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 Mike Curtis (writer). ✗plicit 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katmandu (comics)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Katmandu (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for 2+ years, no proof The Comics Journal mention is in any depth, other links seem to be fan sites., then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete. We should not be removing sourced material from Wikipedia. I'm concerned that the nomination includes the text no proof The Comics Journal mention is in any depth. Burden on proof is on the nominator. Material is removed because it isn't sourced or doesn't reflect the source. Hiding T 08:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where it says "burden of proof is on the nominator"? WP:BURDEN states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which is the exact opposite of that.
Let's assume that the review in Comics Journal is WP:SIGCOV. The article still needs several extra reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. None pop up at all. You are free to bring them forward if you have them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we are talking about WP:BURDEN, looks like you have misunderstood what I have said. We are talking about the burden of proof on the nominator to support their nomination statement that doubts The Comics Journal mention is in any depth, otherwise we could simply doubt and remove everything. WP:BURDEN has been satisfied, there's the source, go verify it. Don't cast aspersions until that's done. I'm here arguing with the substance of the debate and trying to educate on the ideas behind Wikipedia. We don't delete sourced material without very good reason. Extrapolate from that what we would do with that sourced information and why we shouldn't be at AFD. As an aside, I also don't need a lecture on WP:GNG, I'm very aware of the intent behind the words I wrote on that policy page. If it helps, the burden of proof on the afd nominator is found at our guide on deletion; Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD. and also it might be worth refreshing on the editing policy, Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it can encapsulate, the better it is. Hiding T 09:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hiding That makes no sense. For something like TCJ with no free online archive (or even widely available unofficial sources) you could just make something up and it could stick for years until someone notices. It could be a one-line passing mention; TCJ has carried listings at various points. If you're hanging a whole article on one reference on one source it needs to be verifiable, surely? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BoomboxTestarossa You seem to have misunderstood a very fundamental part of WP:AGF and peer review. The source is there, it's provided. Go show it to be wrong, don't assume it is wrong, because otherwise we simply remove everything from Wikipedia that we assume to be wrong. I'm not sure anyone is hanging a whole article on anything, certainly not me, so I won't engage with that part of the argument, thanks. Hiding T 09:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if an editor is struggling to source up an article they can just tag on a hard-to-verify but notable source and it's up to someone else to verify that? Nice, that one's getting filed for the next time I inflict pages on random Zenith background characters on people. Did The Comics Journal do an in-depth article on the Q-Bikes? Most people will never know that they (probably) didn't.

In all seriousness I get what you're saying but in the context of this debate where there's no other notable, significant coverage I think it's important that we have a reference that can be verified. I'm not propsing a fundamental precedent here, just noting in this particular case of an article already displaying notability issues what sounds like a solid reference might not be.

I apologise if my phrasing in the original post was ignorant, I can be a bit monkey-see monkey-do. I'll learn the lesson from that one =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor can pretty much make up anything on Wikipedia, that's been a feature/bug since day one. But when we remove or clean up stuff we have to hold to a higher standard. I don't delete or prod until I'm 100% sure the article can't be saved, and I'm also mindful that I'm collaborating. I'm even more mindful now that I'm collaborating with people who have died, so it's also important to be their voice in a debate as well. I get that there's a context in this debate, but I also get that these debates are people's first time, and that people are scared off these debates. I also think there's a place in Wikipedia for sourced information. That's what we are here for. I don't like the idea that we nominate for deletion through prod or afd, material that is sourced. Stubify it, merge it, redirect it, include it somewhere. Fix the issues, make them better, but that sourced information is what makes us better. Retain it somewhere. If it's a stub article that gets nowhere for 50 years, so what? Hiding T 10:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that would be my attitude too, and merging seems like a good solution.
The problem is that Wikipedia's guidelines are contradictory and applied arbitrarily, and I am tired of having to pore over multiple sources and deal with the agenda one of the new article reviewers when there's poorly referenced and abandoned crap like this littering up the place.
Yes, the person who put together this article could have died, become a busy pop singer with their own Netflix show, whatever. But no-one else has bothered to remedy the issues in the past two plus years and no-one is chiming in with a stack of sources now either. Letting it sit there like a depth charge in a public toilet is an insult to hard-working editors, and on the surface adds to the impression that any article made before a certain date is somehow sacrosanct whereas new submissions have to clear an incredibly high bar to even be considered. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if something I have said has initiated the rhetorical change in your argument. It's great that we agree on many things, and I think where we disagree is on the approach. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, and it doesn't really insult anyone if an article is in a poor state. I can't myself go down the path of negative emotions, I've had way too long a wiki break because of the lack of collegiate debate and the enforcing of viewpoints. Maybe the high bar that new submissions face is wrong. Maybe the rhetoric on AFD is wrong. Maybe editors are forced off Wikipedia by many different things. But what we're trying to do, what we're supposed to do, is work out what's best for this article, and this information. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I apologise for any offence I have given. I look at my own clean up list and think that two years is nothing. I could cite articles that reach double figures. We'll never get there, it's a founding principle of the endeavour. :) Hiding T 12:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god no, you have not offended me one bit and I apologise if I gave the impression you did. I am talking about an editor who is not currently involved in this discussion. And I am enjoying an educated, informative discussion with you. TBH your views are what I would consider an enlightened and sensible approach to Wikipedia, especially the strength of there being no deadline for salvage (assuming no-one is being slandered or whatever). It's just a surprise really when most other notability/AfD discussions I've had to get involved with take completely the opposite view, with an onus on rapid deletion without discussion, and insistence on instant verification of sources. It can be baffling to work out the consistency, or how exactly you can collaborate on a page if you're not even allowed to get it off the ground. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2023 (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.
More