I must assume you are a member of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. <g> Continuing with establishing notability: I added a PC Magazine piece called "Turning Spam Into Entertainment" which devotes half of the focus to Spamusement. The webcomics book, the NYT article, the How magazine piece, the PC Mag piece, a shout out on Wired... these are not insignificant in their coverage, and satisfy WP:GNG. On the original research side, I have never seen such a heavy amount of archiving on the Wayback Machine as there is for Spamusement in late 2004 and all of 2005. Wow! If we were to look Alexa ratings from 2005 Spamusement would be off the hook. Unfortunately, the current ratings are very low, but on Wikipedia, notability is not lost once it's established. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have added a paragraph about some repeating characters in the cartoon, including one character that inspired a humorous song by Worm Quartet, the song featured on the Dr. Demento radio show. The paragraph has various supporting references. I also uploaded a non-free image of the same cartoon which inspired the song. Binksternet (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While Rangoondispenser is right that some of the sources are weak, I think Binkersternet has shown enough coverage to demonstrate notability - NYT, PC Mag etc.--Kubigula (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough material has been added to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 8 January 2012 (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.