- 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulance[edit]
- Fabulance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Webcomic that doesn't appear to be notable per WP:WEB. Article heavily revised by User:Rosendobrown, the author of the webcomic, see WP:COI. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck because only one !vote per poster. Peridon (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason. See WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The 'Echo': "Though metropolitan Phoenix has a few local gay newspapers and magazines, this is the staple local gay publication" (yelp.com Google blurb). A rather specialised and localised publication - though from the look of it it could go places. Having its own cartoons is a good sign. However, until it achieves wider prominence, there isn't the notability we seek. Even the long-running 'Scouse Mouse' from the Liverpool Echo hasn't got an article. I could see this strip catching on if it can be franchised out to other publications - in which case there would be the likelihood of sufficient referencing. Good luck with it. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note: Fabulance is being nationally published in a coffee table anthology in 2011 through PublishAmerica.
Rosendobrown (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, PublishAmerica is self-publishing. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oh it better not be, since I haven't given them one red cent.
Rosendobrown (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured they MIGHT be since they haven't made me an offer, yet. But Svelte Publishing (http://www.sveltebooks.com) IS interested and looks to be where I will be taking Fabulance. The talks with them are fairly new, and did not warrant an inclusion for future publication, although after the events of today they are the leading contender.
Look guys, I am the artist and its pretty simple: someone created a Fabulance wiki page a while back and I have no idea who it is. They got a lot of information wrong and were posting incorrect statements about my intellectual property. Every time I have done an interview for radio, magazine or what have you, I always have to end up correcting the interviewer because they get their research facts FROM wikipedia. I am merely here putting a vested interest in the character that I created and am making sure that all knowledge of the strip is accurate and does not defame my property. As for the notables: if I had known that I needed to keep track of every single interview, website, article, etc., JUST so that wikipedia doesn't delete a page that people have been relying upon for information, then I would have done so. Trust me, I will keep track of every little detail in the future. I don't have a press agent, I don't have a secretary or personal assistant do keep track of this stuff for me. All I have been doing is drawing my strip, working on this book deal and trying to maintain a sense of normalcy in an otherwise chaotic life. The success of Fabulance literally happened overnight and I was caught quite unaware, so I am running to catch up to all of the little details that I need to do in order to maintain its momentum, such as keeping tabs on interviews and updating a wikipedia page.
What I am trying to say is that I would very much appreciate it if the Fabulance wikipedia page were not deleted, especially since I just started to correct everything that was wrong with it. This character is growing exponentially with the book deal happening in 2011, as well as merchandising and a possible animated series on the Here! Network. Everything is in discussions right now, so those details are far too premature to post, but they ARE happening. I know that altering a page about my character seems self promotional and self-gratifying, but, like I said, I am just trying to protect my intellectual property. Echo Magazine is not just in Phoenix, though that is where they are based. They have subscribers all over the United States, so Fabulance is more than just a localized cartoon strip.
I implore you, let me keep this page active so that I, and others, may update it as the character grows over this next year, as it has been since November 2007.
Thank you.
Rosendobrown (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No sources to support notability, and has become a serious WP:COI issue, per above. JNW (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I declared my intent and interest, as per the rules, so it is not a WP:COI issue.
Rosendobrown (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is. You're deeply invested in an article about your creation, and apparently don't even see it: "I will keep track of every little detail in the future" is just the sort of declaration that guarantees conflict of interest and lack of objectivity. The article is laden with information, none of it reliably sourced. Until the strip receives ample coverage it doesn't meet notability guidelines; WP:FICT and WP:BK are helpful guides. In fact, the best possible scenario in such a situation is not to write about your own creation, nor to argue on its behalf.... JNW (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. JNW has it just right, above. I'd add that if there have been interviews or published articles where the author has corrected information, we could use those sources to bolster this article. We need links or publication dates, at a minimum, to confirm the source - but coverage goes a long way to showing notability. I'm hesitant to delete just because no one could be arsed into finding the sources. Rosendobrown, if you have them handy, it'd save us some time. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ultra, I have put links to the Echo Magazine publication with publication dates at the bottom of the wiki page (with each url pointing to that issues strip within the pages of the ezine, which is a flash version of the physical magazine), in addition to an interview with Terry LeGrande on LA Talk Radio, where he reads verbatim the previous wikipedia page (before I made corrections) and my correction in the middle of the interview where I state that Fabulance is no longer fighting crime, although I am keeping the supernatural aspects of the strip, such as being abducted by aliens. So I have already done the two things that you request :) 72.190.122.137 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the actual coverage is more important than whether the wikipedia article was mentioned (If the article is deleted there will be no problem with misinformation). However, the coverage is the only chance of proving notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there IS coverage, so I see no issue there. This entire thing started because I stuck my nose into this page so that I, as the comic strip creator, could correct the wrong information that somebody had put on a wikipedia page about my intellectual property. The fact that an interviewer (and many other websites who have blurbs about the strip, which I found in a basic Google search on the name "Fabulance" and ""Rosendo Brown"") used erroneous information FROM wikipedia was enough of a reason to warrant editing, even though I was not the original creator of the wiklipedia page. 72.190.122.137 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)— 72.190.122.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Article subjects are welcome to correct erroneous information about themselves; if the errors are not defamatory, then it's preferable that they use the article talk page to discuss these changes so as not to tread into the brackish waters of conflict of interest. As for coverage, I haven't found a single Google return for an acceptable, reliable and objective source. If someone finds otherwise please add such content. And Mr. Brown, please edit using just one account. As I suggested above, you are welcome to contend on behalf of your notability until the cows come home, but it don't look good to do so. JNW (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2010 (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.