Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Poe

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 no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Poe

This is an article on the creator of several marginal or obscure webcomics; there seem to be no sources of any kind except for Poe's websites and blogs; there's no indication that a biography of him could meet either WP:WEB or WP:BIO; and in general the article is a bad & permanent stub. I would also like to note (for the mergists out there) that a proposed merge of Poe with some of his comics like Exploitation Now or Errant Story was rejected. --Gwern (contribs) 01:07 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Delete the bio, because he's not notable for anything other than the webcomics. I would also support deleting the webcomic articles, but that has not been formally proposed. YechielMan 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Your argument lends more weight towards keeping the article; the article is worth keeping because he is the creator of notable webcomics. Incidentally, deleting the webcomics has been proposed and has failed on each attempt. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Babylon Jones was deleted by someone, Talk:Errant Story lists no AfD and the history doesn't show any AfD, and the Exploitation Now AfD was "no consensus", certainly not "keep" - as you should well know. --Gwern (contribs) 16:57 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Reply - Huh, I could have sworn Errant Story was nominated for AfD. Meh, this is what I get for posting late at night. Anyway, outside of that what I said was still true: the AfD against Exploitation Now failed. I never said the consensus was "keep", I just said it failed. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Creator of not one but two notable webcomics, which means he meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. For a specific example, Exploitation Now won two Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (here and here), meaning that Michael Poe's work, "has won significant critical attention." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe the WCCA confers notability; it itself is apparently listed as notable on the basis of one paragraph (out of ~17 in that article) in a NY Times article. --Gwern (contribs) 16:57 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Comment - Some people believe the earth is flat, too. Doesn't mean anything. The fact of the matter is that the awards are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia, and more to the point are the only webcomic-based awards that have an article on Wikipedia, period. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As we've said about twenty-seven times before and will have to keep saying every time afterward, one paragraph and the entire rest of the article, which then specifically examines WCCA winners and their merits. That wasn't the only source, either. --Kizor 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per yukichigai. I am familiar with Poe's work and I believe the article's subject meets the requirements of WP:BIO with the awards that yukichigai has listed above. Scienter 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also support a Merge of this article into the Errant Story and Exploitation Now articles as a sort of compromise. Scienter 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would also like to note that the article utterly lacks any sort of Reliable Sources, and is unverifiable except for blog posts by Poe. --Gwern (contribs) 16:57 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Comment - Read WP:BIO; information about a living person from that person can be regarded as generally reliable with some exceptions. In the absence of any evidence refuting his claims we can use Poe's statements about himself in good conscience. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:BIO, no, we can't. A person's blog posts are not enough for an article: the article utterly fails the primary criterion, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are no secondary sources for him, only his comics (at best). --Gwern (contribs) 23:18 27 March 2007 (GMT)

We've been over that point already: notability is established by the two notable, award-winning webcomics he has authored. (Which, incidentally, is per WP:BIO) The text you quoted is not the only way a person can be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. let's just pin this down succinctly in one post. 1) Your objection to reliable sources: Poe is a reliable source about himself, per WP:BIO. It is ideal to have secondary sources as well, but it is not necessary. (Even then, he has been interviewed a few times, so additional sources exist somewhere to make the article better) 2) Notability: his notability is established by his two webcomics, both of which are notable, and in particular one of which has won two Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Your rational for nomination as well as the odd WP:RS straw man you threw out there have now been disproven. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there exist independent sources from reliable sources, then add them to the article. Put up or shut up - lack of sources is a valid reason to delete an article. As for WP:BIO, I don't know why you think WCCA is is enough anyway: he's received the same barely notable award 3 times. This speaks more to the insularity of WCCA coverage and the webcomic authors who vote in it than to any impact on webcomics or notability. And he doesn't satisfy the primary criterion nor does he satisfy any of the "creative professionals" section (although perhaps calling him a creative professional is a bit generous, as he can't even make a living off Errant Story). --Gwern (contribs) 02:18 28 March 2007 (GMT)

Request for Speedy Close - I'm pretty sure the above rant sheds light on some issues with this AfD nomination; the nominator has clearly expressed a personal distaste (bordering on contempt) for both Mr. Poe and his works, and the WCCA to boot. I'm now calling this a bad-faith nomination. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is difference of opinion, not bad-faith. A speedy close would not settle the matter sufficiently. Epameinondas 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's contempt to point out that Poe can't make a living off his stuff (according to his blog, in which he mentioned back when he quit his job to work on Errant Story that he hoped his savings would take him to the point where ES could support him, and a more recent blog post in which he mentions that ES income is not proving to be sufficient - yes, I've been reading his stuff for a long time now.)? I don't believe it is. And any distaste I've displayed is for the article, which isn't very good at all, and for the contention that he is notable, as I thought I made clear. --Gwern (contribs) 00:33 29 March 2007 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I am a huge fan of Poe's work. I own Exploitation Now in book form. It is my favourite webcomic ever. However... I would not say that he meets the Wikipedia notability requirements yet. "Web Cartoonists Choice Awards" are meaningless in determining notability. - Francis Tyers · 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The notability of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards has been disputed via an AfD; the consensus was that the awards were notable and had presence within even the mainstream press. This elevates a WCCA nomination or win to the level required by WP:BIO when relating to awards granted to an author's work or works, specifically "has won significant critical attention". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no. How on earth are you leaping to the conclusion that just because the WCCA was found to be somewhat notable, that comics winning any WCCA ever are automatically notable, and that even further, any author of those comics is notable as well? Notability is not some crazy transitive property where anything even remotely connected with some barely notable thing is itself notable. --Gwern (contribs) 02:18 28 March 2007 (GMT)

Not that it'll do any good arguing with you, but what the hell: "somewhat notable" is an understatement. Read the AfD; it is clearly established the WCCA is the most notable webcomics award out there. I can't think of any other webcomics awards featured in both the New York Times and Attack of the Show; can you? In this instance a WCCA win becomes somewhat "transitive", as you put it: winning multiple awards asserts notability of the comic, which in turn asserts notability to the author via WP:BIO's "significant critical attention" wording. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Francis. bogdan 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak article. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Mr. Poe's webcomics have received a notable award. -- Ben 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Care We aren't deleting his webcomics here. There isn't that much info about Mr. Poe out there... I'm good either way. -- Ben 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Author of noted works. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google turns up an interview here. Not a whole lot else in the way of good sources (although my search was by no means exhaustive). Nifboy 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed by a non-notable blog does not make one notable. bogdan 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to assert notability. Realkyhick 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sources, no suggestion of importance. --Dragonfiend 04:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Edison 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of a clear consensus regarding the ability of the WCCA to confer notability or not, is making these AfDs regarding webcomics rather tricky (not to mention unpleasant at times). If we look at AfDs that took place after the [[WCCA]s passed their second AfD there are three examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avalon_%28webcomic%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_Rest_for_the_Wicked_%28webcomic%29 were kept primarily as a result of the WCCA awards they'd won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starslip_Crisis_%282nd_nomination%29 was delete and redirected (in both AfDs, not only in the one with extensive prodelete sockpuppetry) although this was done the same day as the keep result for the WCCAs. Perhaps a slight tendency that the WCCA's do confer notability, but not exactly conclusive. If there are other (post WCCA's own AfD) AfDs that I've missed where they were used in arguments please let me know. Epameinondas 11:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per yukichigai. Poe is clearly a significant figure in webcomics. GarryKosmos 06:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think everyone reading this discussion would agree the article needs work, regardless of where one stands on the keep/delete debate. If the more heated participants could tone it down a little, others may be a little more willing to contribute without fear of a "vigorous" exchange coming there way. WP:Civility. Scienter 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absence of sources suggesting any notability. Non-notable biography. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete virtual notability is not notability. The only people who would be interested in this article would be people who already know about him. Has no sphere of influence outside of cruft. Jerry 21:33, 1 April 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.