Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of government agencies in comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. --Coredesat 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of government agencies in comics

[edit]
List of government agencies in comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research, and even if verifiable, unencyclopedic collection of trivia. Groupthink 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. Groupthink 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 16:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though possibly split by publisher. Sorry, but OR is a bad claim here since there are obviously references in the article already. If you're so unfamiliar with comics you don't know that the others can also be referenced? Then I'd say that's unforgivable ignorance. I don't see that this is a collection of trivia, especially since many of the agencies have articles of their own. This organizes them in a convenient format that's better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. The intro graf reads: "All comic book fictional universes depict their own versions of our reality except with the added complication of men and women who exhibit superhuman abilities. And each of those universe has evolved very different versions of government agencies and bureaucracies to deal with, and around posthumans." That's uncited original synthesis, and that counts as original research. Now I'm not unfamiliar with comic book universes, I'm sure that intro could be rewritten and referenced appropriately, but that still leaves the problem of this being an indiscriminate collection of trivia. This is fine for a comics wiki, but it's too much detail for WP. Groupthink 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you agree the intro could be rewritten, that's not an argument for deletion. If it concerns you, bring it up on the talk page. That would be a valid response. Not deletion. As to indiscriminate...what are you arguing is indiscriminate about it? Seriously, you can't just say "This is indiscriminate" when there's a reasonable definition to what this article constitutes. Fictional Gov't agencies in comics. Seems a limited class to me. Why is it indiscriminate? Now personally, I'd split it by publisher, which would be even more clearly defined. But that's an entirely different issue. As for the details, I consider the level of detail here quite adequate for Wikipedia, but highly inadequate for a database for comics. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding point one: I should clarify. Rewriting the intro and supporting it with citations would take care of the OR problem, but the article should still be deleted. Rewriting the intro isn't enough: in theory, this article shouldn't be a list, it should be a topical article called "Government agencies in comic books". The problem is, that wouldn't salvage the article either because the topic isn't notable and is indiscriminate. Which brings me to point two: You're confusing "indiscriminate" with "unrelated". WP is supposed to be discerning about what is and is not included. Articles are supposed to be geared toward the general public, not a certain niche. This list, and this topic in general, is not sufficiently notable, informative or important enough for the masses. Groupthink 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your theory. (Which you haven't articulating, but seems to be "there should be an article expounding on a subject instead of a list"...is that accurate?? If not, please clarify what theory you're advocating). The idea of the kind of page you're supporting would seem to me to be advocating a position as opposed to presenting information. I prefer the later. And I am not confusing indiscriminate with unrelated, you're confusing saying X is so with saying *why* X is so. Please give me a reason why this is indiscriminate. And I'm not the only one asking. And no, I don't consider "This is only important to a certain niche" very conclusive. Exactly how would we determine that? A survey? Personal opinion? Checking search engine results? Sorry, but with these comic books being as popular as they are (which is enough that they've lead to movies, television shows, references books, documentaries etc), I'm willing to say the level of interest is sufficiently high to merit inclusion. If you want to object to "List of Government Agencies in Joe Schmoe's Independent Comic that was never produced in numbers beyond a hundred" that would be one thing. This isn't that. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. How is this original research? The article doesn't seem to introduce any new information, or offer an original analysis/interpretation of existing information. This article does neither. In addition, I don't think Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is really applicable here, because the information in question is not indiscriminate, and is not in any way covered by the description given at WP:NOT#INFO. Overall, I really don't see a problem. The article does a pretty good job of organizing the information overall. Granted that multiple comic books tend to exist within the same universe (the DC universe, the Marvel universe, etc.) the information is very closely related, and the list does a good job of listing the government agencies that exist within these universes, providing a reasonable amount of information about each one, including both agencies that have articles and those that do not, so as to make the information easily accessible, but does not get too lengthy, or overly detailed. All in all, this is the sort of thing that lists are supposed to do, and I honestly don't see how the article is unencyclopedic (or original research, for that matter). Calgary 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while sourcing is still a problem and while it would be nice to have some sourced text on the significance of government agencies in comics (superhero comics, actually), the article does a rather good job at providing navigation and possibly development per WP:LIST. --Huon 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Pretty good example of a *whatever* in *whatever* list article. Artw 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP is not the sorting place for everything ever mentioned in fiction. List of loosely associated topics/trivial information Corpx 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response How are the topics loosely associated? In fact, the topics are quite closely connected. This is not a list of fictional government agencies in fiction, this is a list of government agencies in comic books, and as I've said before, because large numbers of comic books published by the same company exist within the same fictional "universe", they could easily be considered as closely connected as a list of government agencies within a single work of fiction, or a single series. And I don't see how it's trivial, because not only are some of these fictional agencies notable in and of themselves, but as a group they have significance and are worthy of inclusion, whereas separately, on an individual basis, many do not. Calgary 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, let's not forget that "notable" means "notable in the real world", not notable within a given comic publisher's universe. Second, I completely fail to understand your last argument: if some fictional agencies aren't notable on their own, how does aggregating them into a list give them notability? Groupthink 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Any and all notability for these organization is completely in the fictional universe. I fail to see why we should categorize anything ever mentioned in fiction. List of fictional hospitals? schools? countries? police stations? fire stations?. This is all trivial details Corpx 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but I think the comic publisher's universes are clearly notable (or am I imagining the books, movies, television shows, and documentaries about them??), and that means that Wikipedia should describe them in an adequately comprehensive fashion. Especially since many of the agencies on this page do have their own individual articles. PS: See list of fictional countries. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate it for deletion and I'll be glad to support. Each and everything that exists/mentioned in a fictional universe is not notable. Corpx 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that doesn't mean nothing that exists or is mentioned in a fictional universe is notable. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response What I'm saying is that even if each individual agency is not notable on their own, they are notable as a collective. While it would be senseless to have an individual article for each of these organization, instead this list provides a means of listing brief information about a group of closely related items, which are notable, but only in the scope of a larger subject. And I do agree with User:FrozenPurpleCube, in that the comic publishers' universes (especially DC and Marvel) have trancended most forms of media, getting to the point where much of these universes is within the scope of the popular consciousness. Now I'm not suggesting we should have an article like List of landmarks in Gotham City (although I think we do). In any case, the Comic publishers' universes are largely a part of popular culture, not just their respective comic serials. In addition, just for comparison, I'd like you to look at List of fictional institutions. Now there is an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. That is an article where most of the items are onlyloosely associated, branching out to all concievable forms of media, where the listings are hopelessly incomplete, and where the actual information is not organized in any way that can make it understandable/accessible to a reader. Now, I know that the existence of one does nothing to justify the existence of the other (saying "worse crap exists" isn't really an argument), but I think it does a very good job of putting things into perspective. Calgary 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still fail to understand how gathering individual non-notable items into a collection makes that collection notable. Now I do agree with your point that the broader aspects of comic publishers' universes have general notability, but it doesn't follow that all of the minutiae of said universes are thus bestowed with notability. To put it another way: Metropolis (comics) is encyclopedic. "List of streets in Metropolis" is not. Groupthink 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See articles on several of these agencies. See content of this page. If you can make anywhere near that level of content for streets in Metropolis, then we can consider that a reason to have such an article. But given that you probably won't, I'm going to say...why are we bothering to worry about a hypothetical article nobody supports? This is a different article about a different subject. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The gathering of non-notable things and making a list of them is only suggested for minor characters in a fictional work. Transcending across unrelated works of fiction, picking out non-notable things and making a list is surely not acceptable Corpx 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, it seems that a List of streets in Metropolis article would have very little content. Lets think of it this way. Metropolis (comics) is encyclopedic. DC universe is encyclopedic. What about List of locations of the DC Universe? This list serves as the organizational point between multiple encyclopedic articles, and in addition, includes some locations that do not have their own articles, simply because such a list would be an appropriate place for such information. Lists are meant to serve organizational/navigational purposes. Both List of government agencies in comics and List of locations of the DC Universe do this, and do a very good job of it. So how are these lists unencyclopedic? And taking into consideration what Corpx said, if we split up the article between universes, and removed information about all organizations that do not have their own articles, wouldthat make the article encyclopedic? Calgary 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The gathering of things though, should indicate that there are accepted ways to aggregate information. Given that many universes have distinct concepts *besides* characters, I hardly consider it inherently unreasonable to consider other things to include besides characters. This would seem to be one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in DC universe is not inherently notable. Any fan of any show/comic would tell you that stuff in their favorite work of fiction is notable and should be expanded, however, one guideline (WP:FICT) applies to them all. Even then, it is one thing to aggregate information found in one work of fiction, but going through unrelated works and aggregating similar things is trivia + loosely related. Corpx 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, feel free not to note how many hairs where on Lex Luthor's head, or the name of the man walking his dog that Superman saved with his Bus. Then get back to convincing me why these things aren't notable. Go ahead. FrozenPurpleCube 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the burden of proof is on you to prove notability. Besides, I'm arguing that these are loosely related per WP:NOT#INFO Corpx 14:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the articles in question for the first. These are significant in a notable work of fiction. For the latter, no, I don't see they are inherently loosely related. I think the burden is on your to articulate that. FrozenPurpleCube 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Groupthink 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that WP:V is applicable here? Artw 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the arguments I've already made establishing that WP:V does apply here? Groupthink 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on the page can be sourced (some of it is already), if there's anything you dispute, try the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of this specific topic (as outlined in the intro graf) has not been sourced. As stated above, the burden is on the inclusionists to establish: 1) That this article is not original research and 2) That this article's specific topic is of sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia. Tell you what: If you can find even one objective, verifiable secondary source written about "government agencies in comics" then I will immediately withdraw this nomination. Groupthink 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:NOTE, not WP:V. I see no WP:V issues here. Artw 00:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do, as outlined above. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Groupthink 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to adhere to your standard, as it's obvious to me that this article isn't about government agencies in comics, it's about the government agencies in comics. (Can you see the difference??) There is no overall concern about original research here, as there's no inherent theory to the subject. All of these agencies should be citable to the comic(s) they appear in, as well as the various reference works produced for the comic universes. I don't see any on the page that I feel can't be cited, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Now as for notability, the individual comic universes are what's notable. This is an aid to describing them. (Note how several of these agencies do have articles...). Now I'd suggest breaking this up by universe, but that's not really deletion. And it is organized along those lines already, so I don't see it as an immediate need. Sorry, but I just don't find your arguments convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 01:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I yours. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll keep trying and hope to persuade you to the merits of my position. FrozenPurpleCube 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) You're saying these are notable in the works of fiction. ("These are significant in a notable work of fiction"). The reason to have WP:FICT is so that we can decide whether the things notable in universe have any notability in the real world. Everything significant in a fictional universe is not notable in the real world Corpx 05:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? I don't requite a topic such as this to have significance in the real world. My position is different. Loosely written it is: Assuming that the work itself merits inclusion, would a proper description of this work include a description of whatever the thing is, be it a character, a creature, a geographical setting, or whatever else. Sorry, but as I see it, you're assuming I agree with your position. I don't. Thus your statements of how it fails to meet your criteria fall flat, since you've not convinced me to agree with them. See the problem? Now why do I have the position I have? Because I feel that a comprehensive description of a fictional work is appropriate so that people can find information on the subject they want. Note, however, I am using the term comprehensive. That is more than minimal but less than exhaustive. In this case, I would consider knowing what these agencies are practically essential to many aspects of the involved fictional works, to a greater or lesser degree. (Shield, Checkmate, IO, the BPRD being examples of the greater. Others being examples of lesser...some to the extent that they might be merged under other agencies. But that's not a deletion concern). This means they fit my comprehensive standard. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very loosely associated. All meaningful content is already contained in individual articles, with no important linkage between entries. Violates the base-page rule (i.e, there is no "government agencies in comics" article). --Eyrian 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
So are you accepting that the individual agencies with articles merit them? And I don't think I know what base page rule you're talking about. Could you please inform me what you're talking about? FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed them all. The "base page rule" is derived from the essay Wikipedia:Listcruft. And no, it's not a hard rule, just a good indication that the association is not particularly meaningful, hence the WP:NOT#DIR violation. --Eyrian 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Then it's not a rule, it's just an essay, which we're free to disregard. Which I will, if only because I consider anything that uses the term "cruft" in it to be uncivil and insulting rather than an appropriate argument as to a position. And unless you care to articulate a reason why it's applicable to this particular circumstance, I'm going to ignore it. Though I suppose you could argue that government agency is the base article if you wished. FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it violates WP:NOT#DIR. The essay provides guidance on how that determination can be made. In this case, that association is very, very loose. These entries are related to each other only by the thinnest of threads. That makes this list in violation of policy. --Eyrian 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that this article doesn't come close to any of the concepts described under WP:NOT#DIR. Phonebook? No. Genealogical? No. Quotations? No. Aphorisms? No. Sales Catalog? Nope. This is actually a list article that provides substantial descriptive information of everything on it. Exactly what I look for in a list page actually. Especially with all of them meriting coverage to some extent or another, some of them in individual articles. Or don't you think something that appears in nationally available comic books over the course of several decades might merit some coverage? Honestly, do you have an actual argument that is directly pertinent to the subject of this list? Or are you just going to present arguments based on essays *without* applying them directly to the situation? I'm sorry, but that's really not convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it falls neatly under a loose association of topics. There is minimal commonality between these subjects. --Eyrian 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The subjects are all fictional government agencies that exist within a specific comic book universe. The only way in which they are loosely associated is that the article lists more than one universe (I think there are around 6 in the article). Other than that, I don't really see any loose association. For subjects to be "loosely associated" they have to have little in common, making them only connected in a minor or trivial way. As it stands, they are all fictional government agencies that exist within a specific comic book universe. This is the one major thing they have in common. The differentiating factors lie in the specific details of the agencies, and if you ask me the details about what something does is far more trivial than the general description of what something is. Calgary 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, a loose association of topics would be something like "list of things which are called Departments" while this is actually fairly specific as to being a list of gov't agencies in comics. It's not like we don't have other lists of Gov't agencies on Wikipedia. The only problem I have with it is that I feel it might be better served by splitting into the subpages. But since it's already *grouped* that way, it's not a great problem. FrozenPurpleCube 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here's another thought. Wikipedia has several lists of actual government agencies, usually grouped by country. Now, these would indeed be more apparently notable, but would a list of government agencies by country be any less loosely associated than a list of fictional government agencies by universe? Calgary 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Such government agencies have common funding, follow common laws, are under a common constitution, etc. That aside, yes, there is a fundamental difference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the factual, not the fictional. Fictional details are given to place the work in context, so that it's real world impact can be understood. --Eyrian 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Things in a work of fiction are facts in and of themselves. Real world impact is a not a requirement, but a secondary matter. The primary matter is to accurately describe the elements of the work of fiction itself. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. Groupthink 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm afraid I disagree. Sometimes I actually find such things distracting and uninformative. I really don't always want to know what person X thinks of Concept Y. I'd rather know what Concept Y is. This is because I'd rather know what something is, than what other people think of it. This isn't to say such things aren't worth including, but that they are the secondary concern. This also applies to non-fictional material. YMMV. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you disagree with a policy that has strong and broad consensus. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily consensus can change, and not all things are set in stone. Not that I believe the consensus is particularly broad or strong. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tightly associated, sourced list. Nominations like this reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the utility of such lists, and the damage done by deleting them. RandomCritic 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Responses like that reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what is and is not encyclopedic. First off, the utility of a list is irrelevant. The fact that it's well-organized is irrelevant, and the fact that deleting it may or may not "do damage" is irrelevant. The notability of the list's parent topic or topics is irrelevant, and the existence of other similar lists is irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant! (And in case you were wondering, refutations like "it's not a formal policy" are, you guessed it, irrelevant.)
    Secondly, as to the list being "sourced": The intro paragraph, which is the key to the entire list, IS NOT SOURCED. That makes it unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position.
    Thirdly, while "the items in this list are loosely associated" is a valid argument in-and-of-itself for deleting random lists of random things, "the items in this list are tightly associated" is NOT a valid argument in-and-of-itself for keeping a list. I've had a yen to to create a "List of songs which reference the song's performer" and a "List of songs which reference other musical performers", but I haven't, because we're supposed to be discriminating with what is or is not included... and criteria for said discrimination are not limited to the six specific items listed in WP:NOT#INFO! That's a ridiculous narrow constraint of a general policy.
    Finally, no one has addressed my main point, which is that this specific list's topic is trivial, by which I mean that there are insufficient sources to establish that the general reader of this general encyclopedia will find this specific article to be notable. Y'all missed the point I was making with the "Metropolis" example. My assertion had nothing to do with amount of content. The point I was trying to make is that "Streets in Metropolis" is far less notable than either "Streets" or "Metropolis"... just like "government agencies in comics" is far less notable than either "government agencies" or "comics". Groupthink 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating that good arguments against deleting an argument are "irrelevant" (based on their being mentioned in a highly contentious essay) is not actually arguing anything, but rather avoiding the argument. If one accepted that at face value, then any proposed deletion would be a priori unassailable, as there would be no functional arguments against it -- in fact, to carry it to its logical conclusion, there should be nothing on Wikipedia at all.
    "Contentious" essay? If it's so contentious, why isn't it marked as such, and why does it have numerous "WP:" links to it? You're reasoning from a faulty premise there: the point of that essay is to provide guidelines for refuting BAD arguments, which is exactly what I did. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You really think that having a "WP:" link makes it "official"? Perhaps you missed the bit at the top which says "THIS IS NOT POLICY"? Essays aren't usually marked as NPOV or whatever because, you know, they are essays and that kind of goes without saying. Evidence of the controversiality of the content can be found in the Talk page. In fact the essay too easily dismisses a lot of good arguments as "bad". In fact the argument from utility ought to be the best argument anybody has; any written policy should be subordinate to the question of what is best for Wikipedia, what makes it most accessible and useful as an information source. Policy should exist to realize that goal; the goal should not take a back seat to policy.RandomCritic 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first point is a straw-man argument: I never said that that essay was "official" policy, just that it carried weight. As to your "utility trumps all" philosophy: It is explicit WP policy that WP is not supposed to have universal and ubiquitous utility. Both sides of this debate are "arguing from utility" here: The question pending is whether the inclusion or the exclusion of this article makes this encyclopedia more useful. You say tomato, I say tomahto. Groupthink 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that Wikipedia policy is shaped by Wikipedia editors. What that policy is can be determined to a great extent by precedent. If one editor, or a handful of editors, get it into their heads that something is "the real policy", and run around trying to backdoor legislate it despite the agreement of the generality of Wikipedia editors that it's not policy, or an appropriate interpretation of policy, then they can run around causing a lot of trouble and headaches for those editors who just want to get on with the job of making Wikipedia better. To make one erroneous deletion proposal is forgivable. To keep making them over and over again, in spite of rejections, based on a righteous theory that your view is the only correct one, is contrary to the spirit of collegiality that should prevail in Wikipedia. I understand that there are editing fads and fashions, as with other things, but at some point someone has to say: this has gone on long enough. Quit it!RandomCritic 07:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Boy, talk about not actually arguing anything, or responding to arguments posed. An ad hominem attack like that is the last refuge of those that cannot or will not respond to valid questions raised. You imply that I'm being "righteous", that my deletion proposal is "erroneous", that I think my "view is the only correct one" (despite the fact that I have repeatedly cited policies and guidelines which are consented to broadly); you suggest that I'm acting "contrary to the spirit of collegiality that (sic) should prevail in Wikipedia"; then you conclude with "Quit it!"??? I'm floored. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing except, of course, topics with independent analysis on the particular subject. A chilling thought. Deleting articles without sources will, I'm afraid, never go out of style. --Eyrian 07:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    Which is an unfortunate thing, since many times there are existing sources that anybody could find if they bothered to look. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, some people do not seem to realize that Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia that greatly differs from other online encyclopedias in that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and everyone is a volunteer. The only reason other encyclopedias aren't as large as Wikipedia is because they don't have enough resources to make it as large, and they only want hired professionals writing their articles. As such, Wikipedia has an almost unlimited amount of space for such articles as this, so it should not be deleted. Also, think: what good would come out of deleting this?--ElminsterAumar 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize you're not supposed to just throw out direct-links, but I'm getting tired of rewording the same refutations over and over. So: WP:NOHARM. WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. WP:LOSE. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and your reasoning is? Groupthink 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's because I'm more convincing than you. But hey, if you want to object to people just agreeing with another, you'd better start up at the top. JUSTAVOTE, however, as clearly shown, is merely for those who simply say "Keep" or "Delete" without even a pretense of an explanation. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and "I agree with ____" without a "because" lacks said pretense (see also WP:PERNOM). As for how convincing you are: I frankly don't care. This isn't a candidate's debate: this is about getting things RIGHT. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm here to make Wikipedia better, and the only person I'm worried about convincing is the closing admin for this discussion. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to look at WP:PERNOM again. Or the discussion on the talk page about it. It's not actually considered universally repellent. Anwyay, this is about getting things right. So far as I'm concerned it's not making Wikipedia better by deleting this page. Splitting? Maybe. Deleting? Nope. I certainly haven't seen you make an argument as to why Wikipedia will be better with this page removed, as I see it, you've primarily relied on claims that we must follow existing policies and guidelines without regards to the application. I'm sorry, but that's not convincing. Furthermore, if all you're worried about is convincing one admin, you're mistaken in your goals. This isn't about convincing one admin, but convincing other users. The meaning of consensus is not finding one person with the keys who agrees with you. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that some canvassing has occurred [1] and I must strongly advise everybody to not try to sway the discussion by seeking out the input of other editors in a non-neutral fashion. If you do feel that others should be notified, it is important to do so in a way that is completely above-board and not designed to just get those who might support your argument to participate. This applies to all sides of the discussion. Thanks in advance for respecting this concern! FrozenPurpleCube 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh puh-leez. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion." I made one off-hand comment on a fellow user's talk page. I complimented the input he/she has made in the past. While I did mention MY opinion on this subject, I did not ask for her/him to back me up. I love how you feel free to disregard WP consensus policy willy-nilly except when it suits your purposes. Groupthink 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I feel free to disagree with policy when I consider the policy to be in error. You're welcome to disagree as well, but you should at least have sound reasons for it. I don't feel you could have any sound reasoning for seeking out selected individuals for their participation in a discussion such as this. Seeking out individuals to develop consensus is not open, or neutral, but rather something of a clique. There are appropriate ways to do it, but you didn't choose one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it was ONE SELECTED INDIVIDUAL, not "selected individuals", and I had a perfectly sound reason to comment on TenPoundHammer's talk page: I respect her/his opinions. Not only did I not solicit a supporting opinoin, I didn't even ask Hammer to comment here. I have to say I thoroughly resent the inappropriate choices that YOU'VE made here on this page. Rather than refute my arguments, you've engaged in ad hominem denigration, and I ask you to please stop immediately. Groupthink 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you selected an individual. This is still bad form. You can quibble over whether or not you actually intended for TPH to comment here, but given that your comment was seconding a person who explicitly did make the request for a comment on another AFD (Said person having apologized for that mistake), I'm not inclined to consider your explanation exculpatory. Sorry. If you do have some problem with my actions, feel free to bring them up in the appropriate venue. FrozenPurpleCube 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a problem with your actions, so I will bring it up in the appropriate venue: this venue. The problem I have is that you've dismissed every relevant policy I've brought up here with a wave of your hand and an "Well, I don't think that's a good policy, so I'm free to ignore it." Yet you feel free to irrelevantly accuse me of canvassing in the name of policy.
"Ignore all rules" does not mean "ignore all rules arbitrarily," it means "don't let the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia." Similarly, "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy," does not mean that everyone can disregard policy on a whim. Now, I've laid out my reasoning as to why I think removing this article would improve Wikipedia, and you've laid out your arguments contrariwise. You strike me as an editor who always has to get in the last word, so I'm guessing that you're not going to drop this, but at this point, I see no further point in continuing any dialogue with you, so I'm done. Groupthink 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, none of the discussion at this point has anything to do with the article, but rather your actions regarding this process. These are quite different. And I consider it quite relevant to note your actions, because I do feel that seeking out individuals, even if it's just one, for their specific input, in a deletion discussion, is a problem in regards to swaying consensus. If you disagree, fine, but I don't think any of your comments reflect that instead focusing on trying to say how you didn't actually canvass because it was just one person and you didn't really ask them to comment here. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see that as exculpatory. Instead, I feel that it's a rather preposterous bit of trying to use a narrow interpretation of the language to excuse yourself. BTW, I always felt that people who really want the last word are the first to complain that others want to have it. Me, I'd just rather not mention it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's entirely fair to call that canvassing (though I don't think it's entirely fair to call those taht want the article kept 'fanboys' as if it was some crappy cruft list, but that's beside the point ). If canvassing is a concern then possibly the afd-for-beginners template should be added? Though I suspect groupthink is well away that it's not a ballot. Artw 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is minimal enough canvassing that I'm not concerned enough to take further action other than to ask people not to do it (note how I didn't add the template), but any time you contact other users to participate in a discussion, it should be completely above-board and done in the most neutral of terms. Seeking out an uninvolved individual for input in an AFD is not neutral enough for that. Contact the creator? Sure, that's valid. In that case, it's even ok to ask them to say why they might want it kept. Make a note on a wikiproject or other noticeboard? Go ahead, but if you do, it's important to be as neutral as possible. Give a note to everybody who participated in a past discussion? Also reasonable. But don't message selected people, even if it's just one person. That's just bad form. Adding in that it's a support for a uncivil comment in itself, and well, it's not good. FrozenPurpleCube 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with you taking "further action". As you yourself said on your talk page, "I'm interested in any Wikipedia policy whose application I agree with," but you feel free to violate any policy whose application you disagree with. In other words, you do whatever you feel like without regard to consensus (except, of course, when it benefits your POV). I'm sorry, but that's hypocritical cherry-picking. If you want to notify an admin, be my guest. Otherwise, please stick to the subject at hand. Groupthink 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to take further action at this time, and I hope you recognize that you shouln't engage in canvassing. As for the rest, I suggest you consider that policy is not something always something set in stone, but something that needs to be examined, and there are times we might have a bad policy. Certainly policies do change, and some should change. You can call it hypocritical cherry-picking if you like, but I call it common sense. Rules don't exist to be followed simply because they are rules. Rules are to be followed when they are appropriate to the circumstances. You may wish to read WP:IAR and WP:BURO for more consideration of the subject.
I've added the not-a-ballot termplate. I suggest that if either of you wish to discuss this further you do it via userpages Artw 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think a simple notification was enough, but oh well. I would discuss this further, but I'm not sure that the involved editor would listen to my input. Perhaps Groupthink should seek out opinions from others instead. FrozenPurpleCube 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and Evb-wiki. Sarvagnya 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't criteria for speedy deletion. And just an observation, considering how long this discussion has been going on (several days), I don't think a "speedy deletion" could be considered very speedy at all. Calgary 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? WTF? What Calgary said. Artw 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah, definitely does not meet CSD... Groupthink 05:17, 28 August 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_government_agencies_in_comics&oldid=1138012746"