User talk:Killeroo27

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Killeroo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Killeroo. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GringoInChile 15:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killeroo notability

Can you provide any more details concerning this character that might show it is notable? Without that, it could be deleted. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Australian comics fan who has only just seen this discussion about the (now deleted) page. Killeroo's main claim to current notability would be on the basis of the fine artists the issues of this book attracted, including Andy Tong and Jason Badower. A well-known character in the scene of the past few years. 9 October 2006

Killeroo page

The page was speedily deleted, but Killeroo27 recreated it immediately. Please stop making this page or study carefully how to make a proper encyclopediac page that is worthy of retention. Hu 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

The wiki page for australian comics lists the character of Killeroo, and it is one of the best-known australian comic characters that many of the creators listed there have worked on at one time or another. It has also been optioned as a movie property by an australian filmmaker.

I understand the concern in regards to vanity, but given that others have mentioned the character in that australian comics entry (and linked to the then non-existing page) I just wanted to have a result other than a blank page. I have edited the original article to not refer to the character as 'iconic' and also removed the link to the official website to avoid it being an advertisement for the character. I dont understand how the now deleted page was anything other than factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killeroo27 (talk • contribs) Oct. 6, 2006

If you can provide sources for those claims, that would be great. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your talk page items with four tildes, please, Killeroo27: ~~~~. Hu 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the wikipedia guidelines more thoroughly and can now see why the page was deleted and the reasons why. Perhaps when the movie comes out someone else will update wiki and it will no longer be considered un-noteworthy or vanity - sorry to have bothered you. Killeroo27 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a "take my marbles home" in a huff approach. If the comic is worthy enough to have a movie in production, then you surely can find enough material to show that and make an article that will stick, and that you can be proud of, since you are clearly a fan of it. Hu 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]