Buckley gets the boot off of Wikipedia

[Phillip C]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel



As of 3 March 2010, Tim Buckley's comic "Ctrl-Alt-Del" no longer has an official Wikipedia page. It was taken down due to having no reliable sources (Yahtzee's and Penny Arcade's mention of the comic doesn't count it seems), while it doesn't seem to have been outright deleted as some support was given, instead the article is now archived and any searches on the comic will only result in redirecting you to the 3 finger salute itself until reliable sources surface (Which in my opinion is very unlikely).

 

[Plurralbles]

... how does a source become reliable? Does it have to be referenced in an encyclopedia? Oh wait... THOSE need sources... hmm... Catch 22 anyone?

 

[UPRC]

As informative as it may be, Wikipedia's policies on what is and isn't acceptable material are completely ridiculous.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Ctrl-Alt-Delete has been around for ages... and whilst it isn't really that funny... it at least deserves a wikipedia article!

 

[DrHoboPHD]

Control alt delete is so pathetically unfunny.....

the worst part is every once in a while he comes out with comics that could have been funny but get fucked up for some reason or another. like his metal gear porn one which should have ended on the second panel

 

[Plurralbles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_bait

and yet flame bait exists?

Screw you wikipedia.

Seriously, check out the, "sources". One's broken. The other, "The Jargon File".

Seriously lame how they pick and choose shit.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Good riddance to a horrible comic.

Everything Yahtzee said about it is true. I've seen the shit and CAD is just downright offensive.

 

[ArcWinter]

Everyone seems to hate that comic... but I don't get it. It's not bad.

Maybe I laugh too easily and have uncanny resistance to boredom, but it doesn't deserve all that anger.

And it definitely deserves a Wikipedia page.

 

[NeoAC]

Yeah I actually read the discussion for deletion on this, seemed to be less about having a reliable source, and more about having a personal vendetta against Buckley. At least that's what I got from the people wanting to delete it. Personally, I find anyone who has little enough of a life to volunteer to be a Wikipedia editor to be so power hungry and snobbish that the will ignore any appeals to reason for keeping something, just automatically saying "No" then quoting some obscure rule that you have to go look up to see exactly how they are jerking you around.

OT, really shouldn't have been deleted. Just because I find the comic mediocre, doesn't mean it hasn't earned the right to be on there. I mean, it's been good enough to exist for quite some time. Surely it's earned a few KBs.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

There are hundreds of webcomics with a good number of readers, and very few of them have (or deserve, IMO) a Wikipedia article. While I support the idea of a general 'list of webcomics' article, I don't see any reason why CAD should have its own article. It's a bad webcomic that only became well-known because it's been trolled so much it turned into a meme.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

Here's the thing.

CAD is awful. If you don't think so, it means that you have bad taste and/or a terrible sense of humor. That's fine. There are things that I like that I know are bad, which means that I have bad taste in those areas.

But seriously, it's a humorless cesspool of bad plotlines and "punch lines" which are usually "one guy hit the other guy (har!)".

All that said, it should still get a wikipedia page. Now Buckley, on the other hand, should be banned from wikipedia outright for the edits he makes, but the comic should have a page. Things that are noteworthy for being bad are still noteworthy.

- J

 

[Kodlak]

... how does a source become reliable? Does it have to be referenced in an encyclopedia? Oh wait... THOSE need sources... hmm... Catch 22 anyone?

Funnily enough despite wikipedia being full of reliable sources, I get penalised when writing papers for quoting wikipedia as a source as it is 'unreliable'.

 

[commasplice]

Funnily enough despite wikipedia being full of reliable sources, I get penalised when writing papers for quoting wikipedia as a source as it is 'unreliable'.

Yeah, most of my teachers wouldn't let me cite it. Lucky for you, though, that Wikipedia cites its sources, which may be more acceptable to the teaching staff at your school.

 

[Plurralbles]

... how does a source become reliable? Does it have to be referenced in an encyclopedia? Oh wait... THOSE need sources... hmm... Catch 22 anyone?

Funnily enough despite wikipedia being full of reliable sources, I get penalised when writing papers for quoting wikipedia as a source as it is 'unreliable'.

yeah, to combat that just use the sources the wiki article cited.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Huh?

Seriously, whatever your views on the comic itself, it's not like having a Wikipedia article for Exterminatus Now or Frightmoore University. Tim Buckley is easily a big enough name and his comic a big enough title to be notable.