Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (5th nomination)

Able and Baker (5th nomination)

If you ever wondered how GNAA got up to 18 AfD's, here's how. The 4th nomination was speedily kept by a participating admin, but the decision was overturned at deletion review where a new nomination was asked for. So we're now up to #5. Oh, the article is about a webcomic and this is a procedural nomination, so I have no opinion other than that this should run its allocated 5 days, or otherwise it'll end up at DRV again. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not the responsibility of people who want it deleted to show beyond the shadow of reasonable (and unreasonable) doubt that no sources exist now, existed before, or ever will exist. It's the responsibility of people who want it kept to provide sources, and they have not. It's been quite long enough. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's absolutely no notability asserted, and absolutely no third-party sourcing. If somebody can establish importance in the next five days, I'd be happy to change my !vote. However, I doubt that's going to happen. -- Kicking222 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established and zero third-party sources. Naconkantari 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There is no assertion of notability, and as noted above, no coverage in reliable sources.--RWR8189 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not give a reason to believe that the comic satisfies WP:WEB. I agree that this nomination should be allowed to run a full 5 days. --Metropolitan90 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless sources can be provided that it meets WP:WEB (my poke around found nothing) --Haemo 05:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~nom~~ users above Nashville Monkey 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per nom? Trialsanderrors listed this as a procedural listing, meaning there is no nom opinion. Metros232 15:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - well then if you want to get anal about it then it's just a friggin Delete vote... isn't it? Nashville Monkey 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment well considering that AFD isn't a vote and is actually a consensus builder...Metros232 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you possibly give it a rest? and maybe consider being constructive by placing yor opinion as to the article itself and not other user's choices of words? Just a suggestion. Nashville Monkey 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you possibly not call other established users trolls? Metros232 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS or WP:V bogdan 09:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Amarkov •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and general lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. I at least looked at the page and the website referred to. Can't say why this should be in an encyclopedia. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that there is a majority keep at Old South Road, which has no third party sources, yet this is being !voted majority delete for the exact same reasons? Which rules are we supposed to be following here, because it gives the outward appearance as a double standard to delete this and keep some sub-trivial article from Lord of the Rings just because WP:WELIKEIT. Yamaguchi先生 03:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow policy. Just because people want to keep one page for bad reasons does not mean that we should keep another one. You should point that out of the AFD for the page in question and you could consider appealing to deleteion review if you think the page was kept againts Wikipedia policies. In case you are wondering DRV can also be used to contest keep decisions. To rilteate we should not be following WP:ILIKEIT or we are going to have AFD 6 any time now. --70.48.110.117 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly systemic bias. Though as I pointed out in the Merge "vote" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road, lage, active fandoms like Tolkien actually produce third-party published works covering the minutia of their worlds so that alot of Tolkien-cruft meets the primary notability criterion by being covered in multiple independent works. Eluchil404 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no new information presented since previous deletion debates, no changes to notability policy. Recommend censure of those who feel that it is appropriate to continue using AfD until one gets the desired result without actually changing their arguments at all. Phil Sandifer 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this doesn't seem so cut and dry. 2 of the discussions resulted in delete, 1 was keep, and 1 was speedy keep which went to DRV where it was overturned and relisted now.--RWR8189 20:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before we do that, we should censure the people who kept recreating the article until an AfD resulted in keep. Would you like that? -Amarkov

^blah_edits 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so many people keep recreating, it could also be a clue as to notability, of course :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Then try unprotecting the GNAA article: it must be notable, since people keep recreating it, right? :-) bogdan 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the GNAA they were actively working to subvert wikipedia. I don't think the same can be said of Able and Baker (what with them being fictional creatures and all :-P ) Kim Bruning 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil: I've seen several people ask you to insert some claim of notability into the article itself. It might be a good idea to provide that data in the article itself. Could you quickly do so? Thank you! :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done for ages, though I've clarified it in the article. The problem isn't that the article doesn't assert notability - it's that people with no knowledge of the larger subject (webcomics) are making judgments of notability, and people are treating this as a democracy in that "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch" sort of way. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem is more that the article has no reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any kind of claim to notability or any references in the current revision of the article. Perhaps they have been lost during previous edits? Could you (re-)state them? --Kim Bruning 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah wait, you made an edit just now. Hmm, I'm still not entirely sure how that makes the comic notable. Would you care to explain? Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this comic is in no way notiable FirefoxMan 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; No assertion of notability. No reliable sources that verify notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - If this AFD isn't given 5 days then it will mirror the GNAA AFD pretty well. This article should be deleted but someone should make a neat article (or just redirect to Animals in space) about notable space simians Able and Baker who are notable and have many Reliable Sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Previous AFD commentators have pointed out a general failure in meeting WP:WEB and WP:RS. I searched google, google news, google archives etc and found no media mentions for the webcomic itself. Also I searched Jim Burgess and found no media references to the comic author. We should redirect to Animals_in_space. --TrollHistorian 22:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or just write an article about the actual monkeys. Either way, this has to go. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A good idea, but I think Monkeys in space would be a slightly better target. Able and Baker were both monkeys. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]