Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Darn Chauncey

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 delete. Babajobu 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That Darn Chauncey

Delete this article on non-notable webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. If you're curious, the site has an Alexa rank of 611,060 [1] and its book on Amazon has a sales rank of "none." [2] -- Dragonfiend 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Alexa rank just for the host website is 611,060, not for the comic. Ruby 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable webcomic. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just 141 Google hits. And delete the image too. Mushroom 08:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:44Z
• Delete nn--Adam ^(talk) 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom James084 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the 141 Google hits does not tell the full story: only two unique hits are outside the comic's home site. It's nowhere. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Response from the publisher From James Piggot, Admin of StupidChildren.com (the host site of "That Darn Chauncey")

Hi !

We recieved a request yesterday from a fan, who asked if he could put up a Wiki article for us; we said sure. After reviewing the article, we saw it was marked for deletion, and thought we'd weigh in.

First, we would argue that "That Darn Chauncey" is NOT a "non-notable webcomic" TDC has appeared daily at StupidChildren.com for over a year and a half, with over 250 different episodes. It is true that our book has a "none" sales rank on Amazon, but if "Dragonfiend" had examined the Amazon listing more closely, he might have noticed that the book DOESN'T GO ONSALE until Feb. 14, 2006. We "did" have a pre-sale on our main site, and sold several hundred copies. We hope to do even better, after our public release in three weeks (at Wondercon)

As for our Alexa rank, well, we don't think much of a ranking system that only counts people who have a certain toolbar installed (which is why we stopped advertising with AdBrite) Seriously, what does Alexa tell you ? How many people read the comic, or how many comment on the message boards about unrelated things ? We could do tons of things to get more "hits" (no message board for us) -- but we're not interested in inflating BS stats.

We prefer to go by our own internal stats; last year, we had over 200,000 unique visitors, with a significant return rate (we would note that the article stated TDC has having 100,000 readers a day; that is incorrect, and we have edited the article accordingly) I don't know why google doesn't show more hits linking to us. Right now, I can see links to three message boards today alone, which are talking about us; google doesn't show them, either. Furthermore, StupidChildren.com is not the subject of the article. TDC is, and I'd say that a webcomic with over 250 episodes, a regular readership, and an upcoming 112 page BOOK is not trivial (by comparison, RED MEAT has been in existence for ten years, and only has about 500 strips -- we'll have more this time next year)

Finally, let's look at what Wikipedia says about "notable content"

1) "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -- Just yesterday, our comic was mentioned in "Digital Strips" - a podcast which reviews webcomics (with over 100 shows) As we get closer to the release of our new book, we're hoping for significantly more press. Also, the cartoon has been mentioned on litterally hundreds of LiveJournals, MySpace accounts, Message Boards, etc.

2) "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." -- TDC has appeared in several issues of Zoinks! magazine, including the upcoming issue.

Among people that talk about webcomics, we "are" known, and getting better known all the time. One of the coolest things that occasionally happens to us is when someone sees the comic and says "Hey, I've that !"

Having said all that, I personally don't care if we get deleted or not. I like Wikipedia; I use it all the time. I think we became "notable" when we came out with our first book (and got strangers to part with their hard-earned cash to buy it) We get press. We appear in print publications. People talk about us. I didn't write the article for Wiki, but I certainly don't think we should be deleted by people just because "they" don't like the comic.

That's not the criteria for Wikipedia, is it ?

Sincerely,

James Piggot

Stupid Children Publishing

Los Angeles, California

Stupid children

• Keep Seems notable to me (received press, appeared in print publications) Why get rid of a good article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.230.75.10 (talk • contribs).
• Delete still does not meet WP:WEB. If the wecomic is really well known, citing the press it's allegedly recieved will verify that claim... but until then... it doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB. --W.marsh 16:07, 26 January 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.