Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galaxion

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 Keep per sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galaxion

Galaxion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A comic strip, nonnotable under either WP:WEB or WP:BK. No third-party sources, such as reviews, are cited. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for now and assume the note that it is published is an assertion of notability under WP:CSD#A7; what are the community's views on this? Sandstein 05:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn after sources were provided. Thanks, Zeborah, for your work on this article. Sandstein 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Keep zero notability, could be a speedy. notability established --Daniel J. Leivick 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Found three reviews [1] [2] [3] and a interview with the creator about the comic on Sequential Tart, an important (third-party and edited) webzine -- there'll be more on that zine alone, I didn't drill down past the first five results. The editorial reviews at amazon.com also suggest more places to start looking for reviews. I'll research more tomorrow but even this quick search suggests the comic is notable. --Zeborah 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a speedy delete, but I would like to see evidence of reviews beyond Sequential Tart, before I change to a keep. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here's one from Cold Cut Distribution - granted they want to sell the comic, but they want to sell a whole heck of a lot of different comics from different publishers. Also one from The Comics Journal, another third-party edited magazine, and from Silver Bullet Comic Books (messy website but I think ditto). I find it harder to evaluate iComics but those are probably enough to start with anyway. --Zeborah 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. If you will include these citations in the article, preferably inline so as to source the content, I'll withdraw my nomination. Sandstein 06:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, for the most part. I still want to do something with the cast section (and if anyone knows how to make the "date" field in the web citation work when I only have month and year, that'd be good) but the page now has sufficient references to satisfy notability. --Zeborah 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete not a speedy, but still lacking nonetheless. NetOracle 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the presence of multiple sources. Do rewrite. Balancer 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep since neither WP:WEB nor WP:BK apply to comic books, and nor does sppedt criteria A7 or whastever the number was, I fail to see a legitimate reason for this nomination. AFD is not cleanup. We have cleanup tags for this stuff, and a comics project that will clean them up. It will take time, granted, but there is no deadline on Wikipedia. Steve block Talk 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established by revivews listed above, replace AFD tag with cleanups per Steve block. AFD's should not be used as substitutions for source and citation tags. Timmccloud 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - you'd think that this has happened enough times to teach to look before leaping. Oh well, there's plenty of counterexamples too. --Kizor 23:04, 15 February 2007 (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.