Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Campus

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 Bart Thompson. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Campus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability for this comic book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The comic series has its own website, which includes detailed information regarding volumes, and issues. What does an article meeting criteria at WP:COMIC have to do with WP:BK? OSU1980 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The issue is that this article isn't about the comic, it's about the published version of one of the comic's arcs. All books must be independently notable outside of the series or creator, meaning that it must have several secondary sources to show notability. These can be in the form of reviews from reliable secondary sources, interviews with the creator about the book itself (not about the series as a whole, but this specific book), and tv spots about the book. The creator being notable or the series being notable does not guarantee notability for the individual volumes. The confusing part about this article is that it initially talks like it is about volume 1 of the series, then starts talking about the series as a whole. It would probably help to make the article about the series as a whole rather than the individual volume. Even the more popular and mainstream comic series rarely have entries for individual volumes, so it wouldn't really be a good idea for this to just be about an individual volume. I'll try and see what sources I can find and make it about the series, but I'll warn you that what can be used as a reliable source is pretty harsh. Primary sources (this is anything that is put out by the series' creator or anyone representing him) cannot be used as a source unless there are multiple reliable secondary sources to back up the claims. In other words, there should be so many other sources that using a primary source would be unnecessary and redundant. Indie series usually get a lot of word of mouth around non-notable blogs and other sites that don't count as reliable sources on Wikipedia, so sometimes it can be very difficult to find sources. There's a lot of popular webcomics and indie comics that have a fan following, but don't qualify to be on Wikipedia because of this. Maybe CC will fall into this category, maybe not. In any case, being popular doesn't automatically give the comic the type of notability required by Wikipedia's standards. It makes it more likely to have reliable sources, but not guaranteed to have them. Like I said, I'll see what I can find. I just wanted to clarify things a little.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. What I'm finding right now is that this is a self-published series (the comic creator also started the publishing company that is printing them) and that most of the sources I'm finding are blogs. Blogs cannot be used as a reliable source unless it's by someone that's considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, meaning that they're someone who is often quoted in books or are so notable themselves that they'd have articles written about them. Most blogs do not fill this requirement, not even if they've been around for a long time and have a big following. A great example is the book blog "Book Chick City". They've been around forever and have a large number of followers, but still wouldn't be considered a reliable blog source. It's kind of tricky when it comes to that sort of thing, but a good rule of thumb is to look at how the blog is published. If the blog has something like "Blogger", "Wordpress" or the like in the URL or anywhere else in the blog, it shouldn't be linked to. The only exception I've seen is where the ALA has a blog that they run through Blogger. I'm still looking and I'm trying to improve the article, but just existing isn't enough to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Merge and redirect to the author's entry, Bart Thompson. I found two sources, one of which is a very brief review of one of the individual comics. The other is an interview that is mostly about the author, but mentions this series as one of his biggest titles. I'm going to merge any of the pertinent information (mostly the interview information) and clean up the author's page a little, putting in some inline citations since everything is on the bottom in EL.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete the page and merge any relevant information as suggested by User:Tokyogirl79. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tokyogirl79 S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:11, 11 February 2012 (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.