Talk:Trying to Trash Betsy DeVos

Relevance

Im just curious, has this cartoon gained sufficient relevancy? --Volvlogia (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by relevancy, but I'll contend it has met the expectations we've set for inclusion in this project. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think what he means is notability, not "relevancy". And I would argue that it does not meet that standard. There were literally thousands of political cartoons published about Barack Obama and about George W. Bush, but how many of them warranted their own article? Very few. So this entry, about merely a cabinet secretary, and created less than a month after it appeared, is well below the threshold for WP:N. If it exists at all on WP, it should simply be merged into Betsy DeVos. Bricology (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability as not been established. The lead makes no claim as to why this cartoon is any more remarkable than millions of others. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion, already. I'm wondering, was someone involved in creating the article somehow connected with the cartoonist?--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with the first part. I don't know if there's a connection and will assume good faith, but the guidelines do not consider articles that have fleeting relevance to be notable. It's a local newspaper's cartoon about a cabinet secretary that a number of people on social media considered inappropriate, and the sections of some news outlets that focus this sort of online controversy featured it as their "outrage of the day number 17" for half a second. It is also entirely implausible to me at least that anyone could ever search for this article, since the title of the cartoon is hardly well known. Articles on topics orders of magnitude more notable in each of those ways have been deemed not notable. I'll propose a merger with the cartoonist's page, at the very least. Harsimaja (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger with Glenn McCoy

Merge - This topic is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own page. There are many cartoons that are more notable that have not merited their own pages on Wikipedia, from conflicts to researchers, as well as far orders of magnitude more notable topics in general. There was no sustained level of coverage of this topic (see WP:SUSTAINED) - it was just a local cartoon that saw a brief level of controversy in a few news outlets that day, even far below the usual level of the daily outrage mill. It is very difficult to believe that anyone not connected to the topic itself would search for this article by name, since the title itself is not plausibly well-known. Familiarity with the practice and precedent of what meets notability on Wikipedia is crucial or this encyclopedia would become a repository for every other CV and tabloid article. All that said, I see no reason why it might not warrant a mention in the article on the cartoonist's page. Harsimaja (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a major editor to this article. Unfortunately, I was not thinking carefully about the need for sustained coverage in a standalone article when I started this one, and I think merging some details to the bio page for McCoy is the right call. If there aren't any objections, I can get started with this merge in the next week or two. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, contrary to the comments in the nom the page receives 40 views a day (90 day average), with some spikes. So it has become a "known" cartoon. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I note that this page view summary is about right, the average number of views having picked up since March 2019. (when the merge was initially proposed). Klbrain (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing, given the increasing evidence of independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)