This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Delete This is a free comic book being distributed to US schools and libraries by a non-profit organization to support the goals of the non-profit. It's not a commercial publication, so it's not clear if it should be categorized as a comic book in the traditional sense. I don't think it's notable as a comic book.
Special:Contributions/Kal5000 obviously created this article to help publicize
Smiles for Diversity and Scrapyard Detectives -- including offering the cover image. I'd say this should be deleted on the grounds of blatant advertising and
WP:COI by the non-profit organization. --
SueHay22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This really is a comic book. I've seen it--it's not an advertising piece for Smiles for Diversity, but just a good comic book, published by a non-profit. I'm removing the notable tags, and replacing them with sourcing tags. It doesn't matter what the wikipedia author's intent is (which is what you referenced) as long as they follow wikipedia's guidelines. This isn't written as an advertisement, and so I think what it needs is sources.
Fredsmith223:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)reply
But without sources there is no way to prove
WP:N. The fact that you've seen it only proves it exists, although that itself isn't enough for
WP:V. So this entry doesn't folow Wikipedia's guidelines - in fact it currently doesn't met any other than general formatting and layout. The fact it started life as an advert needn't be a big issue if we can get
WP:RS to prove
WP:N and
WP:V but as it stands the notability tags are right and should stay until those issues are addressed. (
Emperor23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC))reply
My visual confirmation of the book was not meant to be used as a reference on wikipedia. It's simply to say that it's not an advertising tract, like many publications of nonprofits. This is an independent comic book, similar to many other independent comic books on wikipedia. I still think that the notability tag should be changed to sourcing tags. This is notable, it's just not sourced yet.
Fredsmith211:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
That tags have to stay. It may exist but the question is: Is it notable? Has it been discussed by reliable sources? The fact that other indie comics have entries here doesn't mean much as if they don't measure up to similar standards then they will also find themselves up for deletion. (
Emperor12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC))reply
I found some Google hits for Salt Lake City Tribune articles, but the links wouldn't load -- perhaps someone can try again later:
Actually, it's one local article about the comic book writer apparently written in late April and revamped in early May. It also covers Smiles for Diversity and Scrapyard Detectives because that's how the fellow got started.
http://www.sltrib.com/holladay/ci_5756851. This Wikipedia article was added in March. Can anyone provide a reference dated before this Wikipedia article was created? Just curious. --
SueHay15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply