Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claims by 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 delete.

Claims by Chick Publications

Let me breath before I start.

• We are not a repository of external links. There are 84 external links pointing to chick.com from the article.^[1] There are around 146 external links in the article.
• We are not a publisher of original thought. Most of these claims are backed by links in chick.com directly. Those that are not make no sense at all.
• There is a good collection of patent nosense. Examples:

  • All of Chick Publications’ works are quickly sent to the Vatican, where they are read by the Pope and then stored.
  • The Catholic church kills Protestants who attack it, using, for example, fake
    car accidents or poisonings. One of his contributors (Alberto Rivera) was supposedly given cancer
    by “agents of the church.”
  • The United Nations is a tool of Satan and the Pope
  • Harry Potter books "open a doorway that will put untold millions of kids into hell."
  • witch
    cult of some sort.
  • The Necronomicon and other things described in the Cthulhu Mythos are real, and he has personally seen them.

While the site may be notable enough to have an entry at Wikipedia, I really doubt this collection of unverifiable original thought, patent nonsense, racism and religion attack is worth an article here. -- ReyBrujo 06:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Patent nonsense is text that is irredemably incomprehensible, not text that is obviously wrong or obviously silly. Uncle G 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be able to point out where or when, as I usually remove deleted pages from my watchlist unless there is a big chance for recreation, but I have seen administrators delete articles with CSD:G1 for much less than this. However, something I have learned in my time here was that any article with a good number of contributors should not be speedied but sent to AFD, and that I have not slapped a CSD:G1 tag in months, probably a year by now. -- ReyBrujo 14:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while the errors of Chick and those making rebuttals and surrebuttals are somewhat humorous, this "article" is clearly unencyclopedic. This kind of thing belongs on a personal website, if anywhere. -- Kjkolb 07:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why not have an article for the claims made by every magazine in the world? Perhaps these things ought to be mentioned somewhere elese but, as stated by
  ^brendel 08:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article documents these (rather silly) claims by Chick Publications; it does not make the claims itself. "Original thought", "patent nonsense", and "religion attack" might apply if this was the first location at which they're being published, but it isn't - the article has 84 links because it's trying (and succeeding!) at sourcing all of its information. The article may be a bit crufty, but I'm afraid that I haven't yet seen a proper argument for deletion. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states, in boldface, in its very first sentence that the claims "are widely disputed". The article is citing primary sources for the claims, but isn't citing any sources for the disputes and the rebuttals. For the article not to be original research, it has to be people in the rest of the world, not Wikipedia editors directly, disputing these claims. Remember that original research includes novel syntheses of data. Collecting a set of claims made by a person or an organization that one disputes the accuracy of onesself is a novel synthesis. Listing a set of claims that someone outside of Wikipedia has already researched, collected together, and rebutted, is not a novel synthesis.

    If you want to show a good reason to keep the article, and counter the nomination, show that there's more to cite here than just the primary source material of the claims themselves — show that the disputes and rebuttals can be amply and reliably sourced, too. Cite some sources. Uncle G 12:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's my fault Black Leaf died! I can't face life alone!
  Danny Lilithborne 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. I'm not sure why this needs to be separate from
  Chick Publications, and the information is at that article already.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this after merging the more interesting parts of it with
  Chick Publications tracts. I tend to agree with Zetawoof that this is neither "original research" - thought it was pretty much settled that references to primary sources do not make for original research. It does seem to be a bit too granular, for lack of a better term. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Saying "Chick Publications says X." is supported by the primary sources, albeit that it results in an article that simply duplicates the primary source in a cumbersome manner. This article, however, says "Chick Publications says X, but that is disputed and the rebuttal is Y, but nonetheless may be true in another sense because Z.", with no sources for the disputes, the rebuttals, and the subsequent analyses. Constructing the disputes and rebuttals directly is original research. Uncle G 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the main article on Chick Publications, otherwise it just comes off as a POV fork. 23skidoo 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, someone wanting this much detail should obtain his books. I don't think it should be merged. Gazpacho 22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:OR. While I tend to believe that Chick publications themselves qualify as patent nonsense, there are better websites than Wikipedia to publish this original research. --RoninBK_TCE# 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is a hopeless vote, but after looking at the article, I see possible OR/V problems (easily fixed), but the compilation of the article itself is not OR and strangely interesting. SchmuckyTheCat 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Even if the sourcing were cleaned up, I think this is a non-encyclopedic level of detail. The
  GRBerry 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It might just be the Harry Potter books and the Dungeons & Dragons talking, but I say smite the
  WP:OR here with a +3 double-handed sword. Any verifiable information should be relegated to the main Jack Chick article. Vic sinclair 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per somewhere in
  Amatulic 22:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a collection of links, all of which are unabashedly non-
  NPOV. Besides, if this sticks around, I foresee a *refutation of* Claims by Chick Pubs article coming soon... and WP is not a message board for religious argument, right? SkerHawx 17:47, 20 October 2006 (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.