Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parking Lot is Full

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Parking Lot is Full

The Parking Lot is Full (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable. Unreferenced. And very very few google hits. This started as a PROD but there was enough objection that I felt like it should be an AfD instead. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kamope·?·! Sign! 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as initial prodder (thanks for making this an AfD, good call!). The main objection raised on the article talk page was that many other webcomics are equally non notable (two of the examples given by the objector have since already been removed). This is sadly true, and many webcomics have alreday been deleted or are currently nominated. As long as no arguments are given why this webcomic is verifiably notable, I fail to see why it should be kept. Fram 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 14:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not verifiable. Surely Comixpedia will take the rest of the text not yet interwikied.. MURGH ^disc. 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable, long-running webcomic in the late 1990s (an era when not everybody and their brother had webcomics). Numerous relevant Google hits, much more than many other webcomics with Wikipedia articles. Thunderbunny 02:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: have you any WP:RS sources, perhaps amongst those numerous relevant Google hits (I count 57 of them) [1], to show that this is indeed a notable webcomic? As for articles on other webcomics: many have already been deleted, probably some more will follow. Fram 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Fram Among the much more numerous hits for "The parking lot is full" + comic (~1000), there are is an interview[2] that gives a brief history of the comic, starting with a print origin in a student newspaper. As this review asserts[3], in spite of its lack of fame, it may have been one of the very first webcomics. It mostly seems to be reviewed in webzines[4], but I'm having no trouble finding a lot of webzine reviews. Some come from interesting sources that I would not have expected to review webcomics.[5] [6] I think the case can be made that this is one of those cases where a webcomic is notable without being popular or famous. Balancer 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of sources meeting verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. NetOracle 06:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep on the basis of the sources available to establish its notability per WP:N as an early and groundbreaking webcomic. Deletion is not a substitute for a source tag or cleanup tag. Balancer 14:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

None of these sources are reliable sources as far as I can see. The Humaniststudies.org one comes perhaps closest, but then again, it is not a review of the comic, just mentioning that they publish it along with others in their ezine (this link gives the staff of the magazine, making clear that it is not the kind of magazine we normally consider as reliable, having only one editor[7]). 1995, while certainly not late, is not exceptionally early for a webcomic (the review you cite talks about 1993, but then it was published in a student newspaper, not as a webcomic, giving an indication of the reliability of such reviews). As for groundbreaking... in what independently verified way? I know that deletion isn't a substitute for cleanup or sourcing, but then again, that wasn't my intention. I had seen the other reviews as well, but they are non notable or non reliable (mostly online) publications (webzines), so I don't see what they change to the deletion rationale. Fram 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

About half of the ones I mentioned fail independence, which is why I didn't say "strong keep," and the rest are marginally "published" online; however, if I could find that many sources hovering near the borderline of the WP:RS standards in less than five minutes of looking, it seems a pretty sure bet that it passes WP:N standards overall. In retrospect, it's not surprising that there are only a couple thousand pages on the web that mention this comic, seeing as it ended five years ago. Balancer 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Many sources which fail WP:RS does not mean that there are probably some sources meeting WP:RS as well. Let me point out that your previous posts, while perhaps not having that intention, at least convinced the next editor wrongly that the comic is "recognized as having historical significance", when no such thing is shown except in one user-supplied and mistaken review. As for the "couple thousand pages", all 5 pages you gave as a reference were included in my initial search of 57 distinct Google hits, indicating that a) it was a quite good and fair search for reviews of this comic and b) there isn't probably that much more you can find about it on the internet. So basically, we still have a webcomic with only about 50 websites referencing it in slightly more than a passing way (at least mentioning the author), and depending on your criteria, only one or none of these sources could pass WP:RS. Which rather conclusively means that for all we have been able to find, it still clearely fails WP:NOTE. Fram 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew that before, from other sources. --Kizor 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since I don't start getting unrelated hits until the eighth page of search terms (results 71-80), and I keep finding relevant reviews of the comic hundreds of results down the list, your search definitely underrepresents the number of pages about TPIF, just as your searches have typically severely underrepresented comics. Those pages that I pulled out, several of which either come very close to meeting WP:RS, or could be argued to meet it, although typically not also the independence criterion for WP:N, are simply the first few reviews. Five years is a long time on the internet, and I have to say that I was shocked to find such a quantity of solid reviews online after all this time.

To emphasize how much you're missing through your inadequate searches, hit #463 was tantalizingly titled "Notable Webcomics" and dated from last summer. It did only contain a relatively brief user-posted review, of course, but it's gross misrepresentation to claim that it's only referenced on 50 websites.Balancer 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically, "how much I am missing through my inadequate searches" which returned all your previously given links, are all not meeting WP:RS, just like I expected. So in what way, relevant to this discussion which is intended to see if this comic meets the Wikipedia guidelines, was my search inadequate? It was a search to look for multiple independent reviews (excluding trivial mentions) by reliable sources, of which your extended search didn't return any: this was to be expected, since it would be very unusual to have a thorough review in a serious magazine or newspaper that didn't even mention the author of the comic. Look, could you please provide the necessary reliable sources to support your keep !vote instead of attacking the methods used by the nominator? I appreciate the effort you have put in your search, but if it doesn't return anything further, just say so please.~ Fram 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To invoke the Search engine test in claiming that an article is not be notable because it has low hits is an entirely different matter from searching for reliable and independent sources with non-trivial mentions. When you emphasize the low hit count your search has received, you are invoking (wrongly) the notion that this is a completely obscure topic, web content that the web doesn't even talk about.

As matters stand, the fact that the webcomic was (a) published in print by a source that may or may not qualify under WP:RS (student newspapers vary widely in this regard) and (b) talked about by, as I've pointed out, numerous sources whose status under WP:RS is open to question either way was enough for me to suggest that the article be kept on the basis of that open question and the strong probability that additional sources whose status is less unclear would soon be discovered (see Kizor's comment for clear vindication of that estimation). Balancer 11:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Balancer - after deliberating, the comic has definite historical significance in the field and is recognized as such. Sources seem appropriate.
  A local computing magazine covered the comic as one of the very first webcomics, though that was in Finnish and only in a "links of the month" feature. I can still try to dig it up if it would make a difference. --Kizor 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I believe it would. Balancer 11:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Absolutely notable due to longevity of comic, print publication, and historical precident of this comic to the early history of webcomics. Deleteing the article soley on the basis of "google hits" is totally inappropriate for a historical cornerstone of webcomics like this one. Timmccloud 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

... But none of your claims is supported by WP:RS, making it basically a WP:ILIKEIT vote. Fram 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the point of view that this one-of-the-hundreds-of-webcomics-from-the-mid-90s is inherently "notable" is not supported by third-party reputable sources actually noting it. --Dragonfiend 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I realize I have been remiss in not reviewing WP:WEB more closely and instead focusing on WP:N. WP:WEB specifically states that online content may be considered notable if it distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Noting that this comic has also been distributed by a number of online magazines, I am changing my vote to a clear strong keep. Balancer 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which of those web zines do feel is "well known" and not nontrivial? --Dragonfiend
• Keep per Balancer. One of the early influential online comics. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

...except for the fact that it wasn't particularly early and wasn't particularly influential? Fram 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• • 1993 qualifies as early in my book. And, yes, it was influential. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The Parking Lot is Full began in 1993, but it didn't go online until 1995. However, in my book, while 1993 qualifies as amazingly early, 1995 still qualifies as very early indeed: we only have a couple of webcomics on all of Wikipedia that were around before 1995 (Doctor Fun from 1993 and Where the Buffalo Roam from 1991—neither of which have any more reliable sources than this page). The only other comics on Wikipedia that are from 1995 are Polymer City Chronicles (March), Argon Zark! (June), Sev Wide Web (July), and Kevin and Kell (September). So that makes The Parking Lot is Full one of the 3-7 oldest webcomics in existence that currently have Wikipedia articles. Just to put things in perspective a bit. -Silence 01:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I understand the parameters of your list, but maybe you ought to add things like Rogues of Clwyd-Rhan from 1994 to your list? --Dragonfiend 04:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If it had been on the web on 1993, I would have agreed. Since it was 1995, I think it was somewhat early, but not early enough to be truly notable for that aspect. As for influential... I would expect it to have reviews like this one for Argon Zark!, which is from 1995 as well but gets at least a lot more recognition[8]. It also discusses Dilbert, which went online in 1995 as well, and a bunch of other truly influential (but later) webcomics. It just indicates that 1995 was the start of the boom for webcomics: anything earlier is truly early, anything from then or later is no longer, in my view, notable for being early. Fram 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, The Doonesbury web site also launched in 1995. Here's a little historical snapshot: A "a collection of regularly updated comics found in the WWW" started in 1995 and last updated June 17, 1996. It contains links to hundreds of comics, but is probably missing hundreds more (The Parking Lot is Full is not on the list). --Dragonfiend 10:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOTE & WP:WEB, only one unremarkable member of the myriad of webcomics that emerged in the 1990s. Additionally its defunct status makes any notability gain unlikely.Freepsbane 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Fram, and Freepsbane. Fade to Black doesn't impress, and without that there's not sufficient material to make this suitable for inclusion. Hunting down appearances in Finnish computer zines won't help at all, and the idea that it would shows a serious misunderstanding of what WP:N was supposed to be about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Disk space is cheap. Bryce 01:18, 19 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.