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 delete. Big Dom 09:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar man[edit]

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

Unable to find any notable sources on the subject. Also have reason to believe that the main contributor is the owner of the site in question) which constitutes a conflict of interest. PROD was also deleted. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems an easy call. No sources, probable COI, PROD deleted... that should be enough. Jus da fax 06:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not For Delete-

I am the creator of this article - ravdag. indeed, I am also the owner of the website solarcomics.com. the website's goal is to educate the children of today , which are the grown up's of tomorrow to start use solar energy instead of petrol and atomic energy. And most important - the website is a completely non profit website! My only goal is to try to make our world a better place for the benefit of the next generation. I have invested a lot of time and energy in order to create these comic figures and children really love them ! think of it - how many comic figures like batman, spider man, x-men etc. have an educational influence as well ? and all the figures mentioned above ( and hundreds of more ) have their own Wikipedia page. Big companies like Marvel Comics can use all their energy and funds in order to create publications for their comic figures, and no one would think about deleting their Wikipedia pages. So just to be fair - if you are offering to delete this article then i think the same should apply towards all other comic figures in Wikipedia. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comic characters are all notable enough to have plenty of reliable third party sources. Also, you seem to be suggesting that Marvel Comics etc create their own pages, which is not the case. Not to disparage you or your work, but I believe that other comic figures have more notability and, as such, more reason to have a Wikipedia article. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am pretty sure that companies like Marvel have no problem creating a Wiki User or paying someone to do it for them. 2. " The comic characters are notable enough " - Meaning - They spend millions of dollars on commercials on T.V , Internet etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're focusing too much on other comics and not on the article you have created and, if that is what you want to think, then by all means think it. All I am going to say is that, under WP:NOTABILITY, there are no reliable third party sources and you have already admitted to being the owner of the comic site which brings up possible conflicts of interest (WP:COI). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. My single Interest is to help and make a change for the best of our earth. I really don't think that it contradicts the Wikipedia policy. 5. You keep on saying that I am the creator of the website and the page. yes- it is true. as you know it;s very easy to open a new user with no contact to me. I am trying to be fair and just and not bend the rules. Please Consider that. 6. If you think the page can be better you are most welcomed to edit it by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know as I only have one account, as per the rules. And I don't think the article could be "better". I believe that the article has reached the extent of what it can be. I don't just tag pages for deletion willy-nilly :). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable subject -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. It's impossible to know if you have more Wiki user names or not because unlike me non of the users listed above are using their real identity. so I have to ask : a. Why not use your real name as a Wikipedia editor?. b. How can I know that you are not a marvel or some other companies employee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 8. Regarding the notability issue - How can you claim it's not notable when there is a full comic book about this figure ? What makes it more or less notable then any other comic figure ? If tomorrow I will set an advertising campaign of 100 million $ about the solar man comics will that make it more notable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 9. I think it will be fair if only users using their real name and identity would take a part on this debate as my Linkedin profile is published above. 10. Please read my arguments and reply to them in a logical way and not just write to delete or not to delete the article. 11. There is a third party source- The Comic book of solar-man ( and all the people who read ( and liked it )) ( if you are interested I will send you an edition of it ) and the website solarcomics.com which contains this comic book. What is the different between these third party sources then any other comic book that exists in the world? Please adhere to my arguments before replying or changing the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. Let's go through your arguments one by one. You have clearly not read Wikipedia policies.

1. I am pretty sure that companies like Marvel have no problem creating a Wiki User or paying someone to do it for them.

Even if that were the case, Marvel characters are covered in-depth by third-party sources. They are subjects of films, reviews, and commentary, among other things.

2. " The comic characters are notable enough " - Meaning - They spend millions of dollars on commercials on T.V , Internet etc.

The amount of money spent on a character is not primarily what we look at. We look for evidence of coverage by independent, third-party sources. Read through WP:GNG to understand this.

4. My single Interest is to help and make a change for the best of our earth. I really don't think that it contradicts the Wikipedia policy.

It does contradict policy if you cannot find sources that meet WP:GNG. Please read it.

5. You keep on saying that I am the creator of the website and the page. yes- it is true. as you know it;s very easy to open a new user with no contact to me. I am trying to be fair and just and not bend the rules. Please Consider that.

We applaud you identifying yourself. That being said, you have a conflict of interest in making this article, and it is difficult for creators to be unbiased about their own works.

6. If you think the page can be better you are most welcomed to edit it by yourself.

Several editors have looked for third-party sources (including myself) that would cover WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS, but we have not had any success. Editing the layout of the article or the cleanliness of the article is not the issue here.

It's not possible to know, I agree. But honestly, it's unlikely that another comic employee was sent to put your article up for deletion. Also, real names are discouraged usernames because they can attract other users to disparage or slander them.

8. Regarding the notability issue - How can you claim it's not notable when there is a full comic book about this figure ? What makes it more or less notable then any other comic figure ? If tomorrow I will set an advertising campaign of 100 million $ about the solar man comics will that make it more notable???

If you ad campaign gets multiple reliable, independent sources to write about your character, then yes. However, a full comic book does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS.

9. I think it will be fair if only users using their real name and identity would take a part on this debate as my Linkedin profile is published above.

You are missing the point of Wikipedia. Our identities are not the main problem here, but the discussion of your article's notability is.

10. Please read my arguments and reply to them in a logical way and not just write to delete or not to delete the article.

OK.

11. There is a third party source- The Comic book of solar-man ( and all the people who read ( and liked it )) ( if you are interested I will send you an edition of it ) and the website solarcomics.com which contains this comic book. What is the different between these third party sources then any other comic book that exists in the world?

References need to be independent of the subject matter.

If you can find evidence that meets the criteria of WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG, please post it here or on the article page. Thank you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - In answer to your questions ("so I have to ask : a. Why not use your real name as a Wikipedia editor?. b. How can I know that you are not a marvel or some other companies employee"), I do not use my real name because I expect a small modicum of privacy and there is nothing I can do to convince you that I'm not a Marvel employee. If you wish to ask me any more questions could you please direct them to my talk page, as this is not the correct forum for things like that --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12. If you expect " a small modicum of privacy " - then why did you deprive that right for privacy from me by publishing my linkedin profile? - by doing so you are contradicting yourself and also violating my rights for privacy. In very simple words - it's just not fair and not just , and not ethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted privacy, you shouldn't have created a LinkedIn profile and made your Wikipedia username so similar to your actual name, which is found in many revisions of this article (example). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have written back on your talk page concerning what you have said. It is pretty much what Eagles has said. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and all other policies linked above. This "comic book character" is part of a campaign for this solar energy company and it is definitely not notable by itself. Ravdag, please read through the guidelines linked throughout this discussion if you decide to create another article in the future. Failure to do so will likely result in another deletion discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I see that someone is changing the earlier posts and not notifying anyone about it as user Skamecrazy123 (I have no idea what this name stands for and if I should take him seriously) have deleted part of his first post on this page and erased the link to my linkedin profile that has started this debate. I believe that this is not only a violation of the Wikipedia rules but also a violation of any possible debate or discussion. So I think it is beneath my basic honor to participate in this kind of debate when : 1. I am the only one identifying his real name and identity, and 2. The other participants of the debate take for themselves the right to change their previous posts without notifying about it.

If you look at the edit history, he clearly states he removed it, because it's not available. Administrators can see this and no, it's not a violation of anything in Wikipedia. Stop this nonsense. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the link, as clearly stated by both I, Jethrobot and the edit summary, was because either yourself or the admin staff at linkedin deleted the profile that I linked, meaning that there was no need for the link on the discussion page. May I also point you towards WP:AGF as you seem to be assuming that I am trying to break the rules in order to get your article deleted and WP:CIV as you have no idea whether to take me seriously or not, which isn't being particularly civil. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. No coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2011 (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.