Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terinu (second 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 No Consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terinu

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

Non notable webcomic, fails WP:NOTE. The first debate, over a year ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terinu, closed as no consensus. The major keep argument was that it was published offline (on paper), but these publications are by lulu, i.e. self-published. No awards, no reviews by WP:RS, no claims to importance or notability. 67 distinct Google hits[1], most from the usual suspects (lulu.com, homepage, buzzcomix.net, comixpedia, ...). Fram 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Googling terinu hewitt -wikipedia jolted results to 600+, but response is mostly Australian web fanhood writing, and nothing sourcable. If truly non-V then non-N and it should go. MURGH ^disc. 10:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This webcomic doesn't even fall into a grey area regarding notability. This really needs to go, as it represents a near-textbook case of cruft. NetOracle 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Petition accepted no independently verifiable sources. - Francis Tyers · 11:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• A print comic that's been going since 1986 and moved to the web? I still don't know enough to voice an opinion, but I think those should be taken into account. DS 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sign of reputable sources necessary for encyclopedia writing. -- Dragonfiend 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a 20 year old published comic, judged as a webcomic. Selfpublished doesn't hold it when it makes it to (Australian) real-life stores. They don't just take anything non-notable. There is so much wrong with that I can't even start to mention. If anything, tag it for goodness sakes and get rid of these stupid AfD-before-tag's. JackSparrow Ninja 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

*Weak delete, because the information is unverified. Let's work on trying to verify it however, because it is correct, I'm going back to keep. JackSparrow Ninja 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Any WP:RS sources for any of this? 20 years old? Comixpedia says nothing about this[2]. I can't seem to find it on the homepage[3], which does confirm that it's self published and only available in a few specialist stores). Longevity, even if confirmed, is not a reason to keep. Notability, as verified by independent reliable sources, is all we need and want. Fram 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, a verifiability note would have come in handy. There's no word on that being untrue, it's just said it's considered non-notable (with the given information). I've changed my vote (for now). JackSparrow Ninja 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the "twenty year" claim only stems from the supposed launch date in the infobox on the right, not from the main text, and so I at first missed that: otherwise I would have commented on it in my nomination. Thanks for reconsidering for the time being. Fram 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep based on the new sources. JackSparrow Ninja 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Terinu" is a significant, long-running Australian print comic that has been on sale regularly for many years, before it was a webcomic and before it was made available through Lulu. It was also included in the book "Operation Funnybone." Failure to win Awards in Australia should not be regarded as having any weight, as the Ledgers are fledgling (2 years so far) and controversial. It should definitely be retained in the Wikipedia! Ian T (in Australia) 12 February 2007

• Keep, based on references added to article which I believe serve to satisfy the critricism that it doesn't meet WP:V. Article needs a big hit with a cleanup stick though, but afd is not clean-up. Steve block Talk 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It would be rather hard for this to only be published through Lulu if it's been around in print since 1986. Fram, please investigate the subject better before putting up an AFD. Ian, can you provide any links or details about this? This may meet WP:N after all, but it's hard for me to be sure. Balancer 09:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Keep based on the added sources now that I've re-reviewed the article. I count multiple independent and presumably reliable sources, which means that it meets WP:N. I would question classing this as a webcomic seeing as the print form seems to be much better known than the online form. Balancer 09:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Pardon me, but which and where are the new sources removing all doubt? I saw the Operation Funnybone publication when I initially looked into this, but as it struck me as a bit-part inclusion in a charity publication, and I could hardly see it as one of the mulitple reliable non-trivial independent etc.. (I have certainly seen similar publications containing contributions noone would use to establish notability). The other listed paper reviews, Inkspot and OzComics are.. well, whatever they are. Good faith ought to give time for these sources to become useful to the article, and I will neutralise my consensus flag, but what has yet, strictly speaking, changed? What in this article, apart from a Funnybone participation, is and will be verifiable? —MURGH ^disc. 12:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Whatever they are" being magazines about comics. A review is a non-trivial mention for an arts topic, and the sources seem (from what little I can dig up about them) to be independent, reliable, and published, which is what WP:N requires. (Being circulated outside Australia, or available online, are not conditions applicable to WP:N.) That said, the article as written does need an awful lot of cleanup. It's an interesting contrast between this article and Greeneyes, which I've suggested does not meet WP:N in its AFD; the Greeneyes article is fairly well-written, while this one is utterly awful. Balancer 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • • Inkspot, as far as I can tell, is the members magazine / bulletin of the ACA, and isn't for sale. I wasn't able to check the Terinu review, since it appeared in #40 (not 41 as the article says), and only issues #41 and later are available online. It is a borderline case for a reliable source indicating notability (assuming the review is substantial, which I believe it is). The review was written by Ian Thomas, a comics creator and enthousiast, and also a contributor to Funnybone, and also a reviewer for Ozcomics, which makes me wonder if he has also written the Terinu review in that magazine (just a hunch, no way to confirm this for me). This would mean that the multiple independent reviews are not so independent after all... Can anyone shed some light on this? Fram 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I move that we extend discussion to answer Fram's question. Fram is not alone in thinking this may be critical. Balancer 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not critical for me. Verifiability, a policy, is satisfied. Notability, a guideline, may not be. On which should we place the greater emphasis? Steve block Talk 10:21, 14 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.