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 Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comics Journal interview subjects[edit]

List of Comics Journal interview subjects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or an index of tables of contents of publications. Otto4711 07:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a long-time reader of the Journal, and have found this list useful. Perhaps it could be expanded with interesting quotes, or merged with the Comics Journal article Rhinoracer 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Useful to some editors it may be but it does not belong here. Perhaps it could be rewritten and expanded into a list of issues and their main themes/interviews but even in that context I feel it may not belong here. Robbielatchford 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Journal's interviews are themselves notable-- even TCJ enemy Harlan Ellison conceded that they were the equivalent of the Playboy interviews. They are remarkable documents.

This article can usefully be expanded, but as it stands I see it as a good, encyclopedian resource.

The person who nominated this article for deletion, against all policy, hasn't bothered to justify his nomination.

I will give him 24 hours to do so, after which I shall take down the AFD template.

It is interesting to note the timing of this AFD, in light of the current lawsuit by Harlan Ellison in large part over a TCJ interview. What a coincidence. Rhinoracer 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith regarding the reason Otto nominated this for deletion. I see no indication that he is doing so in relation to Ellison's suit. Also, please do not remove AfD templates from articles. This will not change the fact that there is a nomination, it will just prevent visitors to the page from being aware that this discussion is taking place. ~CS 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said: Weak Keep. The Comics Journal is as close as comics have to a scholarly journal, and its interviews are a significant (arguably, renowned) part of that. Although I agree with many of the delete votes that the article in its current state is inappropriate, I can't help but feel that improving the article -- perhaps so that it is no longer a list -- is the direction to go with this one. ~CS 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the consensus is that this shouldn't be an article, I would suggest that it become a Wikiproject Comics project page instead. It could be very useful to people looking for sources for comics-related articles. —Celithemis 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what the process would be, but this suggestion seems like a good idea to me. This seems like something that would fit in neatly as a directory to complement the project's sections on reliable resources for comics articles. ~CS 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Comment (see later comment) I really can see the value of this, but I can't see it fitting the format, guidelines, and policies that are in place. Even as a "Project protected reference/resource page" I can't see this fitting. If someone could point out a ref to the process/precedent for that type of page, I'll support moving this, but otherwise, it'll, reluctantly, need to go. — J Greb 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is an established process, as such, but there are existing pages in Wikipedia space devoted to helping people find sources for articles; Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service and Wikipedia:Research resources come to mind.

Why would lack of precedent be a problem, anyway? Helping members do research for articles is an obviously useful thing for a Wikiproject to do. It helps the encyclopedia, so why not do it? —Celithemis 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a much closer analogy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. —Celithemis 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for wanting examples/precedent pointed out in this case is that I wouldn't want this being moved attacked as an attempt by editors to save a page they "like" that doesn't belong on Wiki.
That being said, Video games/Magazines is a good example for moving this to a Comics sub-page. But in moving this a few other things would need to be addressed:

• Page title. The title would need to be tweaked.
• Layout. It needs to be converted from a bullet list to a table.
• Information. While the subject and issue number are a good start, it should be like an expanded footnote/reference with the interviewer, month/year, and page(s). The title, if it's something other than "Interview wit..." should be there also.

That would also set it up for expansion to a list covering TCJ contents in general, if there is such a desire.
- J Greb 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bloody STRONG Keep. This is useful to researchers. This is useful information. This is entirely in keeping with the point of Wikipedia. There is no better reason to delete given here than "I don't like it". You know what? Tough. This is an extension of the article on the Journal, and were it a category people would say listify. It's solid, sourced information that is utilised by scholars. It does not violate WP:NOT in any shape, manner or form. I would note the people who are trying to force their opinion through with the claim that it violates Wikipedia_is not an indiscriminate collection of information miss the vital point that policy makes, that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries". The section even goes on to detail the only areas that have consensus, none of which this list meets. WP:NOT asks us to consider what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. I would suggest this article fits the bill. You don't personally happen to like it? Ignore it. Edit your style sheet to pretend it doesn't exist. But don't delete it. It's information which is of use. Hiding Talk 14:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what would be really useful? If someone would index my cookbooks so I can find recipes by ingredient without having to search through them all. Now that would be useful. It would also be, like this info dump of an index, completely unencyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know where your argument ceases to bear any relationship to mine? It's when you refer to "your cookbooks". Hiding Talk 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. God almighty, what an info dump. Let Comics Journal have it. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Christ yes, let's get rid of all this pesky info that's dumping the place up. Hiding Talk 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though the list needs plenty of expansion (like, in my opinion, at least the dates of the issues). This looks like it meets our Wikipedia:List guideline and has potential to meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Is there any precedent for deleting such lists? The idea behind this list seems fairly consistent with such lists as List of SLAM Magazine cover athletes, List of celebrities who have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, List of people in Playboy 1990-1999, etc. --Dragonfiend 06:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable magazine and an academic source. The Journal is a respected, quality publication with a solid history in comics journalism and criticism, an its interview subjects (such as the likes of Robert Crumb, Harvey Kurtzman etc.) are definitely more notable than the list of people in Playboy. Counterrestrial 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, it is useful but I think something needs doing with it as it stands. Possibly best discussed on the Comics Project talk page after this deletion is decided. (Emperor 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• A few notes - First, to the person who's accusing me of colluding with Harlan Ellison, rest assured that I have no knowledge of said suit. The lawsuit or lack of same has nothing to do with this nomination and the notion that a lawsuit could somehow be influenced by the existence or non-existence of a list of interview subjects is ludicrous. Second, I have explained the reason for the nomination, which is that Wikipedia is not a directory. That a number of people were interviewed by the same publication does not create the sort of association that would warrant an article. Compliance with WP:LIST, which is a guideline and not policy, is irrelevant if the list itself fails WP:NOT, which is policy. Third, It's useful is an incredibly poor reason for keeping an article. All sorts of things that all sorts of people find useful get deleted off Wikipedia every day. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also a horrible reason for keeping an article. If other articles which don't meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines exist, then the proper response to them is to deleted them, not to point to them in an attempt to save other non-compliant articles. Otto4711 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "Is there any precedent for deleting such lists?" I'm all for setting a precedent if necessary, but I don't believe you've made any sort a case that this list fails WP:NOT, or that other similar lists fail WP:NOT. This list seems as much like a directory as any other list or category. Is there any reason you feel that this particular list fails WP:NOT? Do you feel that the other lists I mentioned or List of Oklahoma birds or List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry or List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes also ought to be deleted? --Dragonfiend 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, you could list off a million different list articles and none of them have any relevance to whether or not this article should be kept. However, I have in fact put a couple of the lists you posted up earlier for deletion. Do I have a specific precedent of a specific list of interviews in a specific magazine being deleted? No. But there are any number of precedents of poor list articles being deleted. I have no idea if other such lists of people interviewed in a particular magazine have been nominated for deletion. It strikes me as rather irrelevant whether or not such a similar deletion exists if this list is one that should be deleted. If you read WP:NOT#DIR you'll see that it bars lists of loosely associated topics. The happenstance of being interviewed by a particular journal or magazine is just that sort of loose association. Otto4711 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Offered as possible precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Escape Magazine contents Otto4711 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, I've just userfied that to User:Hiding/List of Escape Magazine contents. If this goes the deletion route could someone please also userfy to my user space. Hiding Talk 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article has value. It could also serve as a useful category. GarryKosmos 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Projectify per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. Nifboy 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a loosely associated topic. Asserts a component of notability for each interviewee. –Pomte 03:11, 2 April 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.