Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysfunctional Family Circus

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 keep. John254 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysfunctional Family Circus

DFC is basically a series of parody strips with using Family Circus's original art and pairing it with a crude/humorous caption. The only real claim of notability is that the original writer Bil Keane asked them to take it down. The only reliable source the article contains is a webzine link about Keane's request. Most of the other sites I found in my research were either blogs or similar sites. I don't see how more notable this is than half a dozen other parodies of a similar nature. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are not adequate, and the article itself asserts a notability that is subpar for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Spinnwebe version has received considerable attention from media sources, some of it posthumously. I have added a number of references to demonstrate this (as well as support the text). I know it's a much weaker support, but a Google search on "dysfunctional family circus" also turns up a great deal in the way of results, though not many of them are suitable for article inclusion. - Vianello (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I said before, the only real claim of notability is Keane's request to pull it down. From what I've read of the sources, that's all they touch upon. There are numbers of parodies that have had the creators of the parodied work come after them.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. The question is, did these parodies receive widespread media attention for it? I'm not sure that the narrow topic these sources touch on is enough to demonstrate notability, but they do show that the site is very well-established as a prominent work of parody. Unfortunately, the general "waves" it's made are a bit harder to clearly substantiate, since I can't really just say "Hey, look at Google!" in the article. I would like to draw attention to it having drawn 50k-70k page views per day, however. Ideally, I think it'd be best to have some sources that look at its cultural impact/significance in more depth, but I haven't found anything very journalistically reliable for that at this point. There are lots and lots of pages that are strong testaments to its influence, but I can't do much with that unless I can find a reliable source to affirm that fact. - Vianello (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This would an interesting paragraph within the Family Circus article, as opposed to being a standalone piece. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few legit news sources are out there on this. // Townlake (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be adequately sourced. JIP | Talk 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I regret to say I've heard of it, it's only worth a footnote in an encyclopedic sense. Don't confuse articles mentioning the phrase "Dysfunctional Family Circus" with articles actually related to the parody comic. -Verdatum (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current version looks reasonably sourced. The AZ Republic one seems enough by itself. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as adequately sourced. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable, and the nomination does not advance any legitimate argument for removal. The claim that "The only real claim of notability is..." is a fabrication. -- Dominus (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a fabrication when all of the online references' major focuses are about how the original author went after them?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable parody, adequately sourced. Ford MF (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable parody, notable enough that Bil Keane himself was more than a little familiar with them. WP:IKNOWIT is not really a notability argument, but I will throw it out here as well. I've known about the DFC for years. Eauhomme (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the guideline says, WP:IKNOWIT is "not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions", the key terms being "on its own". When conjoined with other arguments, it can add a legitimate reinforcement. Ford MF (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - There is a Washington Post article in which the comic creator directly addresses both the parody comic and the subsequent take down of the website [1]. Oh and watch for falling snow.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprising number of big name sources discuss it. [2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources writing about the website abound. And looking at the dates on the article search results in Google News, they span a significant number of years indicating sustained coverage over time. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm glad the article was nominated. The site itself is very funny, and I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. Mandsford (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (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.