Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Blank Label Comics.--Alf ^melmac 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starslip_Crisis

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

The page fails to follow some Wikipedian guidelines, such as this one (#5: where is the significance? Nothing of merit is listed), and this one (no significant coverage, no awards of merit, etc.). As well, even admins have been quoted as saying that the previous AfD nomination was valid in its criticisms, even if the person starting it did so for improper reasons. FJArnett 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC) — FJArnett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - the first guideline listed by the nominator doesn't really apply, technically: the article is not about the website [starslipcisis.com], it is about the webcomic Starslip Crisis. Also, it does, in fact, meet the second guideline mentioned by the nominator - check the awards section in the article.

In addition, this nomination seems to have been requested by Straub himself here, where he said that he doesn't wish the article to remain on Wikipedia because he "wouldn’t want anyone to think the people running Wikipedia’s webcomics project knew anything about the strip". In addition, another commentor posted the following:

"Here’s hoping Starslip gets well and truly deleted, it’s not like they actually know about your comic anyway, they just want to reinstate it to save face and pretend they aren’t as close minded as you proved them to be".

(Note: the preceding is just for informational purposes so that other editors can make their own decisions - I'm not taking this as a bad-faith nom at all). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - (1) The comic is notable as it has been nominated multiple times for the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. (2) The comic is notable b/c Penny Arcade (itself a notable webcomic) has referred to it [1] [2], and "Tycho" wrote the introduction to one of the books. (3) The author, Kristofer Straub, moderated a panel at Comic-Con 2006. [3] --zandperl 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The E+P link satisfies WP:V, and the WCCA noms are enough to establish notability. Mr. Straub's opinion on the matter really isn't relevant, IMO. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notability and verifiability established above. Rogue 9 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per previous discussion, what we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. Best I can find is a trivial mention in passing on Editor and Publisher's website (not their print edition) and a three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper that begins "To round out my list, I have to include the sci-fi humor strip 'Starslip Crisis' by my friend Kris Straub ..." I thought it might be worth merging a paragraph on this comic to Blank Label Comics, but can't find decent sources for that topic either. --Dragonfiend 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, a bit new to Wikipedia here. But don't we use Wikipedia:Notability (web) as criteria for web content instead of the regular WP:N? Leaf of Silver 12:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia. It's best to avoid reading policies and guidelines in isolation from one another -- they're all interconnected. For example, WP:NOT a web directory also applies. -- Dragonfiend 10:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I don't really feel that this is notable or verifiable enough, but i'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not satisfied with the notability of the awards it has won. Can some of the keep voters demonstrate the basis for its notability? Savidan 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Current WCCA sources are an article in the New York Times, an ep of Attack of the Show, and a radio interview. This year's award ceremony will take place at Megacon. The Awards are currently in AfD because some people argue that the sources are trivial. For the current discussion, go to the AfD. --Sid 3050 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I remember hearing of Starslip Crisis on at least two separate Internet contexts at least six months ago. I've never read it, but after reading the article, it sounds like an interesting comic. By the way, many notable AND non-notable webcomics (indeed, many print comics and print comic strips) have trade paperback collections; both Garfield and El Goonish Shive have collections available. One point I've not heard yet in this discussion: notability is based on context. For the larger world audience, any Parkour enthusiasts or Free running clubs outside of the originators are largely irrelevant; the same is likely true of past Toastmasters World Champions of Public Speaking, but as a Toastmasters AC-B myself, I would recognize the names of at least the past three if I heard them in passing. Webcomics are largely more notable within their intended audience, as is everything else. There are people who don't know anything about Brian Peppers, and people who don't know anything about Bahrain; if those people are called on to decide the notability of such articles, they're not as likely to find it notable as people who know more about the subject. On whose context does Wikipedia depend? --BlueNight 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if you're familiar with it already, but reading WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_subjective might answer some of your questions. -- Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like that may be wrong though, as we seem to be having arguments over what constitutes reliable published works as detailed in this part of the guidance: "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." I'd suggest it is subjective, the arguments support that and that that section be stricken. Steve block Talk 11:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak merge to Kristofer Straub. As much as the WCCAs are going to get an article, I've voted in them. So I have no faith in its capacity to confer magical notability dust upon other articles. As sources go, it is also profiled at the ComicCon Pulse. After that, I poked through all the links Google will let me see on both "Starslip Crisis" and "Starshift Crisis" but don't see anything not already mentioned that would be especially useful in writing a decent article (WP:WAF). Therefore, I would rather merge it and the not-very-well-sourced-either Checkerboard Nightmare into their creator's article (which now has a section on this whole brouhaha. Wheeeee...). Nifboy 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You do know that series Pulse "Intro to Webcomics" items were written and submitted by the webcomic's authors? I think there was a pretty open-door policy on them, with none of them rejected. --Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is a special case, and I feel the circumstances of what happened compel us to allow this article to live for at least a while as a matter of fairness. In recognition of our error, let's give those interested in the subject a few months to work on this without interference. Everyking 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure why that would be -- whether they were sock puppets (seemed obvious to me) or just goofy new users, their sillier arguments (Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc.) were pushed aside to focus on actual content standards, which the article didn't meet then or now. I think the idea was that the puppeteer was going to nominate the article based on a bad Alexa search and back it up with things like "hasn't even been invited as a guest to conventions." Then when it would get deleted for those reasons, the puppeteer would say it was all a joke and that the Alexa search was bad and he really was a convention guest and we would all be really embarrassed and keep his article. Instead, we ruined the joke and said "Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc. aren't particularly useful for writing encyclopedia articles," and deleted it based on our actual policies rather than somebody goofing around with puppets. In other words, clumsiest attempt ever at WP:POINT with WP:SOCK backfired on the little WP:DICK. --Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "sock puppets (seemed obvious to me) or just goofy new users" Whatever happened to "Do not bite the newbies"? This particular new (or, rather, returned) user is pretty ticked off with a certain webcomic artist about wasting his time with the first AfD and far from being anyones puppet, sock or meat.--BoatThing 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. AFAIK, we still require RS, verifiability and notability. Was this webcomic "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works"? The article does not indicate anything like this.

To zandperl: being referred in a trivial way from Penny Arcade does not make it notable. It's like claiming that I'm notable because my name was briefly mentioned in a couple of articles published in notable newspapers. bogdan 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable at all. If Kristopher Straub is notable, possibly Merge with that article. - Francis Tyers · 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, where are the independent and reliable sources? Where is the non-trivial coverage. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per zandperl's reasoning Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it has been nominated for the WCCA in multiple years (and in multiple categories each year) and has won in one category last year (this year's winners to be announced). By the time of this writing, that is enough to fulfill WP:WEB. --Sid 3050 13:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete My general concern is the lack of reliable sources to build a proper encyclopedic article around outside of primary sources. Also the notability of the WCCA is very much in dispute because it has received very little media attention and leads to the question of if it is "well-known". --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 13:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The comic is notable due to WCCA awards. WCCA is notable within the industry in question - most people don't know about advertising industry awards either, but that doesn't make them unnotable. Comic is notable due to association with the author, [Kristofer Straub], and his position in the industry makes his works notable.Timmccloud 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Lots of non-notable webcomics have won WCCA's. Boxjam 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Impossible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you ready to call 'Supermegatopia' and 'Anne Frank Conquers the Moon Nazis' notable?Boxjam 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Blank Label Comics (and actually merge rather than redirecting without putting any content) --Random832(tc) 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)keep - should probably be cleaned up somewhat, but I don't see any real reason it shouldn't have an article. --Random832(tc) 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. That award that's so important to WP:WEB-quoting editors? It doesn't matter. And how do we know that it doesn't matter? There's no non-trivial reporting of the winning of the award. Or of anything else to do with this webcomic. What material in this article is attributable, rather than being the opinion of the editors? The WP:N requirement for sources is not optional, and it's not there for no reason. Absent sources we get left with stuff that ignores WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and assorted other WP:NOTs. Kristofer Straub, Checkerboard Nightmare, and Blank Label Comics aren't exactly poster-children for verifiability and sourcing either. If I had been the recipient of Wikipedia-hosted free advertising, like Straub was, and still is, I'd have kept stumm. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete or trim to stub or trim and merge: as discussed in the previous AFD, the E&P reference is trivial and establishes nothing except for the Blank Label Comics relationship. There is also an interview with Straub (currently absent from the article) which does the same. The WCCA maybe establishes notability, but contains no information about the comic. With what are we supposed to verify the article, unless all it says is that the comic is part of Blank Label Comics and has won that award? And if that’s all, it might as well be in Blank Label Comics instead. —xyzzy_n 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't have multiple non-trivial mentions. Boxjam 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Kris Straub is one of the more notable webcomic authors on the internet. Much as a book by a famous author can have an article even before it is published, a 5-day per week webcomic by Straub is likely going to be notable. As has been mentioned, the article has been nominated for multiple awards, has been published, and has been mentioned outside of media published by the author. Icelight 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where has it been published? —xyzzy_n 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • http://www.starslipcrisis.com/ Right there. The comic published on a website. It's as verifiably published as Wikipedia is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.18.151 (talk • contribs).
      • Anybody can put stuff on a website. Well, anybody with access to the Internet and enough money for hosting and possibly a domain, but that’s still a lot of people. Was it published in any place that is independent from the artist? —xyzzy_n 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please cite those sources! If you really know of them, this whole thing can be settled! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per the WP:IAR guideline. Ravenswood 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (Aside from the fact that IAR is a policy, not just a guideline) Citing IAR without providing a rationale is useless. IAR states "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." - How does this article by existing prevent you from improving or maintaining wikipedia? --Random832(tc) 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator --NuclearZer0 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Starslip Crisis is a notable Webcomic if for no other reason than the notability of its creator. The comic itself belongs to a well known collective and maintains a professional level of quality both online and in print. If this comic is ultimately considered not notable, I would argue that fewer than a dozen Webcomics could stand the same level of scrutiny. Seph Vellius 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. `'mikka 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator --NuclearZer0 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, regardless of abusiveness of previous AfD, this still fails WP:N due to lack of sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It won a WCCA award in 2006 and was nominated for numerous others. Bryan Derksen 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If this isn't notable then very few webcomics are. Within its field (i.e. the web) it has a lot of attention. LukeSurl 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "very few webcomics are...(notable)" We have a winner! Very few webcomics are notable! (Just like probably only one in ten thousand people, if that, are notable.) This one is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "We have a winner! Very few webcomics are notable! (Just like probably only one in ten thousand people, if that, are notable.)" You might as well delete every single webcomic but Penny-Arcade then, since The list, the most complete list of webcomics I've been able to find lists only 8,300 - that's including webcomics that no longer update and comics in multiple languages. Assuming that the actual number of webcomics is as much as 3 times what this site has been able to find... we're still looking at 24,000. My point is to show how much this has been blown out of proportion. It is possible for reasonable people to come to a consensus on what webcomics should be considered notable without resorting to off the wall numbers. Seph Vellius 06:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That 24,000 estimate sounds incredibly low. Why would we expect that 1/3 of all webcomics in the world are listed on that site? They don't seem to list American Elf or Arbit Choudhury or Arcana Jayne or Le blog de Frantico or Buzzer Beater or Captain RibMan or Cox & Forkum or Cuentos De La Frontera or Dharma the Cat or Everybody Loves Eric Raymond or Fetus-X or Finder or Idiot Box or Leisure Town or Makeshift Miracle or Miss Dynamite or Mom's Cancer or I think you get the point. There are zillions of webcomics subcultures that rarely overlap. If that site isn't listing the webcomics that have won Eisner Awards or been featured on CNN, then they're definitely not listing anything close to 1/3 of all the webcomics somebody made up in school one day. --Dragonfiend 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have reliable sources that say so? —xyzzy_n 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia should not be bitter [4] --NuclearZer0 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per what I said in the previous discussion. Enough of this. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep More then worthy of staying on Wikipedia. Alyeska 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you speak on why it is worthy of staying on Wikipedia? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you speak on why it is not? If you were being honest here, you'd admit that you're destroying information because you can... and perhaps because you're a tad bitter over the author's stunt. If winning awards at the WCCA doesn't establish notability in webcomics then nothing does. And don't even think of turning that around to say that no webcomics are notable because many clearly are; otherwise, there wouldn't be so much controversy over the current deletion spree. Rogue 9 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's about impact or historical significance as covered in reputable sources. Winning an award doesn't establish notability in webcomics if no reputable third-party sources note winning it. What does establish notability is to write articles based on the types multiple, non-trivial reputable sources like you'll find in webcomics-related articles like When I Am King, Megatokyo, Van Von Hunter, Fetus-X, Mark Fiore, Get Your War On, Sluggy Freelance, Dicebox, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Gene Yang, Narbonic, Leisure Town, etc. -- Dragonfiend 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Winning a WCCA and winning nine WCCA nominations in two years makes this a textbook open-and-shut case under WP:WEB's criteria for notability. Balancer 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Being nominated for 800 awards doesn't meet web notability standards. If being nominated for a WCCA is notable, then 'Vicious Lies' is a notable webcomic. --Boxjam 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You think the WCCA are "a well-known and independent award"? --Dragonfiend 09:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Beyond any doubt the award is well-known. Its independence is more questionable in principle, but you'll have a lot of trouble making the argument that the WCCA is measurably less independent than other prominent awards, such as the Oscars. Balancer 09:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:WEB Criterion #2 – The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, in your opinion the New York Times article is trivial, as are all the other sources. That doesn't make them trivial, and I don't think the article is on shaky ground. The article meets our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Are you suggesting our policies have less worth than our guidance? Steve block Talk 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't twist my words. New York Times is not a un-reliable or trivial source in my opinion. Try to read the arguments carefully. There is nothing more than a transient mention of the webcomic in the sources. It should be non-trivial as is explicitly stated in our guidelines. And yes, policies are more important than guidelines; but please familiarise yourself appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not twisting your words, and please don't accuse me of doing such. You wrote "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." I took that to mean the whole of your words were talking about the awards. And I am well aware of the difference between policy and guidelines. However, if you believe I need to familiarise myself with them, perhaps you should stop relying on them, since I wrote the guidance and had a hand in the policy, and I would hate to think I wasn't familiar with something I wrote or that people were relying on something that was written by someone not conversant with policy and guidelines. Steve block Talk 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, in your opinion the New York Times article is trivial, as are all the other sources. Your own comment Yes, the sources provided for the article are trivial and not worthy of substantiating articles with. If you think they are, then you are confusing Wikipedia with Usenet or some other public forum. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• And your point is? First clarify to what your statement "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." refers, and then we can establish whether I misunderstood your meaning or not. I take it to mean, as I stated above, that "the whole of your words were talking about the awards". Is that not the case? If not, I would suggest that at any rate I have established to what my words apply. As to what I am confusing Wikipedia with, nice words but perhaps you are confusing Wikipedia with your own personal playground if you think that it is only your opinion that is important. I do hope you don't dismiss everyone who disagrees with you in such a manner. I'm not going to get into a debate over sources until you clarify for me what sources you referred to with your statement "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." Steve block Talk 10:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I must apologise for the previous statement, I did not intend to assert myself on you. In my opinion, these awards are neither notable enough to be included on Wikipedia nor should they be used to assert and substantiate the notability of a webcomic, purely based on them. I hope I make myself clear here. I believe if you are rooting for the article because they have been mentioned in the New York times, the argument is not valid. As there is only a trvial mention of the WCCA in the article, which is not enough to make it notable for inclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. I'm still unclear as to what we are discussing. Are we discussing Starslip Crisis, which has not been mentioned in the NYT; or the WCCA, which has, and which you assert is a trivial mention and which I assert is not, and which you further assert should not merit inclusion since it fails a guideline, and which I further assert should merit inclusion since it meets policies. If we are discussing the latter article's deletion debate, I suggest we don't do it here. If you want to make the case that the WCCA aren't of enough value to ascribe notions of notability outlined at WP:WEB, go ahead. I'd merely point out that the important points are the policies, and that what needs to be examined is whether the article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. This isn't the place to discuss subjective notions of triviality regarding the sources of an article not up for deletion here. Steve block Talk 10:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's some confusion here. This comic has never been mentioned in the NYT. --Dragonfiend 10:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Eww, wait. I thought this was some AfD where brenneman had commented. All the participants are same. /me smacks head. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The grounds for meeting WP:N for an article are in general stricter than the grounds for something being well known. The fact that the WCCA clearly meet those grounds, of course, means that the frequent attempts to conflate "notable" and "well known" on webcomic AFDs in relation to the WCCA are inappropriate. If we conflate "notable" and "well known," then clearly this is a notable comic because it is well-known. Do you understand that? Balancer 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Well known"? No one outside of a very small fraction of certain online subcultures seems to even be aware of those awards. They certainly don't seem to garner much media attention. One of their administrators says that "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening, despite [his] repeatedly pointing out that we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them."[5] --Dragonfiend 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that a very significant fraction of those regularly reading webcomics that have won WCCAs are aware of the WCCAs... which in itself constitutes a rather large number of people if you start adding up readership figures. They do not garner much media attention off the internet, but do garner a fair amount of attention on the internet. Just not as much as they'd like; call webcomic artists demanding attention whores as a community if you like. See search engine results, a prime indicator of net attention, which show the WCCAs coming up higher on a number of interrelated searches than the mammoth Eisners and Reubens (e.g., the basic comics+awards search), sometimes even outranking the perennial Usenet-favored Squiddies. Balancer 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pointing to search engines is a moot point. We are not dealing with blogs, fan-cruft and the silly things users do online and then create forums and galleries on them. We need solid and reliable sources, which this article unfortunately does not possess. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, you conflate notability with being well-known. Pointing to search engines is (mostly) a moot point in establishing notability. It is, however, a very direct way of establishing how well known something is. Google is in general a very good indicator of how prominently something features on the internet. The WCCAs clearly are well-known. Balancer 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Since the WCCAs are clearly well-known, and independent by the standards of awards commitees everywhere, then WP:WEB applies to give clear notability to Starslip Crisis on the "awards" clause. Balancer 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• How do you get "clearly well known" out of "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening ... we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them." This award is small time and relatively unkown and the people running it readily admit to it. --Dragonfiend 10:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't get it out of that. I got it out of independent criteria, not the blog of some administrator who thinks the project they work on isn't getting enough attention. Clearly he thinks they deserve to be better known; also clearly it is already well-known. Read more carefully next time. Balancer 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can we get a marker down of how well known we all think they are? I'm going to say as well known as the Cranes. Any advances? Am I too high? Steve block Talk 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I've rewritten the article to remove some original research and better reflect what can be sourced. We're not here to regurgitate plot, we're here to explain what something is to a general audience. We aren't the first and last stop on the road to finding out what this strip is all about, we're a map to where the stuff can be found which tells you what this strip is about. Steve block Talk 10:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't matter if it is re-written. It still fails verifiability, not truth - it doesn't matter where it was nominated, doesn't matter what it won, etc. There are no independent reliable sources to verify the content of this article save from the nominations themselves -> delete.--Konstable 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which are a reliable source for that information. It does not fail verifiability, not truth, it uses primary source for verification. Steve block Talk 11:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All I see are one-liner mentions. This does not support the material of a whole article.--Konstable 11:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's what I'm getting at. What we've got that can be verified independently is the first two sentences. Is that enough to build an article on. All the rest, I hope you will agree, can be fleshed out from primary source material. But is that first two sentences enough? If we had a stub with just those two sentences, sourced from a reliable source, is that enough? Would that be a stub worth having? Would that make us a better encyclopedia or a worse one? That's what I think the argument is, that's what I think we should be discussing. What better serves our readers? What are we here for? Let's forget the point/counter over well-known and triviality, this is basically what it is all about, isn't it? What's not enough information to write from? Steve block Talk 11:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Non trivial, multiple, secondary sources are required to establish notability. I am wondering how you are interpreting the guidelines. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm interpreting them as subsidiary to policy. I don't like to give more weight to a guideline than to a policy. The policies are the key, in fact to quote from WP:V,Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Now I can't see a mention of notability there, I can't see that those notability guidelines form a part of what should "determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles", so forgive me if I ignore them somewhat. I think that's what policy dictates me to do, but if I have it otherwise feel free to enlighten me. Steve block Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't agree that much can be fleshed out from the primary sources. There has to be enough third party sources to build an article. Then add a small portion from the subject itself. - Taxman ^Talk 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so what are we saying? Stubs are no good? Surplus to requirements? What do we do with them, merge them to where the information may be useful? Delete them? What are we doing here, what's the goal? An encyclopedia of the stuff we consensually agree we like? Where's the line? It's not a black and white issue we have here, is it, it's light and shade, and we dapple our canvas with care. What do we need? What is enough. Because it changes daily. We know this comic strip exists, but that's not enough. We can verify it exists, easily, but that's not enough. We can verify a point of note, that it was one of the first Blank Label Comics. But that's not enough. How do we decide what is enough? How do we explain to people who don't get it that that's not enough? Is it enough to say, look, go read that page over there, that's why? Does that work when that page doesn't really get specific? Or do we need to take the time to work out what isn't enough? What do we do when there is some merit for the information somewhere? I mean, we agree there's merit in a mention of the strip being made somewhere on Wikipedia, right? So should we explain that sometimes, until there's enough material to work with which allows us to write from a full neutral perspective, when there's enough sourcing to allow us to balance different point of views, when there's enough to seed an article and allow primary source material in, then the time is right? Do we allow primary source to build an article? And should we explain that sometimes we do allow articles to rely more heavily on primary source? And try and work out what the difference is? It's not easy working these ideas out, and we should never pretend it is. We shouldn't pass people off on poorly written guidance. We shouldn't even parrot it. We should take the time to consider the best thing for the article. We should listen to the article. Where does this article want to be? What do the independent sources tell us about this article? They tell us it is by Kristofer Straub and it was one of the strips with which Blank Label Comics launched. So it makes sense to include the information there. And if a stub isn't enough here, to allow people to digest that snippet and decide where they want to go first, either to Blank Label Comics or to Straub, then we've got to work out where to redirect it. We've got to take the time to work these issues out. Or we are just a headless bureaucracy. And I don't believe in that Wikipedia. I don't believe in a Wikipedia where we try and score points, where we just battle our position, where we fight and call each other names. I believe in a Wikipedia where we at least try and understand each other, and work towards a consensus, an outcome where we can all point to something conceded and something gained. Where we can share war stories and laugh. Where we build an encyclopedia. Is that fair enough? Steve block Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Nearly Headless Nick.dvdrw 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge if a suitable location can be found. Not enough third party reliable sources to build an article with. We don't need things on the edge until WP:VITAL are in good shape. - Taxman ^Talk 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Nick. Just H 12:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:V is easily met for a large amount of useful article content. E.g., the WCCA website can be cited for verification that the webcomic has been nominated for and won awards, and the Starslip Crisis website itself can be cited per WP:V for any assertions as to its content. Balancer 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No it can't. The subject itself can only be cited for very limited facts. For example x website can say they are the most popular X whatever with blah blah first this first that. But we can't build an article on that. The most that could be used in the article is X website claims blah. That's not very useful for an article. And articles keep getting expanded well out of bounds of WP:V. - Taxman ^Talk 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • He said its _content_. that is, a plot summary. Those are generally allowed. --Random832(tc) 20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, Taxman is right. The articles grow out of the bounds of WP:V, and also WP:NOT. Our articles generally shouldn't be based solely on plot. Also, having these articles encourages other articles. It's a hard thing, but what we've got to remember is that Wikipedia isn't google. If all we can tell you about something is what you can find on the website of that something, you're better off going straight to the website of that something. Steve block Talk 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge With Kristofer Straub or Blank Label Comics, unless the WCCA's survive the AfD, in which case keep as in won the sci-fi category in 2006 and is a nominee in several categories this year. --Aclapton 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced, The secondary mentions are trivial, and only enough to support a mention in the publisher's article. I could start an awards show with my friends and give away awards to their web sites, but that doesn't make them all article worthy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for cleanup. Subject is certainly notable enough. Article is not a great example of wikipedia, but that can be worked on in the coming weeks. Article should not be deleted before sufficient time has been given for a cleanup. -- Steven Fisher 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since first nomination was declared completely invalid, this should not be listed as a second nomination. --Steven Fisher 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (11th nomination) (Out of 19). Nifboy 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It has to be tagged as a subsequent nomination, or these comments will wind up on the same page as the original one. It doesn't mean the first nomination was valid. (I'm the admin who declared the prior nomination invalid so I understand your point, but any other solution is worse.) Newyorkbrad 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, you both have made good points. Thanks for explaining. Please consider my comment regarding the "2nd nomination" withdrawn. :) -Steven Fisher 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: "if you want to learn about the cotton gin, grab a damned encyclopedia, but where the hell am i gonna go if i wanna learn spock’s stunt-double’s name? y’know, something important."... 43 kb arguing about notability is 40 kb too long. Its either notable or its not, if you need to argue over it - its notable. The original AfD may be making a WP:POINT but it convinced me. Too many people these days abuse the deletion process for their own ends - thats why I stopped participating in them. --Eqdoktor 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I just find some of the above arguments hopelessly overwrought. I have been following the debate from the external websites where this issue is being discussed (the "crusade" within wikipedia to delete webcomic articles). They are right, the Wikipedia itself is not notable. Its a joke as an "encyclopedia" when 50% of the time (90% all stats are made-up), any major article I look up has a chance of being polluted by some bored grade school kid vandalism. I say, WP:NOT#PAPER in this case and just move on. --Eqdoktor 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominated for the webcomic equivalent of an Emmy award, notable within its niche. Wikipedia is not bound by the limitations of paper, and to remove the article from our encyclopedia on such shaky grounds would be a disservice to our readers. Silensor 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I love it how not enough reliable sources to build an article is considered shaky grounds. That's got to be the saddest thing for the progress of the quality of our project I've heard in a long time. - Taxman ^Talk 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I love how you think there aren't enough reliable sources. That's the point of dispute here; you can't just assume that there aren't enough reliable sources and then use that as evidence that there aren't enough reliable sources; that's simply begging the question. Rogue 9 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually the evidence is that no one has been able to produce any reliable references other than one line mentions and the reliability of those sources is not beyond reproach. If you can provide the needed reliable references we're all listening. If you can't, we need to delete. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• no, deletion is not the only solution. Merging would be the right move here, since we have reliable sources to allow a one line mention in a larger article. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's true of course, if a suitable merge location can be found. - Taxman ^Talk 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kristofer Straub or Blank Label Comics. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Ral315 » 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; we could learn a lot from Half-Pixel's case study on this to boot. MalikCarr 01:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "A previous AfD was abusive" is not an argument for "so the next AfD should have the opposite result." And Taxman...right on, is about all you can say to that! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• He didn't say that the previous AfD was an argument for keeping. He said we could learn from Half-Pixel's experiment and case study. And he's right. Rogue 9 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• And what are we supposed to learn? Sometimes people use sockpuppets on the internet? --Dragonfiend 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• You don't see it, do you? Okay, fine, I'll spell it out: The deletion process is hopelessly corrupt. Any tomfool can put an article up for deletion, and can apparently also make ten sockpuppets to vote for delete because for some unfathomable reason, it seems that delete voters aren't checked. It takes just a few people to take the hard work of a dozen or potentially scores of editors and just make it disappear. And when you're supposed to be making the sum of human knowledge, that is ridiculously counterproductive. Rogue 9 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, no I don't see it. There is no ballot box to stuff, so it doesn't matter how many not-a-votes some fool casts. What matters is the strength of the arguments, and in the previous discussion the sockpuppets made a bunch of goofy arguments for deletion (never been to a convention, bad alexa rank, etc.) that were shot down in favor of the policy-based comments from actual editors. It doesn't matter if a goofy sock puppeteer nominated the article for silly reasons; his reasons were pushed aside and the article was deleted for good reasons -- this article, then as now, does not meet our content policies. Sure, this is the encyclopedia any idiot can pass the time by making up 20 imaginary friends for himself to talk to, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:NOT a web directory, and we don't have enough verifiable information form third-party reliable sources to write a neutral article on this topic without slipping into original research. --Dragonfiend 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The foolery taking place offwiki is meaningless to me. What I do see, however, are ample reliable sources about a notable webcomic. RFerreira 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please link to those reliable sources that provide enough material to write an article. - Taxman ^Talk 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of Fuffy Pink Bunnies! Everybody relax, take a deep breath and step away from your keyboards. This AfD is getting far too heated. Calm down. --Aclapton 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• And Remember Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man LukeSurl 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While popular, this comic is not truly notable -- It has failed to make an impact in the webcomics community. JackSlack 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. It should be deleted in accordance with the wishes of our WikiOverlords on project Webcomic Witchhunt. Also, deleting it will encourage a whole bunch of potential Wikipedians who read about this to instead give up on Wikipedia in disgust before they even start. After all, you know how much our lords and masters hate having to explain to new people that while all Wikipedians are equal, some are more equal than others. Thus, making Wikipedia a laughingstock should be encouraged at all times.

• Keep, and restore the excised content... Wikipedia's core content policies (not the vague and subjective and even contradictory bureaucratic bloat that has evolved around them) do not equate using primary sources with performing original research (which it isn't)... that is using multiple sources (primary or otherwise) to synthesize something new. Even if the only source for some information is the author's own output, it should not matter, so long as it's not a matter of grandiose/self-aggrandizing claims. Therefore even the excising of information that cannot be verified except by using the comic's own website is unnecessary. The question of whether or not the comic is notable is a separate one from whether or not the information presented is verifiable.... but following the policy failure that is the web notability guidelines does -not- make Wikipedia better, or improve its credibility. Short term solution: ignore the guidelines. Long term solution: jettison them. Clinging to them like a protective talisman will only alienate the largest group outside of die-hard-wikipedians who find any relevance in Wikipedia: the internet-savvy folks. Or did I miss something where the goal of the project to make a resource used only by Wikipedians? Alexandra Erin 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of the core content policies are at odds with both their spirit and the letter. There is nothing ambiguous about needing multiple reliable third party references. There are two paths we can go by, yours which amounts to almost no efforts to set minimum information quality standards and the other which will ensure high information quality. - Taxman ^Talk 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Mine results in no degradation of information quality. Yours results in an "encyclopedia" that will only be paid attention to by the people who choose to spend their time catering to the increasingly complex, irrelevant, and bizarre rituals that have evolved to support its existence. Multiple third party sources do establish (tautologically) that a subject is notable enough to be mentioned in third party sources, and thus "deserves" an article... but once such notability has been established for the topic of the article, there's nothing gained by using those sources exclusively for the body, as some are saying. "Okay, so this subject comes up in multiple third party sources. Clearly it's worth mentioning. But there's not enough information in these sources for the article to say anything useful. Delete!" It's a pointless, double-layered notability test that would only make sense if Wikipedia was under severe space constraints. The fact is that accepting a third-party source's information about something non-contentious, like say, the characters in a fictional work does 'nothing' to improve the quality or reliability of information as opoposed to going straight to the primary. Their ultimate source is the first-party source. Reliable third-party sources have fact checkers, you say? They go back to the first-party source, too. The core content policies are unambiguous that simply accepting first-party information is not original research in and of itself, and while a lot of rather dense shrubbery has sprung up surrounding the relatively simple and workable ideas in the core content policies, "Ignore All Rules" trumps everything if the rules aren't making wikipedia better. This silly game of "Well, even if you and I and anybody with a mind to do so can go check out the page and verify that the information is accurate, that doesn't make the information verifiable." is just that... a silly game. Whether ones cites a primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, or googolnary source... the citation still comes down to nothing more than editor saying, "Well, I read this stuff right here, in this source that anybody can go check out if somebody wanted to contest it." On the other hand, if somebody wanted to put in their take on the Jungian symbolism behind Starslip Crisis and said "Just look at the strip... it's all there!", THAT would unambiguously be original research... saning (yes, I said "saning"... imagine a verb, "to sane.") down the content policies needn't open the much-feared flood gates to reams of unverifiable speculation as some people need to fear, any more than acknowledging that in the Brave New World that has such online fricking encylopedias in it web-based notoriety really IS notability will turn Wikipedia into a directory of crappy Geocities pages. Alexandra Erin 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• TLDR, but it looks like you’re seeing a general problem with some rules. Therefore, instead of invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for individual cases, you should seek a consensus on changing the problematic policies and guidelines. I suggest starting with WP:NOT#IINFO, which currently says that an article can only contain a plot summary if it also contains a proportional amount of secondary information—which, in turn, must be from secondary sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (or Wikipedia:Attribution). —xyzzy_n 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This campaign to delete webcomics articles is ridiculous. This article has plenty of information (not a stub!) and is about a comic which has received numerous awards. How is it non-notable? Rwald 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A webcomic by a notable webcomic author that has been nominated for multiple awards and won one (the AfD debate seems to indicate that it is a notable award). --James 10:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The last AfD was a WP:POINT posterchild, and as far as I'm concerned, so is this one. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good God, I feel sorry for the closer of this thing. That aside, though, you've provided no rationale for a keep vote. Many users have agreed with the nominator's rationale that the article should be deleted, that hardly points to a WP:POINT nomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Policy and reasoning are out the window when I like it and I don't like it comes around. Hopefully the people that don't appeal to policy will be ignored. Only when that happens can we move to deletion discussion where policy is the deciding factor. To the extent the discussion here has been around interpretations of policy, its' been productive. - Taxman ^Talk 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nope, WP:POINT is more than sufficient in this case. In my bolder, more active days I would have killed this nomination the moment I saw it, process wonks be damned. There's been way too much grandstanding over webcomics lately, and going for an AfD so soon after the last one is just continuing that trend. It's disruptive, and that trumps the comparatively trivial squabbling over inclusionist and deletionist ideals. This could have been dealt with by continued discussion on the related talk pages. A redirect could have even been hammered out there without the need for an AfD. But instead we get this. It's disappointing. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge verifable information to Kristofer Straub and replace with protected redirect. That's how I'd close it, at any rate. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a reasonably well-known webcomic and there is no substantial dispute that the content is true and accurate. Lines must be drawn as to notability but this comic reasonably surpasses them per several of the sources that have been added to the article since last week's events. There is plenty of clearly non-notable material in thousands of articles here that needs deletion, but the amount of time this community spends on policing the precise borderlands of notability in instances like this can sometimes be disproportionate to the return on investment. Newyorkbrad 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment One point that I can't resist making -

Are we trying to claim that the author of the comic is not considered an expert on his own comic, and thus his own comic isn't considered a usable source at all?

because, from WP:OR -

that would be the only valid reason for denying the use of the comic itself as a source. It does not violate WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:OR unless you argue that an author isn't an expert on his own work, because we have a single, reliable source, so long as we do not draw any interpretations from it. It would make a small article, but not any smaller than the less well-known fictional books or movies we have on the site.

Under Wikipolicy, an article CAN be written from the comic. It is incorrect to say that it can't. The question is whether one SHOULD be written - ie, notability. Or, if you'd like to make a sweeping statement, whether we should have articles that are little more than book summaries. Both of those are perfectly legitimate debates to have, but one that I have no interest engaging in myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 29.138.2.170 (talk • contribs).

• • Comment edited to conserve vertical space. —xyzzy_n 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on the above unsigned comment: You seem to have missed WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Dragonfiend 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And also WP:NOT#IINFO: ‘Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.’ —xyzzy_n 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, there is that (which I had, admittedly, missed, and means that I have a number of books to flag for AfD under WP:NOT), but I was mostly arguing against the belief that primary sources couldn't be used at all, which is what some in this AfD seemed to be suggesting. Any fictional work that passed WP:N would, properly written, be capable of passing WP:NOT, however, as there would be verifiable awards/interviews/references that would need to be included as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.2.170 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Well, there are three arguments against that, two of which follow the letter, and the third of which is follows the spirit. This is to the point of spectacularly splitting hairs, but such is what happens when an argument gets this ridiculous. Note, please, that I am refering to just about all parties on both sides of the ongoing webcomic issue.

Like I said, there are legitimate arguments to be made, but they aren't WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Though I'd enjoy seeing you argue WP:OR and WP:RS. 129.138.2.170 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Someone who doesn't want to be associated with this debacle

Comment edited for vertical space. Also, this is the Starslip Crisis deletion discussion (take two), the El Goonish Shive deletion discussion is this way. —xyzzy_n 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the long comments, I should have done that myself. I'm not certain I understand your comment, though... Never mind, I figured it out. Guess I need to be keeping better track of which webcomic author is which, sorry again 129.138.2.170 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)same person

• Keep: I don't see a reason given to delete the article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lets make Wikipedia better by editing not deleting -- UKPhoenix79 13:48, 21 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.