Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chick Publications

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 Speedy keep, fairly obvious consensus here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Publications[edit]

Article has over 30 reference links, all but 3 of which simply link back to the article subject's website. It has been tagged as needing 3rd-party citations since November 2006, but none seem forthcoming. Unless citations can be found indicating its notability, it should be deleted. At the very least, all these self-referenced claims should be removed as it reads mostly as a fansite, not an objective encyclopedia article. Whydoesthisexist 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Indisputably notable (if bizarre) religious publisher. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- well, if something hasn't been cleaned up in over 6 months, what are we to do? Just let inferior articles persist? --Whydoesthisexist 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to clean it up, or bring it to someone's attention at a Wikiproject. Bad writing is not a criteria for deleting an otherwise blatantly obviously notable organization, at least not until the writing becomes so incoherent it isn't certain what the article is actually about. This is not anywhere near that bad. --Charlene 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We work on cleaning it up, either by ourselves or using the cleanup process. Cleanup and deletion, however, are seperate paths. If someone is feeling unwell, they visit a doctor, not a mortician. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but that article needs major cleanup, from a personal who is familiar with the subject Corpx 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, but needs cleanup. Andre (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear and obvious notability. Doing a Google News archives search pulls up stories (all behind paywalls, unfortunately, but sources need not be online for free, or even online at all) from everything from the Kansas City Star to the Washington Post to the Valley Independent, all in articles specifically about Chick Publications[1]. AfD is not for cleanup; it's when notability and verifiability are absent or uncertain. --Charlene 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I get it now. But how is the notability "obvious"? As far as I could tell reading the article, it provides no claim of notability other than links to its own website. --Whydoesthisexist 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-notability doesn't mean that the article isn't sourced; it means that the article can't be sourced, because there are no third-party reliable sources anywhere to be found. Editors should ideally do some basic searching (online or otherwise) before submitting an article for deletion when the sole reason to delete is non-notability. There are over 75,000 Google hits for "Chick Publications", and many on the first five pages of the search are from notable universities, newspapers, and religious organizations discussing the tracts specifically and critically. Google News archives search finds over 9,000 hits (although to be fair, many of them are court proceedings). If sources are available but just not in the article, the editor should either clean the article up himself or tag it, or even submit it to a Wikiproject. --Charlene 07:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I disagree with every opinion I've seen expressed by this company's tracts, they are nevertheless notable. Keep. TheLetterM 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Needs cleanup.Oyster guitarst 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable loon. Corvus cornix 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known in its own way. If the article needs cleanup, it should be reduced to a stub, not deleted. Brianyoumans 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is trouble finding sources, one could begin with the 600+ Google Books results for "Chick Publications" (not to mention "Jack Chick" and other variants). --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article certainly needs work (Chick tends to polarise people, something that attracts a lot of poor-quality editing from both sides) but notability is in no doubt. --Calair 05:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see I didn't do this correctly. How do I retract the AfD? --Whydoesthisexist 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organisation. Wikipedia requires patience. Osomec 13:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Iconic, notable nut and publishing company. The article is in serious need of cleanup, though. --Fightingirish 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, publisher whose comics have been firmly entrenched in US culture and folklore for as long as I can recall. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 4 July 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.