Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hairbag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. After discounting the sockpuppets, it seems that the level of support for merging the content and support for keeping the article is roughly equal. However, the arguments for merging focus on a lack of secondary sources--a key requirement for establishing notability. As this issue is not addressed by the comments recommending that the article be left as is, I am inclined to give more weight to the merge comments when determining consensus. --jonny-mt 10:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hairbag
Non-notable comic book character, word is more often seen as NYC police slang. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge and redirect into Nasty Boys. BOZ (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as it is a well-put together and verifiable article concerning a character in a notable comic book and television series. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Marvel comic characters for which there are multiple published books. If the word is also used as slang, then we can have a separate article and disambiguation page and rename this article Hairbag (character). "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment According to this article in the journal Nature, the more editors a Wikipedia article has, the more accurate it is. Hairbag has had about 28 edits by 17 non-bot editors, so it might not be accurate, and we have no way of knowing. The sole link in the article is to a fan site. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles provided us with two links, neither of which demonstrates that Hairbag is mentioned in them. One of the two is published by Marvel, and is not independent. Therefore the Hairbag article is not verifiable. As for notability, consider that this fictional character is the product of a giant corporation, Marvel Entertainment. Now, suppose I was a fan/collector of humidifiers. So I go ahead and create a Wikipedia article for this Elephant Adorable humidifier. Somebody nominates my article for deletion. Does the fact that Amazon sells this product made by the Crane company make it notable? No. Is the proffered link to the Elephant Adorable humidifier sufficient to make it notable? No. The fact is that there are some corporate products that are notable, and some that are not. Comics fans may honestly believe that all comic characters are notable, but I believe that some aren't. How do I know? Because Hairbag has no secondary sources at all. Contrast Hairbag with Mahkizmo or NKVDemon, for which I went to the trouble of finding secondary sources. Or consider Mister Mxyzptlk, whose article I improved with a secondary source and I improved by tying him to the mythological concept of a trickster god. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you read the comics and watch the television show in which the character appears then you can verify it. With all the comic related magazines like Wizard out there, I doubt we can say with certainty that secondary sources also do not exist for the character. Since notability is so incredibly relative, we're best off erring on the side of including something that has potential worth that we know at least is not a hoax than removing it and gaining nothing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you buy the humidifier and experience its Adorable Humidifying Power, you can verify it. With magazines like Consumer Reports out there, can we be sure there are no sources for my humidifier? Oh, but I'm not going to actually provide the source in my AfD arguments. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am willing to support you if you wish to make an article on the humidifier. The more knowledge we have retained, the better. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you buy the humidifier and experience its Adorable Humidifying Power, you can verify it. With magazines like Consumer Reports out there, can we be sure there are no sources for my humidifier? Oh, but I'm not going to actually provide the source in my AfD arguments. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you read the comics and watch the television show in which the character appears then you can verify it. With all the comic related magazines like Wizard out there, I doubt we can say with certainty that secondary sources also do not exist for the character. Since notability is so incredibly relative, we're best off erring on the side of including something that has potential worth that we know at least is not a hoax than removing it and gaining nothing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment According to this article in the journal Nature, the more editors a Wikipedia article has, the more accurate it is. Hairbag has had about 28 edits by 17 non-bot editors, so it might not be accurate, and we have no way of knowing. The sole link in the article is to a fan site. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles provided us with two links, neither of which demonstrates that Hairbag is mentioned in them. One of the two is published by Marvel, and is not independent. Therefore the Hairbag article is not verifiable. As for notability, consider that this fictional character is the product of a giant corporation, Marvel Entertainment. Now, suppose I was a fan/collector of humidifiers. So I go ahead and create a Wikipedia article for this Elephant Adorable humidifier. Somebody nominates my article for deletion. Does the fact that Amazon sells this product made by the Crane company make it notable? No. Is the proffered link to the Elephant Adorable humidifier sufficient to make it notable? No. The fact is that there are some corporate products that are notable, and some that are not. Comics fans may honestly believe that all comic characters are notable, but I believe that some aren't. How do I know? Because Hairbag has no secondary sources at all. Contrast Hairbag with Mahkizmo or NKVDemon, for which I went to the trouble of finding secondary sources. Or consider Mister Mxyzptlk, whose article I improved with a secondary source and I improved by tying him to the mythological concept of a trickster god. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Nasty Boys. First several pages of gsearch shows lots of mentions, but mostly in comic character databases, Marvel sponsored sites, and fan forums. Unless real world notability can be shown with references, best to merge it into the Nasty Boys article. No information would be lost (because there's not much in this article), and readers would still have this as a search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, I think User:Blast Ulna is right; some characters are not notable. If User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's vision of Wikipedia were embraced, we really would have millions of ludicrous articles. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just because you think certain articles are "ludicrous" does not mean they are so. Any "vision" I have of Wikipedia is consistent with encyclopedic and wikipedic traditions: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia A character who appears in both a comic and television show does have some degree of notability and I doubt any of us here have been able to or will be able to in a week long AfD exhaust every comic or television related magazine or book to say with conviction that the character, which we know not to be a hoax, has "never" been covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to your offer to support an article on a novelty humidifier. You seem to have a grave misunderstanding of the nature of an encyclopedia, and of a problem of the post-modern age: too much information. Wikipedia is successful because it does not have all the information, but just "hits the high spots." People use Wikipedia to help them avoid fluff and people trying to sell them things. They want Wikipedia to filter through the oceans of data, to not be a mirror of the entire Internet. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is successful because it has a large number of information that attracts an incredibly diverse community of contributors and donors who are interested in a vast array of knowledge. The more factual information we delete, the less useful of a reference guide we are and the more contributors and donors who will walk away from the project. There is no such thing as having "too much" information. All knowledge is power. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to your offer to support an article on a novelty humidifier. You seem to have a grave misunderstanding of the nature of an encyclopedia, and of a problem of the post-modern age: too much information. Wikipedia is successful because it does not have all the information, but just "hits the high spots." People use Wikipedia to help them avoid fluff and people trying to sell them things. They want Wikipedia to filter through the oceans of data, to not be a mirror of the entire Internet. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just because you think certain articles are "ludicrous" does not mean they are so. Any "vision" I have of Wikipedia is consistent with encyclopedic and wikipedic traditions: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia A character who appears in both a comic and television show does have some degree of notability and I doubt any of us here have been able to or will be able to in a week long AfD exhaust every comic or television related magazine or book to say with conviction that the character, which we know not to be a hoax, has "never" been covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per Le GRdC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:FICT. No real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not one source has been provided here or in the article to establish a scintilla of notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sources have indeed been provided throughout the discussion of this item that has significance to people in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You provided links to the Amazon listings for the Marvel Encyclopedias put out by Marvel, and you don't even have any proof that this character is mentioned in them. The closing admin should take note of this. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia and Marvel is a reliable source. What has your search results for sources turned up? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Marvel is most certainly NOT a reliable source for its own characters, and you are out of line for claiming it is. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Marvel is most certainly a reliable source for its own characters and claiming otherwise is not logical. Also, if we do decide to merge then we must redirect without deleting per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Marvel is most certainly NOT a reliable source for its own characters, and you are out of line for claiming it is. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia and Marvel is a reliable source. What has your search results for sources turned up? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You provided links to the Amazon listings for the Marvel Encyclopedias put out by Marvel, and you don't even have any proof that this character is mentioned in them. The closing admin should take note of this. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sources have indeed been provided throughout the discussion of this item that has significance to people in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and give it a bit more time. Alternatively, merge and wait for sources to be found. Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge No direct sources for real-world information about this character could be presented so far, but Marvel is highly notable and may offer some information somewhere. Since a merge target exists also, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and go with a merge to allow recreation once possible notability has been established. – sgeureka t•c 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- NOTE: Two of the above accounts (AnteasterZot and Lord Uniscorn) have been confirmed per checkuser as socks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch! I suggest that the responses of those two users be stricken from the debate, as using socks in a deletion debate is strictly forbidden. Same goes for meatpuppets, if they are that instead - anyone remember the Pilotbob fiasco? BOZ (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aw, sonavabitch, and I thought more people were agreeing with my nomination and my hilarious humidifier example. Well, at least one (used to be two) person did. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch! I suggest that the responses of those two users be stricken from the debate, as using socks in a deletion debate is strictly forbidden. Same goes for meatpuppets, if they are that instead - anyone remember the Pilotbob fiasco? BOZ (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Nasty Boys, not to be confused with the former wrestling tag team. There might be a little more to add to the parent article. B.Wind (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2008 (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.
