Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Reflux (webcomic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 was delete. Dakota 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Acid Reflux (webcomic)
Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable webcomic Mozzie 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We had this discussion already, and I don't see any change in the circumstances. The comic was historically popular and prominent at the definitive web comic portal of its time [1], comparable to CRFH!!! in popularity at a time when Acid Reflux was already in decline and CRFH!!!, though smaller than now, definitely notable.
Failing WP:WEB is by no means automatically applicable, nor is failing it straight grounds for deletion. In its own words it's "a rough guideline" intended to help editors, as opposed to WP:V, which is an "offical policy" and a demand, and - as Dragonfriend acerbically pointed out - even very prominent webcomics fail WP:WEB. It suggests a "well-known independent award", or distribution via a similar site? Both of those were in their infancy for webcomics at Acid Reflux's time. --Kizor 11:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC) - Delete No claim of notabiility is made in the article. Find newspaper article telling how important and popular it was, and cite them in the article.Edison 22:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Penny Arcade and PvP don't have a newspaper article. --Kizor 23:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, historically notable webcomic as established by AFD1, the past has not changed since that AFD. You cannot judge older published works by their present popularity. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- This used to be a fairly popular webcomic while it was still updating. How can I prove that, or say anything about this webcomic that isn't sourced to the webcomic itself or to webcomic forums? I can't. This article and this subject, albeit once somewhat popular, fails WP:WEB miserably, and should be deleted. Comparisons to PvP (covered and reprinted in RPG/card game trade press) and Penny Arcade (widely covered in viceo game press, hosting a yearly national convention), both of which have multiple printed collections, is a red herring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have no illusions about AR being comparable to either PvP or PA. I'm just pointing out that in my arrogant opinion Edison's standard is unreasonable. Now, why does failing WEB constitute straight grounds for deletion when it's expressly meant to be applied together with common sense and there's a (so far completely ignored) case to be made for the article? Why is absence of proof the proof of absence, when the article already survived one AfD and especially since it's uncontested that the comic did, in fact, meet the requirements? In fact, how is BradBeattie not liking the result of the first AfD a sufficient change of circumstance to merit having another one? --Kizor 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, everything about WP:WEB is negotiable if you can make a good case except for the part of it that is derived straight from WP:V. What can you say about Acid Reflux that can be verified? I'm not unsympathetic to the desire to keep an article on this comic (I !voted keep in the last AFD), but there needs to be something verifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- This required possibly the biggest chill pill I've ever needed in my editing history. I'll try to keep things from getting to me so much in the future. There's very little in the article that can't be readily confirmed on the website, but if it's any good, Acid Reflux got a glowing review on Tangents, which certainly is a respected and popular site in its community. --Kizor 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unless it's gotten huge in the last two months, Tangents was the comic review blog where Rob sucked up to comics writers he happened to like. It's one man's personal opinion site, not a "respected and popular site." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Worth a shot. --Kizor 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Better than when Snowspinner was citing that one godawful embarassing blog (I'm blocking on Talkaboutcomics, that wasn't it) that's associated with Comixpedia as though it were the Princeton Review of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Worth a shot. --Kizor 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unless it's gotten huge in the last two months, Tangents was the comic review blog where Rob sucked up to comics writers he happened to like. It's one man's personal opinion site, not a "respected and popular site." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- This required possibly the biggest chill pill I've ever needed in my editing history. I'll try to keep things from getting to me so much in the future. There's very little in the article that can't be readily confirmed on the website, but if it's any good, Acid Reflux got a glowing review on Tangents, which certainly is a respected and popular site in its community. --Kizor 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, everything about WP:WEB is negotiable if you can make a good case except for the part of it that is derived straight from WP:V. What can you say about Acid Reflux that can be verified? I'm not unsympathetic to the desire to keep an article on this comic (I !voted keep in the last AFD), but there needs to be something verifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have no illusions about AR being comparable to either PvP or PA. I'm just pointing out that in my arrogant opinion Edison's standard is unreasonable. Now, why does failing WEB constitute straight grounds for deletion when it's expressly meant to be applied together with common sense and there's a (so far completely ignored) case to be made for the article? Why is absence of proof the proof of absence, when the article already survived one AfD and especially since it's uncontested that the comic did, in fact, meet the requirements? In fact, how is BradBeattie not liking the result of the first AfD a sufficient change of circumstance to merit having another one? --Kizor 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - article gives me (and probably wikipedia) acid reflux. Anomo 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable webcomic. WillyWonty 22:19, 24 October 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.
