Jump to content

Talk:Mike Riley (cartoonist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict of interest

[edit]

Tagging for conflict of interest because the editor who initially started the article styled their user name after the cartoonist and all previous edits were done by an IP address that has only made edits about this cartoonist. (If you are the same person, please read up on the COI section here on Wikipedia!) As for whether or not this article passes notability guidelines, I haven't investigated that yet. I just wanted to tag this so someone could do further looking into this as well for notability as well as neutrality. It doesn't appear to be that bad, but I want to make my concerns voiced. (See WP:COI, WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG, WP:RP)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

  • I want it noted that the conflict of interest tag has been repeatedly removed by User:Mikeriley23. I've warned him about removing the tag and informed him that the tag does not mean that the page will be deleted or even that he's doing something wrong, just that one of the major editors to the page is someone with a conflict of interest. It's been removed about 3 times so far.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Removed sources

[edit]

Just wanted to drop a note here to explain why I removed so many sources. The reason behind this is that none of the links I removed are usable as reliable sources that show notability. For example, I removed an interview by a small comic book shop, the reason being in that it isn't considered to be something that is both reliable and notable enough of a source per Wikipedia standards. It's not only done by a merchant (who would have an interest in showing Riley off in the best light possible since they want people to buy his stuff), but it's also the equivalent of a blog and blogs cannot be used unless they're by someone considered an absolute authority, meaning that it'd have to be done by one of the chief editors at Dark Horse, Stan Lee, or the ALA. The majority of blogs do not fall under this requirement. Other sources I removed were considered to be primary sources, meaning that they were either written or released by Riley or someone acting on behalf of him. His blogs are a good source of this, but the bio he wrote up for himself is also an example of this. Even though it's published on a different website, it still counts as a primary source since he wrote it. Even if he didn't, it still doesn't count as a reliable source since it's not an article written about him. This is the same reason I removed another link on the page (I initially couldn't find his name). It was just a listing of people and wasn't an article.

What's considered a reliable source would be an in-depth news article or tv spot that predominantly or solely focused on Riley. An example of this would be if the New York Times or HuffingtoWn Post covered Riley. (A bit big in the description, but it's generally what is needed.) I see that there's some local coverage in there and that's good. Just be careful because not everyone considers local coverage to be enough to keep an article up. It's incredibly difficult to pass the notability guidelines in general, let alone for a webcomic or artist. For a great example of what sources are required and what a proper article about a webcomic artist should look like, I recommend checking out R. K. Milholland. The article is sourced without the need for primary sources, which is how an article should be written. (Primary sources can only be used if there's multiple reliable sources to back it up, which pretty much translates into the idea that you should have so many other sources that primary ones are completely unnecessary.)

I also voiced concerns over a potential conflict of interest. It's not against Wikipedia guidelines to post an article about yourself, someone you know, or someone who works for you (or you work for), but it is discouraged. The reason behind this is that it's so incredibly easy for you to get caught up with everything and end up assigning more notability than there might actually be. It's also very easy to write things in a non-neutral or semi-promotional manner without ever meaning to. It's why I would never be able to write an article about some author friends of mine when/if they make it big. I'd never be able to write or approach it neutrally. I recommend that if either of the two editors are the webcomic artist or someone with a COI, that you look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group or the general Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics to assist you in writing this article. Not only can this group help avoid any concerns of COI, but they can also be a goldmine of tips and tricks at making the article truly shine (in a Wikipedia approved encylopedic neutral manner, of course).

I do have to say that other than the links I had to remove, this actually wasn't that bad and as far as articles written with a potential COI, it's pretty neutral. I don't mean to sound like the big mean old editor coming on to harsh the fun, but some people can get pretty trigger happy when it comes to new articles written by someone with a potential COI, so it's incredibly important that you become aware of this as soon as possible and proceed with extreme caution.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I don't plan on personally editing this article anymore since a few have taken issue with it, and I will not personally remove the proposed deletion tag but I would like to note a few reasons why I think the call for deletion is premature. The other two Webcomics listed as beginning in 2010, for instance, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_webcomics) have a combined 280 fans on their respective FB pages compared to the 3,300+ from at least 20 countries on http://www.facebook.com/itastesounddotcom and just a few minutes of clicking down the list for Webcomics beginning in other years reveals few that have gone to print, and less that have had the print version critically reviewed by the newspaper of a large city, with Baltimore being the largest city in Maryland and the largest independent city in the country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_city_(United_States). I would also consider the Bleeding Cool interview national/international coverage as bleedingcool.com gets tens of thousands of hits daily from all over the world, is often referenced by other publications, such as The New York Observer recently and has many notable contributors, American and British. I Taste Sound's distributor also sends books to Canada and England on occasion and for what it's worth, I don't have personal communications with any individuals in West Virginia or Chicago, since I noticed speculation on one of these threads that I contacted a friend or fan there to have them make edits to the article. User:Mikeriley23 4:18, 5 February 2012

  • Comment. I want to stress that I'm not trying to be mean when I say this and I don't have a vendetta of any sort. These are just Wikipedia protocol. I want to warn you against saying that "other webcomics have this or that and still have an entry". Other entries having fewer fans, fewer sources, or what have you, and still retaining an entry is not a good argument to keep or defend something. In most cases the only reason those entries still have an article only means that someone hasn't gotten around to deleting them yet. If this ever goes up to AfD you will have to prove notability via other sources, which almost always boil down to coverage in secondary and reliable sources per WP:RS. A webcomic can have thousands of hits a day, yet still not pass the uber-strict notability guidelines. For example, the webcomic Oglaf is wildly popular to the point where even its self-published books and merchandise sell incredibly well, yet its entry was still deleted multiple times- and that's a webcomic that has multiple fangroups on facebook, its own entry on tv tropes, and over 13,000 followers on twitter. Other more well known webcomics that have gotten deleted for various reasons include Girls With Slingshots, and that webcomic has over 9000 followers on facebook, over 20,000 followers on twitter, and sold out merchandise. Believe me when I say that popularity and page hits do not count towards notability unless you have multiple and reliable sources to show notability. Will this page ever get nominated? Maybe so, maybe no. But you can't rely on "my page gets a lot of hits and I've got this many fans on such and such a social website" because Wikipedia history has shown that you can be a wildly popular series and still be deleted. I also want to add that brief references are good, but unless they go into depth about your webcomic, they can't really be used as reliable sources that show notability. I also want to stress that there are people who aren't always convinced by local coverage of a person or comic. You need to beef up the article now so it never comes to that and that's why I really, really, REALLY think you need to get an experienced editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics or more specifically, their webcomic subgroup (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group to help you out with this. The more experienced ones will be well aware of what makes an entry safe from deletion and what doesn't, so I recommend going for the ones with tons of experience such as User:Emperor, User:Fishal, or especially User:GreenReaper. All three of these editors have tons and I mean TONS of experience, so if you could get one or all of them to help you then it'd go a long way towards ensuring that your entry remains on Wikipedia. Random people coming on to help are good since every little bit helps, but most (if not all) of the users are unaware of the incredibly strict Wikipedia guidelines for sources and notability. I can't stress enough how strict these guidelines are and again, a lot of things and people that I'd personally consider notable does not equate to notability here per the wiki guidelines. You've just got to be extremely careful and holding up examples of other webcomics, saying that because you publish your books, your webcomic automatically should stay. (Be aware that the "published in book format" part of internet material may not always extend to works that you publish through your own printing label. Like I said, the guidelines here are incredibly strict. And be aware that being distributed through a bigger company doesn't always equate to notability either.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Riley (cartoonist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Riley_(cartoonist)&oldid=1206760554"