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. Everybody agrees that there is coverage but there's no consensus on whether or not the coverage is "significant". Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Circus (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 blog that lasted for only two months and received passing media attention for a few days before falling into obscurity. Perhaps it is more appropriate to merge it with Dysfunctional Family Circus, but that's the farthest I believe it should go. ~jcm 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This seems to have been a short-lived parody, but it received some pretty powerful media attention (notably including Time magazine and Tosh.0). That's notability, IMO. (But merger with Dysfunctional Family Circus would not be unreasonable if people feel strongly enough -- call it something like "Internet parodies of The Family Circus"?). --Orlady (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TIME is fair, but I don't see how coverage on another weblog would make this one notable. A page for FC parodies in general would work, I think. There are other ones like the Nietzsche Family Circus and Scott Meets Family Circus that got even more attention in their day. ~jcm 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake regarding Tosh.0 -- I had the impression that the webcomic was mentioned on the TV show, but that appears not to be the case. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The TIME and Tosh.0 blog mentions are about 6 sentences each. This is not "pretty powerful media attention", nor is it significant coverage by multiple reliable sources that meets WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article crosses both the notability and verifiability thresholds. Unclear on the benefits of merger with an article about a vaguely similar but unrelated parody. Are there so many notable Family Circus that an omnibus article is called for? (Disclosure: I created the Jersey Circus article.) - Dravecky (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but what's your definition of significant coverage? The sources you gave covered it pretty casually, as it would any amusing internet material. It definitely wasn't the "intense scrutiny" you described it as. It gets maybe one sentence of analysis at most. Definitely not enough to establish any kind of importance. ~jcm 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Coverage establishes this as notable. Oppose merge to Dysfunctional Family Circus as they are different things. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability standard of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A few sentences on a TIME blog is not significant coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability standard. Deserves a mention in the Jersey Shore and probably Family Circus articles, under the section parodies. Walterego (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The media coverage is just WP:Recentism. Even Time jumps on this bandwagon. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:00, 19 January 2011 (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.