- 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 merge to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks. (all). I rounded the redirects to just "merge," since that's what a post-merged article will turn them into anyway (while retaining the page history, which can be important for licensing). Consensus at the target is obviously free to determine how much of the content is to be integrated (if any), but as it stands it would seem that the consensus is against these having standalone articles unless they can meet the general notability guideline. slakr\ talk / 01:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be Safe
- Sorry to be Safe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a group nomination for all one-page Calr Barks Disney comics that so far have recieved an article. They are all adequately covered in List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (which shows the potential for further similar articles as well).
None of these subjects has sufficient notability, as they have not received considerable attention as a separate subject in reliable, independent sources.
They have been reprinted (in English, and in Disney magazines and books in many languages), but apart from being noted in comics databases, they are not the subject of the necessary coverage. E.g. a book like Carl Barks and the Disney Comic Book pays no attention to any of these.
I have not included articles on longer stories, since these should be considered on their own merits, and some of those have clear notability. This AfD also doesn't mean that if some one-pager did have a claim to notability (e.g. A Hole in One (comics) being the very first Carl Barks DD comic), it can't be created. But for these now nominated, and most sim!ilar redlinks, I don't think there is a future on Wikipedia (or at most a redirect to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks).
Also nominated are:
- Best Laid Plans (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Genuine Article (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jumping to Conclusions (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The True Test ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ornaments on the Way ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Coffee for Two ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is the only one to have more info, some analysis taken from a reprint book; not sufficient in my view)
- Hospitality Week ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- McDuck Takes a Dive (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fram ( talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Carl Barks is a major American satirist. His notability has been established. All his works are therefore notable according to WP policy and guidelines about Notability Books.
The gag stories have been reliably sourced to a third party with commentary and analysis written by published comics scholars.
WP does not ask for multiple sources to establish notability, one is enough. Anyone can contribute additional sources to these articles. I don't own them.
I am appalled that WP would consider deleting articles about the work of a major American satirist. Please read the WP policy and guideline about WP:Notability. Doduf ( talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- These articles do have sufficient notability. They have been covered and commented upon by comics scholars in reliable, independent sources. Doduf ( talk) 09:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- They have the necessary and sufficient coverage. Because they are not mentioned in one book does not mean they are not notable. Doduf ( talk) 09:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "third party" being short commentary inside a reprint book, hardly an independent source, and not really significant coverage either. Of course, in most cases not a lot can be said about these comics, which may be the work of a major American satirists but are hardly in themselves major satirical works. Oh, and have you really read the guideline WP:N? "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So contrary to what you claim, WP does generally ask for for multiple sources and doesn't consider one to be enough. The source you e.g. now added to Sory to be Safe can hardly be seen as the "depth of coverage" that would remove the need for multiple sources, even ignoring its debatable independent status. Fram ( talk) 10:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You need to check WP:Notability on "significant coverage". It is not widespread, in depth coverage provided by an exclusive circle of academecians. From the GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." While WP expects multiple sources (to avoid charges of plagiarism), it does not require them. If WP did, there are thousands upon thousands of articles at WP that would need to be deleted. Doduf ( talk) 04:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
While WP expects multiple sources, it does not require them for publication. These notes in the book are similar to notes at the back of a classic. There is no policy excluding the use of such commentary. Fantagraphics is a reliable source. Doduf ( talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I missed this, but there has been an AFD for one of these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee for Two, with the closing statement "The result was no consensus, but extremely close to delete. I would expect this to show up at AFD again in the next few months unless serious effort is put into it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)" (and no prejudice against a speedy renomination then added). The only change to the article since then was this. Fram ( talk) 10:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was up for deletion, but there were only two responses and both were from Toronto I believe. The "Coffee" article adheres to WP policy and guidelines. "Coffee" is probably as close to complete as possible at this time. Barks died in 2000. Scholars are just getting around to commenting on his work. I invite anyone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source.
Doduf (
talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have not argued that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source, obviously. I have argued that a Fantagraphics reprint edition is not an independent source.
Fram (
talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I believe a lot of the essays in the Barks Library books are reprints from non-Fantagraphics sources (they're all by different writers{{subst:emdasah}}it's not one person annotating the stories), so in this case I think the Fantagraphics books count as an independent source. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have not argued that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source, obviously. I have argued that a Fantagraphics reprint edition is not an independent source.
Fram (
talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to the List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (if needed) and for those without disambiguation, keep as redirects as valid search terms. Nowhere near complete sourcing to support per GNG. The claim that because Banks died in 2000 and sources will come soon both violates WP:CRYSTAL and that 13 years out we haven't seen anything strongly hints nothing much is forthcoming. Doduf's claims about what notability guidelines allow for are are very much mistaken, as GNG requires significant coverage in independent and secondary sources, none of which these articles meet presently. -- MASEM ( t) 15:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:Notability. These articles do meet significant coverage in secondary sources. Doduf ( talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I've looked over these articles before and don't see any possibility of independent notability for any of these one-pagers. Aside from Coffee for Two, the articles themselves are basically just a plot summary and the sort of basic info that fits more conveniently into List of Disney comics by Carl Barks. They aren't even likely search terms; in the unquestionably rare event that someone has the desire to look up one of these individual strips, it's unlikely that they'll think of the strip's exact title. Again, List of Disney comics by Carl Barks is more serviceable in that respect.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- So you think Fantagraphics is a reliable source, but not an independent source. What evidence do you have that Fantagraphics is it not an independent source? From WP:Notability: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." What does "significant coverage" mean to you? Here's what it means to WP: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Maybe some people have different ideas about what significant coverage is. Please point me to the WP policy page on this (no essays or opinions). Thanks. { Doduf ( talk) 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to a more appropriate page that consolidates all these. Fantagraphics is a reliable source, that's really no the issue, and so much has been written on Barks's stories in various languages, but you really have to think about what makes a good article. The articles on these one-pagers simply aren't good articles. Please think of the readers. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Carl Barks was writing for children. It was they who spent their dimes on the several Disney titles written by Barks. WP is not kid-friendly, but these articles can easily be read by those for whom Barks was writing. Please, don't bite the children.
Doduf (
talk) 08:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 11:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is someone really using " Won't someone please think of the children?" as a rationale for not deleting an article? Really? Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge/delete. Not all works by notable authors are notable themselves, IMHO "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." from NBOOK applies only to world-famous authors - Shakespeare and such.
- Excuse me, Barks is a world famous author/ illustrator on a par with Shakespeare. He is known as the Hans Christian Andersen of comic books and is read around the world. Doduf ( talk) 08:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a plenty big Barks fan (I created the Carl Barks Library page) but the notion that Barks had anything like the quality of Shakespeare made me snort my homemade lemon meringue pie out my nose. And world famous? Most English-speaking comics fans (to their shame) dint even recognize the Barks name, let alone the average person.
- Most English-speaking comics fans don't recognize the Shakespeare name, let alone the average person. Shakespeare is a nobody in the US. Donald Duck is more famous.
Doduf (
talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Er, um—yes, yes they do. Every single last one of them. Shakespeare is by far one of the best known names in any language in the world. Every comics fan has heard of Shakespeare. Only a minority of comics fans have ever heard of Barks. Woe be it if you actually believe this tripe you'e spouting. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a pop-culture popularity contest. Shakespeare has high school and college level courses taught on his work. Comparing him to a fictional cartoon duck has got to be one of the worst "
apples to oranges" comparisons there can be. Incomparable and irrelevant.
Sergecross73
msg me 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- College courses are taught about Carl Barks. citation needed Carl Barks and Shakespeare have one thing in common: neither went to college. Doduf ( talk) 06:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- So what? Whether or not writers went to college is not a criteria for judging the notability on Wikipedia. You really need to concentrate on the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, not these random comparisons and appeals to emotion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a pop-culture popularity contest. Shakespeare has high school and college level courses taught on his work. Comparing him to a fictional cartoon duck has got to be one of the worst "
apples to oranges" comparisons there can be. Incomparable and irrelevant.
Sergecross73
msg me 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Most English-speaking comics fans don't recognize the Shakespeare name, let alone the average person. Shakespeare is a nobody in the US. Donald Duck is more famous.
Doduf (
talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Further, his works have never been translated into Japanese, despite the fact that the Japanese comics market is the largest in the world, and the country is maniacally obsessed with Disney products. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 11:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Doduf, your interweaving of comments into someone else's post has made this section very, very hard to follow. I had warned and reverted you, so please stop doing this and follow Wikipedia standards in discussions. As for this discussion: you aren't doing yourself any favours by your farfetched comparisons. No one here will be convinced to switch positions by your claims. Many of the people commenting here (and at the Comics project) like the works of Barks and Disney comics in general: I created the article on Le Journal de Mickey, Curly Turkey created the Carl Barks Library article, so it's not as if we don't believe that Barks and his works don't have a place on Wikipedia or that we consider him to be unimportant. But no matter how much I like Barks, or Schulz, or Franquin, or Hergé, I (and most other comics-loving people) don't believe that having an article for every single page they created is wise, wanted or warranted. Fram ( talk) 08:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr Brooks, while being notable, is hardly "famous" on that level. I certainly would oppose a deletion of List of Disney comics by Carl Barks, but we don't have an excuse to have snippet entries on most of his work. This is why we have the notability requirements. I'd encourage USer:Doduf to consider starting a wikia about Donald Duck comic or such, where we could transwikify the non-notable entries (it's a shame to waste them by deletion; in the meantime I'd also suggest userfication). PS. I've just prodded The Money Well as a sample longer story by him that (in the present article) totally fails to justify why it is encyclopedic enough to be discussed here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge/delete - Collectively, I don't oppose, but all separate, there's not enough coverage, or even content really, to warrant a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Good suggestion on transferring to a wikia. In fact, instead of creating a new wikia (I have no objection to a Donald Duck wikia, but creating a wikia is a lot of work), you could try adding these to the Disney Wikia, which already has some basic coverage of Carl Barks and his comics.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 18:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge & leave redirects to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks None of the articles bar one are more than plot summaries & publication details, and any discussion of the individual comics is likely to refer to the other ones, so the material would be more accessable if all in one place. This is a good example of one substantial entry being much better than a bunch of stubs. TheLongTone ( talk) 21:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks. (all). I rounded the redirects to just "merge," since that's what a post-merged article will turn them into anyway (while retaining the page history, which can be important for licensing). Consensus at the target is obviously free to determine how much of the content is to be integrated (if any), but as it stands it would seem that the consensus is against these having standalone articles unless they can meet the general notability guideline. slakr\ talk / 01:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be Safe
- Sorry to be Safe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a group nomination for all one-page Calr Barks Disney comics that so far have recieved an article. They are all adequately covered in List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (which shows the potential for further similar articles as well).
None of these subjects has sufficient notability, as they have not received considerable attention as a separate subject in reliable, independent sources.
They have been reprinted (in English, and in Disney magazines and books in many languages), but apart from being noted in comics databases, they are not the subject of the necessary coverage. E.g. a book like Carl Barks and the Disney Comic Book pays no attention to any of these.
I have not included articles on longer stories, since these should be considered on their own merits, and some of those have clear notability. This AfD also doesn't mean that if some one-pager did have a claim to notability (e.g. A Hole in One (comics) being the very first Carl Barks DD comic), it can't be created. But for these now nominated, and most sim!ilar redlinks, I don't think there is a future on Wikipedia (or at most a redirect to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks).
Also nominated are:
- Best Laid Plans (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Genuine Article (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jumping to Conclusions (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The True Test ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ornaments on the Way ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Coffee for Two ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is the only one to have more info, some analysis taken from a reprint book; not sufficient in my view)
- Hospitality Week ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- McDuck Takes a Dive (comics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fram ( talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Carl Barks is a major American satirist. His notability has been established. All his works are therefore notable according to WP policy and guidelines about Notability Books.
The gag stories have been reliably sourced to a third party with commentary and analysis written by published comics scholars.
WP does not ask for multiple sources to establish notability, one is enough. Anyone can contribute additional sources to these articles. I don't own them.
I am appalled that WP would consider deleting articles about the work of a major American satirist. Please read the WP policy and guideline about WP:Notability. Doduf ( talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- These articles do have sufficient notability. They have been covered and commented upon by comics scholars in reliable, independent sources. Doduf ( talk) 09:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- They have the necessary and sufficient coverage. Because they are not mentioned in one book does not mean they are not notable. Doduf ( talk) 09:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "third party" being short commentary inside a reprint book, hardly an independent source, and not really significant coverage either. Of course, in most cases not a lot can be said about these comics, which may be the work of a major American satirists but are hardly in themselves major satirical works. Oh, and have you really read the guideline WP:N? "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So contrary to what you claim, WP does generally ask for for multiple sources and doesn't consider one to be enough. The source you e.g. now added to Sory to be Safe can hardly be seen as the "depth of coverage" that would remove the need for multiple sources, even ignoring its debatable independent status. Fram ( talk) 10:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You need to check WP:Notability on "significant coverage". It is not widespread, in depth coverage provided by an exclusive circle of academecians. From the GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." While WP expects multiple sources (to avoid charges of plagiarism), it does not require them. If WP did, there are thousands upon thousands of articles at WP that would need to be deleted. Doduf ( talk) 04:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
While WP expects multiple sources, it does not require them for publication. These notes in the book are similar to notes at the back of a classic. There is no policy excluding the use of such commentary. Fantagraphics is a reliable source. Doduf ( talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I missed this, but there has been an AFD for one of these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee for Two, with the closing statement "The result was no consensus, but extremely close to delete. I would expect this to show up at AFD again in the next few months unless serious effort is put into it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)" (and no prejudice against a speedy renomination then added). The only change to the article since then was this. Fram ( talk) 10:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was up for deletion, but there were only two responses and both were from Toronto I believe. The "Coffee" article adheres to WP policy and guidelines. "Coffee" is probably as close to complete as possible at this time. Barks died in 2000. Scholars are just getting around to commenting on his work. I invite anyone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source.
Doduf (
talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have not argued that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source, obviously. I have argued that a Fantagraphics reprint edition is not an independent source.
Fram (
talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I believe a lot of the essays in the Barks Library books are reprints from non-Fantagraphics sources (they're all by different writers{{subst:emdasah}}it's not one person annotating the stories), so in this case I think the Fantagraphics books count as an independent source. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have not argued that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source, obviously. I have argued that a Fantagraphics reprint edition is not an independent source.
Fram (
talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to the List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (if needed) and for those without disambiguation, keep as redirects as valid search terms. Nowhere near complete sourcing to support per GNG. The claim that because Banks died in 2000 and sources will come soon both violates WP:CRYSTAL and that 13 years out we haven't seen anything strongly hints nothing much is forthcoming. Doduf's claims about what notability guidelines allow for are are very much mistaken, as GNG requires significant coverage in independent and secondary sources, none of which these articles meet presently. -- MASEM ( t) 15:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:Notability. These articles do meet significant coverage in secondary sources. Doduf ( talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I've looked over these articles before and don't see any possibility of independent notability for any of these one-pagers. Aside from Coffee for Two, the articles themselves are basically just a plot summary and the sort of basic info that fits more conveniently into List of Disney comics by Carl Barks. They aren't even likely search terms; in the unquestionably rare event that someone has the desire to look up one of these individual strips, it's unlikely that they'll think of the strip's exact title. Again, List of Disney comics by Carl Barks is more serviceable in that respect.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- So you think Fantagraphics is a reliable source, but not an independent source. What evidence do you have that Fantagraphics is it not an independent source? From WP:Notability: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." What does "significant coverage" mean to you? Here's what it means to WP: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Maybe some people have different ideas about what significant coverage is. Please point me to the WP policy page on this (no essays or opinions). Thanks. { Doduf ( talk) 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to a more appropriate page that consolidates all these. Fantagraphics is a reliable source, that's really no the issue, and so much has been written on Barks's stories in various languages, but you really have to think about what makes a good article. The articles on these one-pagers simply aren't good articles. Please think of the readers. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Carl Barks was writing for children. It was they who spent their dimes on the several Disney titles written by Barks. WP is not kid-friendly, but these articles can easily be read by those for whom Barks was writing. Please, don't bite the children.
Doduf (
talk) 08:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 11:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is someone really using " Won't someone please think of the children?" as a rationale for not deleting an article? Really? Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge/delete. Not all works by notable authors are notable themselves, IMHO "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." from NBOOK applies only to world-famous authors - Shakespeare and such.
- Excuse me, Barks is a world famous author/ illustrator on a par with Shakespeare. He is known as the Hans Christian Andersen of comic books and is read around the world. Doduf ( talk) 08:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a plenty big Barks fan (I created the Carl Barks Library page) but the notion that Barks had anything like the quality of Shakespeare made me snort my homemade lemon meringue pie out my nose. And world famous? Most English-speaking comics fans (to their shame) dint even recognize the Barks name, let alone the average person.
- Most English-speaking comics fans don't recognize the Shakespeare name, let alone the average person. Shakespeare is a nobody in the US. Donald Duck is more famous.
Doduf (
talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Er, um—yes, yes they do. Every single last one of them. Shakespeare is by far one of the best known names in any language in the world. Every comics fan has heard of Shakespeare. Only a minority of comics fans have ever heard of Barks. Woe be it if you actually believe this tripe you'e spouting. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a pop-culture popularity contest. Shakespeare has high school and college level courses taught on his work. Comparing him to a fictional cartoon duck has got to be one of the worst "
apples to oranges" comparisons there can be. Incomparable and irrelevant.
Sergecross73
msg me 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- College courses are taught about Carl Barks. citation needed Carl Barks and Shakespeare have one thing in common: neither went to college. Doduf ( talk) 06:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- So what? Whether or not writers went to college is not a criteria for judging the notability on Wikipedia. You really need to concentrate on the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, not these random comparisons and appeals to emotion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a pop-culture popularity contest. Shakespeare has high school and college level courses taught on his work. Comparing him to a fictional cartoon duck has got to be one of the worst "
apples to oranges" comparisons there can be. Incomparable and irrelevant.
Sergecross73
msg me 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Most English-speaking comics fans don't recognize the Shakespeare name, let alone the average person. Shakespeare is a nobody in the US. Donald Duck is more famous.
Doduf (
talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Further, his works have never been translated into Japanese, despite the fact that the Japanese comics market is the largest in the world, and the country is maniacally obsessed with Disney products. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 11:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Doduf, your interweaving of comments into someone else's post has made this section very, very hard to follow. I had warned and reverted you, so please stop doing this and follow Wikipedia standards in discussions. As for this discussion: you aren't doing yourself any favours by your farfetched comparisons. No one here will be convinced to switch positions by your claims. Many of the people commenting here (and at the Comics project) like the works of Barks and Disney comics in general: I created the article on Le Journal de Mickey, Curly Turkey created the Carl Barks Library article, so it's not as if we don't believe that Barks and his works don't have a place on Wikipedia or that we consider him to be unimportant. But no matter how much I like Barks, or Schulz, or Franquin, or Hergé, I (and most other comics-loving people) don't believe that having an article for every single page they created is wise, wanted or warranted. Fram ( talk) 08:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr Brooks, while being notable, is hardly "famous" on that level. I certainly would oppose a deletion of List of Disney comics by Carl Barks, but we don't have an excuse to have snippet entries on most of his work. This is why we have the notability requirements. I'd encourage USer:Doduf to consider starting a wikia about Donald Duck comic or such, where we could transwikify the non-notable entries (it's a shame to waste them by deletion; in the meantime I'd also suggest userfication). PS. I've just prodded The Money Well as a sample longer story by him that (in the present article) totally fails to justify why it is encyclopedic enough to be discussed here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge/delete - Collectively, I don't oppose, but all separate, there's not enough coverage, or even content really, to warrant a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Good suggestion on transferring to a wikia. In fact, instead of creating a new wikia (I have no objection to a Donald Duck wikia, but creating a wikia is a lot of work), you could try adding these to the Disney Wikia, which already has some basic coverage of Carl Barks and his comics.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 18:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge & leave redirects to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks None of the articles bar one are more than plot summaries & publication details, and any discussion of the individual comics is likely to refer to the other ones, so the material would be more accessable if all in one place. This is a good example of one substantial entry being much better than a bunch of stubs. TheLongTone ( talk) 21:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.