Talk:Ghastly's Ghastly Comic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Ghastly's Ghastly Comic, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was no result (AfD closed early before any consensus reached).

This page is rather redundant in places, isn't it?

• Part of the information on Shirt Guy Xom is based on his appearances in the Comicgenesis forums. He has posted entries when Chris was away or ill, and it's not possible to determine if he's a real person.

Contents 1 Semi-protected 2 Relevance 3 Little improvements 4 Tentacoo wape 5 AfD outcome

[edit] Semi-protected

The article already has tone problems, so we can do without the penis jokes. The article is semi-protected for now. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

This comic has been around for 5 years, has a sizable following and created the Google Seppuku phenomenon. We, as individuals, can not determine legitimacy simply because one segment considers an article irrelevant. Like religion and politics, these decisions are not decided for the world by the few. This article is properly formatted and written. There is no need for deletion. Santavez 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little improvements

1. Consider splitting Ghastly's bio into a separate article.
2. The logo has to be removed or shortened - the text is far too sandwiched and doesn't look very good.
3. Need more content about the history of the comic (not the plot, but the comic creation - like, the beginning, going to color, et al.).
4. Consider shrinking the character list - for instance, Jihad Jesus, Bishounen Buddha, Michiko Amano, Tentaclax, Shirt Guy Xom, and others - the first four just don't seem to make enough appearances, and the last one really isn't a character anymore than Ghastly would be.
5. Remove the Google Seppuku image - the link should do, shouldn't it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More importantly than anything else, this article needs reliable third-party sources. I am prepared to overlook the extremely irregular "outcome" of the AfD on this occasion, since the comic's author has apparently claimed that he can provide sources for his claims of notability. Unless these sources are forthcoming in the very near future, however, this will be taken back to AfD for a proper debate. We cannot keep unverifiable articles, however notable the subject-matter may be. — Haeleth Talk 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tentacoo wape

I've seen this image crop up fairly often on Fark.com discussion threads. Does anyone know where it originally came from, and whether it could be added to wikipedia under a fair use license? I think it would make a good addition to the tentacle rape page, since "tentacoo wape" currently redirects there. Esn 14:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD outcome

Quoting from Wikipedia's deletion policy:

If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea.

Therefore, closing an AfD early when there has been substantial debate (as in this case) is out of process. This instance is particularly glaring because the administrator who closed the debate early had not only already participated in the discussion, voting to keep, but was also an editor of this article. He should therefore have left the debate for a neutral administrator to close, since it is extremely likely that his decision to close early was influenced by his own desire to see the article kept.

By convention, the nominator withdrawing his/her nomination usually only leads to immediate closure when no other Wikipedians have suggested that the article be deleted. Stating that "the outcome was nomination withdrawn" therefore falsely implies that there was a unanimous decision to keep the article, which was far from the case. Please do not reinstate this misleading claim. — Haeleth Talk 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you're not pleased with the way the AfD ended, but my interpretation of a nomination withdrawal is a tabling of the discussion. It does not imply a definitive decision as would a keep or delete so it certainly does not suggest a unanimous verdict. I've participated in or observed hundreds, if not thousands, of deletion nominations so I am rather confident of my interpretation. Anyone, even a non-admin or the nominator himself, could have tagged that discussion as withdrawn and ended it. If you would like to change the way withdrawals are dealt with, perhaps by explicitly stating how they should be handled in deletion policy, by all means take it up on the related talk pages. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)