Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Only Inn 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was kept no consensus to delete Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elf Only Inn
I've realized that we've nominated this article before for deletion, but it's non-notable and fails the Alexa test pretty badly, with a ranking of 899,838. Besides, it was deleted once before. Delete. SushiGeek 18:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's a retired comic, so yep, it's got a terrible Alexa rating. However, it meets WP:WEB. It's won a WCCA (as referenced in the article). It's also hosted on Keenspot (I realize this one is contentious because it went on hiatus soon after). –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It was successfully AfDed once last April when the article was little more than a scrape of the comic's site. It was recreated sans copyvio, and then survived the next two AfDs, the last with an unambiguous keep. The previous deletion is irrelevant. And now it's under the gun again for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. It has a poor Alexa score, but Alexa is an unofficial indicator at best. It meets WP:WEB unambiguously. And I quote: "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis not mine). One of those criteria is: "2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]" The footnote for this item is: "Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies, Webby Awards or Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" (emphasis mine). Elf Only Inn won a Web Cartoonist's Choice award, as specifically described in the article. Thus, assertion of notability is met. That really should be the end of the debate. I'm sorry if this seems testy, but were this any other comic, I would have speedy kept it as a trivial nomination. The only reason I didn't was because I have a history with the article, making it a conflict of interest. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Abe. The notability of this strip has been established several times over. GET OVER IT! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge, this ought to be at most a sentence in the Keenspot article. When it comes to notability, Keenspot isn't even close to Moving Shadow let alone Virgin Records. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are more like the Trannies then the Grammy Awards. If this were a band that won a minor fan award and then almost got a shot at recording for Moving Shadow but somehow blew it, then we wouldn't be having this discussion even once, let alone four times. We should require some reliable sources, like some newspaper or magazine articles, when it comes to writing encyclopedia articles. -- Dragonfiend 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're selling the WCCA short. I understand the temptation to compare it to the Pia Zadora era People's Choice Awards, but the last time the New York Times paid any attention to webcomics, it was through analysis of last year's WCCA.[1] (registration required - yadda yadda yadda) Yes, they're controversial, but I think the decision to include them as a qualifying factor for WP:WEB was a good one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with that NYT story -- I've used it as a source for a few a wikipedia articles (Narbonic and Drew Weing come to mind). I think that story combined with other sources (we don't want one-source articles) can help make a pretty good case for the notability of the webcomics discussed in the article and even the WCCA themselves, but not each and every webcomic that was ever nominated for or won a WCCA. -- Dragonfiend 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're selling the WCCA short. I understand the temptation to compare it to the Pia Zadora era People's Choice Awards, but the last time the New York Times paid any attention to webcomics, it was through analysis of last year's WCCA.[1] (registration required - yadda yadda yadda) Yes, they're controversial, but I think the decision to include them as a qualifying factor for WP:WEB was a good one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I understand that people don't like this comic, I don't care for it myself, but the repeated calls for deletion is just ridiculous. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Abe Dashiel. - CNichols 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, there's no legitimate reason to kill this other than a seemingly general crusade against legacy webcomics --Khaighle 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Yeah, if we were to delete completed serials then we wouldn't have anything on, say, Sherlock Holmes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) .
- Oh come on. Surely you recognize a difference in the notability of Sherlock Holmes and this webcomic. Being completed or not has nothing to do with it. --Rory096 05:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Being completed has everything to do with the poor Alexa rank that has been cited as a reason for deletion by the nom. I really think that this is a flawed nomination, with the only points being that 1, the Nom does not want it here 2, a poor score on the massively flawed Alexa and 3, yes it was deleted, then recreated as a better article. Read the history. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- So you're saying it should have a lower standard set for it because it's completed? That doesn't make sense. If it were truly notable, it would have an acceptable Alexa rank even after it was completed. As it is, people are just forgetting about it, and who wants an article in an encyclopedia about a site that everybody has forgotten about? --Rory096 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Alexa is not part of WP:WEB, and there's a good reason for that. The Internet as a whole has a very short attention span. Wikipedia doesn't. It is the rule, not the exception, that Alexa ratings drop for comics - and other sites - when they've completed their run. It doesn't matter how wildly popular they were, they always fade. Does that mean we then delete them? No. There's plenty of precedence in AfD for that, and it's why WP:WEB reads like it does. Alexa and Google hits are sometimes good indicators, but their numbers don't trump much of anything. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- True, Alexa is not the most reliable source for data on websites (though 1.1 million is invariably rather bad), and it's not part of WP:WEB, but who will remember this site in a year? 5 years? 10 years? Probably very few, and there is little reason to keep an article about something only a handful of people know about. --Rory096 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I respect your right to have that opinion, but it's not the prevailing sentiment on AfD as a whole. Don't believe me, take a look at this AfD. Mirsky faded from view ten years ago. Its Alexa score is now over 6 million. Or how about Tristan A. Farnon's AfD; his webcomic has an Alexa score in the same range as EOI despite appearing on Salon and CNN. We kept it, and that was the correct decision. In Wikipedia, once notable, always notable. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed things that are notable once are notable later. However, I dispute that anything that will barely be remembered 5 years after it ceases to exist is notable at all. --Rory096 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You do have a point there. There are a few webcomics that have vanished entirely off the net and I am very ambivalent about whether we should keep articles for them or not. Some of them were popular when they were around, but having gone totally dark, it's hard to verify anything about them. EOI is on Keenspot, though, so that isn't likely to be a problem. Unless the author pulls the material from the site, then it will stay there indefinitely. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed things that are notable once are notable later. However, I dispute that anything that will barely be remembered 5 years after it ceases to exist is notable at all. --Rory096 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I respect your right to have that opinion, but it's not the prevailing sentiment on AfD as a whole. Don't believe me, take a look at this AfD. Mirsky faded from view ten years ago. Its Alexa score is now over 6 million. Or how about Tristan A. Farnon's AfD; his webcomic has an Alexa score in the same range as EOI despite appearing on Salon and CNN. We kept it, and that was the correct decision. In Wikipedia, once notable, always notable. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- True, Alexa is not the most reliable source for data on websites (though 1.1 million is invariably rather bad), and it's not part of WP:WEB, but who will remember this site in a year? 5 years? 10 years? Probably very few, and there is little reason to keep an article about something only a handful of people know about. --Rory096 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Alexa is not part of WP:WEB, and there's a good reason for that. The Internet as a whole has a very short attention span. Wikipedia doesn't. It is the rule, not the exception, that Alexa ratings drop for comics - and other sites - when they've completed their run. It doesn't matter how wildly popular they were, they always fade. Does that mean we then delete them? No. There's plenty of precedence in AfD for that, and it's why WP:WEB reads like it does. Alexa and Google hits are sometimes good indicators, but their numbers don't trump much of anything. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- So you're saying it should have a lower standard set for it because it's completed? That doesn't make sense. If it were truly notable, it would have an acceptable Alexa rank even after it was completed. As it is, people are just forgetting about it, and who wants an article in an encyclopedia about a site that everybody has forgotten about? --Rory096 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Being completed has everything to do with the poor Alexa rank that has been cited as a reason for deletion by the nom. I really think that this is a flawed nomination, with the only points being that 1, the Nom does not want it here 2, a poor score on the massively flawed Alexa and 3, yes it was deleted, then recreated as a better article. Read the history. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh come on. Surely you recognize a difference in the notability of Sherlock Holmes and this webcomic. Being completed or not has nothing to do with it. --Rory096 05:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Yeah, if we were to delete completed serials then we wouldn't have anything on, say, Sherlock Holmes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) .
- User's fifteenth edit. --SushiGeek 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I thought it was deleted several times already. Grue 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I know virtually nothing about web-comics... but I know this one. The only reason I became aware of it was because I kept seeing references to it elsenet... "It hurts and stings!", "the Lord of Dorkness", "Lord Elf commands!", et cetera. When the influence of a web-comic becomes pervasive enough that it becomes known to people who pay no attention to web-comics... that strikes me as 'notable'. --CBDunkerson 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The article has been contributed to by many people and made into a fairly comprehensive covering of what was at one time a very popular webcomic. "Poor Alexa rating" seems a thin excuse at best to attempt to delete it, especially considering its retired status. Saying that it's not notable simply due to a single rating site, or because it's finished, or because someone doesn't think Keenspace (a fairly revolutionary concept at the time of its creation) is notable for whatever reason, is borderline, if not wholly, ridiculous. -RannXXV 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
