Talk:Dan Fraga

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Fraga. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428130104/http://www.animationinsider.com:80/2014/04/dan-fraga/ to http://www.animationinsider.com/2014/04/dan-fraga/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

I have nominated this article for deletion. The template tells me I should also notify the people behind the project, Unfortunately I have no idea who to contact. The editors who contributed to this article appear to be IP users, possible sockpuppets, new contributors, or users who haven't been active for years.

My concern is that this is a self-promotional article with no reliable sources, on a subject with little to no notablility, and that the editors who created and keep adding to this page are using it as a soapbox to sneak in information under the radar, on another subject that's been subjected to much greater scrutiny.

To be more precise, Dan Fraga has declared himself a member of Comicsgate, and by the looks of the edit history, members of the internet group are using this article to push a POV on comicsgate, that would be removed immediately from the group's own article.

@Aquillion: @Grayfell: @Grandpallama: I have noticed that you were all involved in arguments with User:Magic9Ball, who appears to be the only regular wikipedia contributor involved with this article that I've managed to pin down, on the talk page of Comicsgate. Many claims made in this article and attributed to twitter posts and Comicsgate affiliated websites such as GeeksandGamers, are very similar to the ones that have been made by users on that talk page, so I concluded that it would be the best option to notify you about this and ask for your input. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion seems reasonable; if you take out the non-independent sources, the blogs, and the ones that don't mention Fraga, there's not enough here to satisfy WP:CREATIVE or to write an article around. --Aquillion (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing some circumstantial signs of COI or maybe paid editing, but nothing conclusive. If my hunch is right, this is unrelated to the *gates. Assuming there are no better sources, I support the prod. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this has everything to do with the "*gates". The third paragraph in the lede is nothing but pro comicsgate propaganda, attributed to one of their three most prominent disinfo sites (the other two being Bounding into Comics and Pirates and Princesses). Geeks and Gamers was also involved in an attempt to hijack a charity drive by Zack Snyder to promote themselves - a tactic similar to what Gamergate used years ago.

That being said, the claim about Fraga's connection to Comicsgate is factual, and it's in fact the reason I discovered this article. A few days ago, the subject was involved in a comicsgate operation to recruit J Scott Campbell, by convincing him that the criticism of his terribly drawn pin-up art is part of some far left "SJW" conspiracy. Fraga said that Wikipedia was lying about Comicsgate. I sensed shenanigans, looked op his name on the wiki and it didn't disapoint. Campbell made two responses to the incident on instagram and the second one is highly concerning. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I was merely saying that the indications of COI I noticed are unrelated to Comicsgate. This article predates the addition of content about the controversy by several years. If off-site activity is interfering with the article, this may need to be raised at WP:ANI or similar, with awareness of WP:OUTING. As you've already mentioned atTalk:J. Scott Campbell, this will still need reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think off-site activity is interfering with this particular article. It's just how I became aware of the subject I then looked him up on wikipedia and realized that his article is being used to sneak pro-Comicsgate propaganda past the radar. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion removed

@Aquillion: @Grayfell: User:Aspects has removed the proposed deletion using the reasoning that the article has reliable third party citations which seems to be contradicted by the consensus here. I tried to reason with him but he says even if the removal was wrong, it can't just be restored. In the meantime I removed the misinformation regarding Comicsgate, but it's entirely possible that will get reverted as well. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in that case there's no way to go about it but to create an WP:AFD. --Aquillion (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

My main concern was removing the pro-comicsgate propaganda, to be honest. If somehow it turns out the subject is notable and someone can improve the article, then maybe deletion isn't that necessary. The offending paragraph was very clearly against site policy, so I removed it. I'll leave deletion or improvement of the article to users with more experience. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)