Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (Second nomination)

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, the list is still unverifiable by non-trivial and independent coverage on the subject. The article reads like fan-cruft and is not substantiated with reliable sources. Perhaps it would do better to merge the substantiated content with the publisher's article, or a list of publications. Article will be recreated in userspace upon request. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The noob

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
The noob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose appeal seems very limited. The only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. This comic doesn't seem to have had much of an influence at all. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • keep. as the article states, the webcomic has received some acclaim. As there is no real policy on what makes a webcomic notable, this article should be preserved. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that. My problem with this webcomic-cruft is that the acclaim and praise comes from a very small segment of the population, as posted on personal sites, blogs, forums, etc, rather than from notable published sources. There seems to be an endless number of aspiring artists and adherents to the "Internet media culture" who can do little more than regurgitate memes and engage in self-promotion. Where are we going to draw the line? NetOracle 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, why invalidate the feedback of blogs? The very presence of positive feedback, even if only largely present among internet communities, should account for some notability. It might not under Wikipedia policy. but such a distinction is immaterial as there presently is no policy to govern the treatment of this medium. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Blogs in general are not a reliable or noteworthy source. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority of blogs are sites for personal ramblings, and devoid of any audience not known to the author personally. We're talking about several orders of magnitude here. Basically, anything can be considered notable if personal sites are allowed to serve as a basis for notability. It is not hard at all to establish a personal site, and participate in enough community-driven forms of media to build several hundred references to that site by means of self-promotion. Thus, how can anything present in the non-notable blogs, but nowhere else, be considered notable? NetOracle 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
MMORPG.COM, Worldofwarcraft.com, the Web Comic Cartoonist Chioice Awards are NOT Blogs, ramblings, or personal sites. They are HUGE websites with significant populations of content creators and visitors. Timmccloud 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Once again a small minority of wikipedians are trying to delete notable webcomics. It's notability arises from 1) it has been published somewhere OTHER than it's home page (MMORPG.COM), which is NOT a just a "blog, forum, etc", it's a huge portal of content for MMORPG gamers. 2) There are over 7 million people playing World of Warcraft across the world, and the comic has been featured notibly on the WOW home page. 3) It has been nominated for awards - and as much as a large quantity of wikipedia editors don't want to recognize it - the web comic choice awards ARE a big deal in the field of webcomics, and being nominated meets notablity guidelines. All three of these items make this comic notable, notwithstanding the critical reviews included in the article. So to nominate it for deleteion SOLEY for the fact that it's not mentioned in the "buzz" on Web 2.0 sites this makes is absurd. And to nominate it for deletion because the reviews don't meet some personal criteria of "notablity" when there are other obvious reasons for notability is also unwarranted. Finally your editing comment "(Non-notable web comic, and we're going to sack it.)" shows you to be extremely biased on this topic in general, and your neutrality on this issue now brought into question. Timmccloud 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: for discussion purposes, anyone who is interested in this topic should also review the original discussion by following this link: [1] Timmccloud 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I find it a FASCINATING coincidence that the nomination for deletion has occured during the authors annual vaction (She won't be back until Feb 18th) so arguably the best reference for information about recent notabilty events is convienently away during the nomination for deletion. I don't suppose that the AFD might possibly be withdrawn until she returns? Timmccloud 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply The sources of supposed notability that you reference suffer from many of the same pitfalls of blogs, forums, and chat rooms.
First, this "ubersite" looks to be fairly open, and thus, the words of any one poster do not carry the weight or the reputation of the site as would the words of a senior staff writer for, as an example, Forbes Magazine.
Next, we will address "MMORPG.COM". The only reference to the article's subject is the presence of one single strip, along with a link to the strip's website. There is no review or assertion of notability, and we don't know who is endorsing the comic, or why. Once again, the existence of a mention on a large or notable site does not necessarily convey any weight when determining notability. If I post an classified ad for used computer parts on Craigslist, is it proper to say that I am a "Active secondhand electronics distributor featured on an Alexa Top 100 website"?
Reply Duh. The CURRENT comic is reposted on MMORPG every time a new one comes out. This has been happening for over a year - that constitues "publication". And it's part of the main site navigation, which means that it is PART OF THE WEBSITE. It's not just "posted" by someone. Unfortunately the press release that stated the publication is no longer available on the web, so all that can be done is post the link to the current page. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If you comment on an upstart technology company, it does not make them notable. If Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, or BusinessWeek makes the same comment, then it may very well make the company notable. The common theme here is that "what is said" and "where it is said" is less important than "who says it".
As for the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards", this "organization" is not notable in itself. It appears to be some loosely-organized group of Internet cartoonists, established for the sake of mutual promotion. Awards are only notable if given by a notable organization, and this organization seems to be little more than a hastily constructed site maintained by a very small number of people who share a hobby. Every E-Mail address on the site is some form of free mail, and the site itself is poorly built. Furthermore, the site is hosted and operated by "Keenspace Entertainment", apparently for the purpose of drawing attention to the webcomics it hosts.
There are a great many notable websites which provide a constant stream of linkage. Most of this linkage is, however, not notable. Should everybody or everything which gets featured on the front page of the abomination known as "Digg" receive an article on Wikipedia?
The problem I have with the criteria being used here is that any single person, or a few devoted fans, given a few sockpuppets at user-driven sites, or just a regularly updated personal blog, can, under the criteria, elevate a personal creation to a level of notability warranting inclusion.
The majority of these webcomics have become entrenched because their main readership - namely, those who are on the Internet for recreation constantly - edits Wikipedia with a frequency far removed from the general population. Some of these webcomics, which are essentially personal hobbies of their creators, have articles which far exceed multi-season national television shows and major motion pictures, in both depth and length. Think what you will about the worth and notability of webcomics, but please do not suggest that encyclopediac integrity is served by such a horribly disproportionate representation.
Please, again, tell me why these webcomics are notable, and how they matter in the overall scheme of things.
Your comment concerning the timing of the discussion, and the hushed accusation of my intentions as being based in bad faith, is rather inappropriate. I couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday, and only began to care about these things yesterday after I saw a solid case for deletion destroyed by insane levels of meatpuppetry and fanboyism. I have a strong concern that postponing this discussion until the author returns will only allow time for a similar meatpuppet army to assemble. I'm not here to attack a specific strip - I only became involved in this because I saw the professionalism of Wikipedia being compromised by a steady encroachment of fancruft, and wanted to remedy the situation. NetOracle 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
UM. Where to begin... let's just focus on the things I can handle at 5am. The WCCA has been around since 2001 and also awards comics outside Keenspace (as a quick peek and ANY list of nominations would have told you), so it's hardly hastily assembled or promoting Keenspace comics. It has also been covered on TV, radio and has received half an article in the New York Times. This year's nomination will be at Megacon.
Your "meatpuppet army" will be the people who maintain the article. Sorry to tell you that, but slipping in an AfD while the comic is vacationing (and thus the editors may not feel the need to check the Wiki article since nothing changed) is going to look fairly bad.
May I ask what your "solid case for deletion" was? There have been 50+ (by now possibly 60+) such cases for webcomics alone during the past month, so it's somewhat hard to guess which one you mean. The recent wave (to which you just contributed) also explains the "meatpuppet" syndrome you oppose so much - The webcomic world is pretty much up in arms right now because of the dozens of AfDs that axed a few entries of comics that steadily updated for half a decade or so. Another entry of a published comic got axed and had to be recreated via DRV.
Oh, and somehow, your last paragraph makes it VERY hard to assume good faith. You effectively made the nominations because you saw another AfD being flooded. "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions."
Didn't you stop to think WHY the AfD got flooded? Your effort only contributes to the larger problem - the reputation of Wikipedia in the webcomic world. But considering that you "couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday", I assume that this is not one of your major concerns. --Sid 3050 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The WCCA is not notable. Its website is of shoddy quality. It is hosted by an entity with a set of comics to promote, and therefore not impartial. Its awards seem to be distributed based on raw popular vote. Its coordinators have failed to establish their notability. Please provide evidence of "TV coverage". Is everything mentioned in any small capacity now suddenly notable?
reply not every non-profit orginization has the funding to hire the best webmasters, often these notable groups do with voulenteer work. Your assertion that the orginization is not notable based on 1) the quality of their website and 2) keenspot sponsering it has no merit. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You said that the creator is on vacation, yet you assert that there is a large group of legitimate editors who wrote the article. Why should the creator's vacation have anything to do with this, unless you anticipated him rallying a group of puppets to action?
Have you considered that the trend of AfD'ing webcomics might be the result of a general backlash against fancruft accumulating within a walled garden? Not everything is a vendetta or conspiracy.
I made the AfD because I saw another AfD in which a meatpuppet army tried to save an article about a non-notable subject. The Ugly Hill AfD was flooded with meatpuppets, and possibly sockpuppets. This should not be happening, and reflects poorly on those who engaged in ballot stuffing. This is the result of external fanboyism spilling over into Wikipedia. This sort of passion for a specific and generally non-notable string of subjects and characters is best reserved for a specific Wiki hosted by a Wikia-esque service.
Have you considered that I might have made these nominations for deletion because I honestly believe in principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards? I am an outsider to the world of webcomics, and don't see how the hundreds of strips featured by Wikipedia are notable to the rest of us. You are right - webcomics are not my concern. Improving Wikipedia is. NetOracle 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
WCCA: NYT, TV, Radio (link is to the announcement, but I have no reason to doubt the validity). The website is easy to navigate, and I don't see how it is "shoddy". Subjectivity, much? And an official Wal-Mart site had been completely broken in Firefox for a good while. Would that mean that Wal-Mart is non-notable? (No, don't answer that, I just used the example to stress the point that "good website" is not a notability criterion).
I did not "anticipate" a rally, but common sense implies that article editing frequency is in some relation to event frequency. When is it more likely for most editors to visit an article? When the primary information source does not update or when it does?
I am in no position to judge why dozens of major comic entries get vaped in large waves, but the nominations I saw hint that there either is bias or that the nominations were made by people with little knowledge about webcomics at all. The fact that the webcomic awards were quietly edged out of the Web Notability rules and then got vaped from Wikipedia (surrounded by quick nominations for comics that based their notability on them) sort of makes it hard to assume good faith for the whole situation.
Yes, I feared that you meant Ugly Hill. It's an award-winning and published webcomic, so of course the webcomic community (already in a "I might be next!" mood) spread the word about this nomination. There is a world outside of Wikipedia, and you can't expect it to stay silent during these deletion waves. Right now, the reputation of Wikipedia has suffered immensely in the eyes of webcomic communities, so you should expect a strong reaction to AfDs, especially for major comics. I'm not saying that I think this is a good thing, but I am realistic enough to see that it is quite inevitable.
Before your comments, I did assume good faith. But now I only see somebody nominating articles of a genre he knows nothing about, for the sole reason of retaliation for an AfD going a way you don't like. Your actions seem noble, but your motivation is not. I simply cannot assume that you act in good faith. This is just you going all "Oh, so you didn't like that, huh? Let's see how you like THIS!". So please spare me the "My only goal is to improve Wikipedia" talk, it sounds mighty hollow. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that nobody has offered a rebuttal to my analysis of all the sources as unreliable and non-notable, with the specific exception of that awards committee.
Wikipedia has established policies and guidelines as to what sources are acceptable, and how those sources should be interpreted. Please see verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. WP:WEB does apply here, but its guidelines for sourcing material and determining notability and verifiability are still shaped by the other policies and guidelines dealing with source integrity.
When you apply policy to the majority of these articles on webcomics, the articles lose the footing on which their supporters built them. Enthusiasm can be good, and is admirable, but we, as editors, need to exercise some professional integrity in our analysis of source material.
One good rule of thumb for determining notability is the test of time. I have a concern that the majority of these webcomic-related articles will, 5-10 years from now, be unpublished and virtually unknown. Now, granted, there are many notable webcomics. Among these are ones which set milestones for revenue and exposure, shaped the evolution of the genre, and influenced humanity in a broad sense. This is why the entry on Columella is valid - does anyone here honestly believe that the majority of these comics will still be remembered in 2 decades, let alone 2 millenia?
The majority of these entries are fancruft, and are beginning to look like a walled garden.
There was meatpuppetry on the Ugly Hill AfD. Recruiting supporters offsite to bolster an AfD argument is not proper, and is against policy.
If these articles were notable on their own, you wouldn't have to rally your supporters to stop the deletion from going forward. A notable subject's article will be written by disinterested third parties, in the spirit of building Wikipedia. A non-notable subject's article will only be written by fans and other strong supporters. Your claim that this deletion was timed to coincide with the author's vacation only furthers my case against this article as fancruft. If this article is notable, then it will stand on its own, and without the evils of meatpuppetry or bloc voting.
During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Groan. Pay attention who you reply to. I was not the one who brought up the timing, I am not the one who is rallying anybody. Indeed, I think YOU are the one who instantly started pointing fingers about rallying people. Paranoia, much? And if you had paid any attention at all, you would have noticed that I haven't even voiced any Delete/Keep opinion so far, so I'm hardly the one you could accuse of meatpuppetry or fancruft or whatever.
I think it's a given that in TWO THOUSAND YEARS, not even Wikipedia will be remembered. So let's delete everything! Your entire "must influence humanity" and "must stand the test of time" makes me curious. Please point out the exact policy that lists these things as requirements. Cite sources. I'm honestly curious.
The current flood of AfDs is a nasty call for sources, so I think it's a double standard to call for sources, but protest when new people join to argue about whether certain sources count or not.
Additionally, AfDs like the one for Starslip Crisis are based on the simple fact that an admin decided to ignore given sources for an award and declared it to be non-notable. And all of a sudden, a well-sourced article becomes not sourced at all. If an Admin suddenly declared CNN or the NYT to be non-notable, how many articles would fail to stand on their own? You cling to policies, but blindly accept that the wikiality suddenly changes. If/when WCCA gets restored, will you say "Yes, of course it fulfills policy"? I surely hope so.
A webcomic with more than five years of archived material, hundreds or thousands of strips and a dedicated fanbase don't count AT ALL in the current Web Notability rules. Without a dedicated newspaper article or a lengthy TV report, such a comic will be declared as non-notable as the average Geocities page. And thanks to the eager Admins who quickly got rid of the major webcomic awards, Wikipedia has become a "Get published or get out" site. So please tell me this: Is that the greater goal of Wikipedia? Kick out everything that hasn't changed the fate of mankind?
And I honestly ask you: What hurts the reputation of Wikipedia more: A few articles about things that have a large following, or pissing off thousands of people that read about Wikipedia's mass deletions on tons of blogs and webcomic news?
Oh, and people ignoring your "analysis" does not mean that you are right by default, even if you'd like to imply it. --Sid 3050 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Not every word of that reply was directed toward you. There are a number of parallel discussions occuring in this deletion debate, and I chose to save time by combining my thoughts into a single reply.
I never leveled an accusation of meatpuppetry or solicitation of meatpuppetry against any specific editor. I merely pointed out that a recent AfD had been plagued by an invasion of meatpuppets hell-bent on perpetuated the fancruft within. If an article can only be saved through meatpuppetry, its subject probably isn't notable to begin with. When I stand accused of timing my nomination to coincide with the vacation of a webcomic's author, I have to question why the author's vacation should even enter in to the equation. Is the motion for postponment based strictly on a desire to see one person be able to comment on the AfD, or is it a cover for something more sinister, such as the author making a website, forum, chat, or blog entry soliciting meatpuppet activity?
It is incivil to accuse another editor of being a meatpuppet or soliciting meatpuppets without probable cause, which is why I made no such accusation. I merely used the presence of meatpuppets in a completely seperate AfD as an indicator of problems within that AfD.
I cannot speak for other editors, but I did not put forth this nomination as an underhanded and hostile way of calling for sources. We have templates which are used to request sources when an article which probably meets notability guidelines is lacking the sources which make it whole. I put forth this nomination because I have a genuine belief that this webcomic does not meet notability guidelines, and the sources it is built on fail to establish notability and importance in a manner which maintains professionalism and encyclopedic integrity. Wikipedia has policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards for good reason. I feel the letter and spirit of these policies is breached by this article and the sources used to support its alledged notability.
There IS some serious fancruft going on here. Regardless of whether the article is deemed to be notable or not, this and many other webcomic-related articles have articles in size and depth which are grossly disproportionate to their notability and importance. Why should a webcomic, produced as a hobby, and having a limited readership in the thousands of tens of thousands, contain plot summaries and character descriptions with far more clarity than is present in the articles of most major motion pictures and nationally syndicated television programs?
If other people are offended or upset because something they find amusing is deleted according to established policies of verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards, then that is their problem. I cannot control whether they choose to follow and believe in the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. Good-faith AfD nominations are not disparagements of the subjects or authors involved.
In proper debate, failing to make a mention, let alone a rebuttal, is a de facto admission of surrender on a specific point. NetOracle 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So you de facto admit that the WCCA is notable? You didn't bring it up anymore when I cited the sources... :P (Cutting off the rest at this point since it has gotten WAYYYYY out of hand, so this will most likely be my last edit here. Well, that, and Wikipedia is seriously eating away my free time - do the established Wiki editors have a life outside the Wiki? If so, please tell me your secret! O_o) --Sid 3050 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep This comic is way more notable than most of the rest. I can see where some people not familiar with the scene might delete the other ones, but this one is so notable that anything against it is just hate toward non traditional entertainment. Wizardbrad 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Wizardbrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • keep seems notable enough and the article is fairly well written. Variety of articles is what makes wikipedia impressive as a living encyclodpedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justinboden86 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC).


  • Keep. I had not heard of this strip prior to perusing the AFDs in examining the contention that webcomics are being targeted. Alexa ranking (32,000) bears out what the various links within the article and the previous VFD indicate, namely, that this is a very heavily trafficked comic with great prominence in the online RPG community. That is has been published independently online as well as in print make it clearly notable by the standards of Wikipedia. I will further note that the assertion of the WCCA as non-notable is disputable. I do not wish to assume bad faith, but I find NetOracle's expressed desire to "sack" this article to be a disturbing indicator of such. Balancer 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am an avid reader of the comic, as well as many people I know both personally and through the internet. We are certainly not meatpuppets and I take offense at this insinuation. Through his claims of ballot stuffing and meatpuppetry, NetOracle could explain away any kind of following or rallying in defense of this comic without any proof. Simply because he does not take interest in this webcomic or others does not mean it is not notable. Sheora 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I fail to see the validity in NetOracle's argument on notability. Among webcomic circles, The Noob is regularly very highly ranked on two of the three comic listings, and has a very active and supportive reader community. If this was a "Webcomic Wiki" there should be little doubt that all webcomics that are a) active and b) regularly updated should be represented. So why here is the judgement made that being only a webcomic individual instances that have not been presented in mainstream national media should be considered not notable?
You admit yourself that you hadn't really encountered webcomics - you are most likely a totally inappropriate person to judge the notability of an individual entity in a sphere that does not interest you. Someone may be interested in military modelling and do an article on a specific era of modelling -- totally uninteresting to me, but probably extremely useful for some die hard modelling fanatics, and good for them. Wikipedia is precisely about having in depth and accurate articles broadly across as many topics is possible for the information and reading of the general public. On the whole I only come to Wikipedia to look up things I don't already know about.
You claim that the support comes from a small section of population? So does most support for things that are not worldwide phenomena, so why would that make them less interesting as included articles as a whole? I suspect there is more current interest in The Noob than, for example, the Roman writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella, yet he manages to escape any need for deletion. Why not have every writer from every culture ever that there is some kind of written record of? Most of those will not be at all notable to vast swathes of the population, yet I suspect there will be little complaint about such historical figures.
You talk about main media resources. I doubt for a second that BBC News, Reuters, Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, ZDNet or anyone else has written about Columella, so lets sack that article too. In fact, lets Google for each Wiki article we find that looks obscure, and if there appears to be no large international media story or commentary about them then sack those articles too! And so we can steadily destroy the fantastic library of genuine interest articles that Wikipedia has managed to set up.
This site builds its reputation for two reasons. Firstly, it is on the whole well researched, works hard to avoid bias and provide a balanced argument in areas of contention, and is well presented and supported both by users and moderators. Secondly, it is extremely broad with a wide reach into the most obscure of subcategories in any given subject. Webcomics are now popular enough that some writers earn their entire living from donations, and I cannot see how your personal interest in them can be used as a judging factor in whether or not they should be allowed on Wikipedia.
So having already had so many comments that it should be kept in this discussion, perhaps it is notable to enough people to keep, especially as so far your reasoning for removing it appears not to have gathered much momentum? And perhaps webcomic entries should be moderated and marked potentially as AfD by administrators and content moderators with some level of interest in webcomics as a whole? Topazg 11:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Topazg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. Topazg happens to be an articulate editor who's familiar with the subject and puts thought and effort into his messages, while the nominator started editing yesterday, admits to having no knowledge about the field and has concerned himself with little else than deletion nominations and discussions. --Kizor 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This was about a 'few or other edits' tag that appears to be no longer here. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The spa tag was removed by Wizardbrad's sockpuppet. I put it back, but note that I did not originally put it there, nor necessarily agree with it.. --Krator 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at the flowers, let them calm you.
Look at the flowers, let them calm you.
  • Comment. Can we all slow down a bit here before we get carried away? On all sides? The debate has been getting pretty heated. Timmccloud, even if we had any reason to assume that NetOracle knew the comic's author was away, it wouldn't make a difference. Articles are supposed to stand on their own merits. Getting authors involved is in no way policy, required or common, nor has it been beneficial in several cases where one did get involved. --Kizor 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In the case of these "I see no sources, so let's AfD it to encourage the editors to find them" AfDs, it's highly counter-productive to nominate comics that are on a brief hiatus. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Continuing the comment after I was distracted by shiny things and a relative closed the window (this part is written after Krator's message, mind): NetOracle... cool down. Please. Your comments (nominating as a reaction, "We're going to sack it"..) give the impression of acting out of personal indignation. The train wreck at Ugly Hill was far from usual, the worst one I've seen in this field. Your assumptions - the WCCA are for self-promotion, meatpuppetry is to be expected - are broad, severe and, well, wrong.
    Sid has a point, too. It's an odd one, but not long ago I e-mailed an author and he responded with additional data, sources and proofs that turned an AfD from 2-3 to 6-0. --Kizor 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sid, Kizor, that was my point, that you for clarifying it - last time the noob was up for AFD, it was my communication with the author that allowed me to enhance the article with proper refrerences and information. This time round, the best reference to the work is unavailable. Timmccloud 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No substantial coverage by reliable sources as required by WP:WEB etc., only by websites of varying levels of ephemerality. The only reliable source cited, the Yahoo News story, mentions the subject only tangentially. Sandstein 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sign of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Started by a single purpose account, like most webcomic articles, it's a depository for character bios and trivia which is not even available on the site itself. Sources for some claims in the article, such as the comic being 'well-known' amongst MMORPG players, probably don't exist.--Nydas(Talk) 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Nydas. Inkpaduta 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Balancer and Topazg. I also agree with Kizor. --Krator 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • note re [WP:WEB] notability is asserted - "Notability on Wikipedia for Web-specific content[3] is based on the following criterion"
1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. MMPORPG.COM, WorldofWarcraft.com Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
2 The content is 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. MMORPG.COM Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject. My concern is that these sources do not establish the notability of the subject, and are little more than one of many tangential mentions of sites which may fall under the category of "interesting, and worth a click" (but only to a specific subculture) but not notable. Furthermore, the mentions I saw earlier gave no indication of authorship, and thus, carried no weight associated with the entity responsible for publication. NetOracle 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject."
Answer:
  • On mmorpg.com, the section where The noob is mentioned, is not one where people with forum/commentary accounts can make additions to.
  • On WorldofWarcrat.com, The noob was featured in a news item, which is, again, a section of the site that needs more than a forum/commentary account.
--Krator 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: The noob is mentioned quite a lot in sections of notable and reliable websites (Gamespot, Ign, WoW, etc) where just a forum or commentary account is needed to add content. However, I agree with you that these shouldn't be used to support any claims of notability for The noob. They do, however, support the claims that The noob is reknown throughout the MMO community.

Comment: I might also add that there was a previous AfD for this article, which resulted in a discussion not unlike the one observed here right now. Note that the article has significantly improved since then, and now includes a lot more encyclopaedic content (i.e: about the satire of MMORPG culture in the comic) in relation to the amount of 'descriptive' content. As the article has only improved, and so has the number of references and reviews included therein, I question whether this debate will reach a different conclusion than the last one. That being said, I'd like to propose WP:SNOW, because the conclusion of no consensus seems imminent. --Krator 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - As Timmccloud and others have amply demonstrated, the argument for deleting The noob is incredibly weak. Almost to where it is laughable, really. I'm incredulous that the article is here again. The vendetta against webcomics continues, it would seem. –Xoid 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because calling something "fancruft" is just a way of being hateful and disparaging something. Somebody cared enough to put work into it, therefore we should keep it. This page hurts nobody else. I don't see why we have to crush the work of some because of elitists hiding behind a shield of "profesionnalism" or "encyclopedic standards". Webcomics are about fun and entertainment, but they still are notable. Just because they aren't all run for huge corporate profit and aren't stuffy like 18th century British Literature doesn't mean that talking about them is unprofesional.CSMASTER84 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) CSMASTER84 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk • contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result CSMASTER84 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tagged three votes above with Spa because the only edit made by these accounts is on this page. I hate to see meatpuppets here, and I didn't ask for them, even if they support my point(s). It doesn't matter though, because of WP:NOT. I encourage the nominator to take my suggestion of using WP:SNOW here into account, in order to get back to editing instead of debating. --Krator 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Confirmed to be sockpuppets, and votes deleted and tagged as such. I noticed Kizor (talk • contribs) and Xoid (talk • contribs) edited this page concerning these sockpuppets while I was doing so too, but I think keeping the text is to be preferred, because I fear that there'll be some more debate on sock and meatpuppets in this AfD. --Krator 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks be to you. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks from me too - sockpuppets pollute the dialog. --Timmccloud 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks from me too. Eliminating sockpuppets which were supporting your side's opinion was a stand up thing to do. I did, however, notice this edit in the history: [2] Can someone with access check to see if Topazg is operating any sockpuppets, considering that a sockpuppet tried to whitewash some facts concerning his history here?
  • Deletet: Lacks the multiple non-trivial independent sources necessary for verifiable, NPOV encyclopedia writing. My library searches have turned up no reputable sources. -- Dragonfiend 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Timmccloud, User:Kizor, and User:Balancer. Although I am not a fan of comics (print or online), I think the notability of the comic has been demonstrated (recongition by notable websites). Another factor to consider is the possibly inappropriate nature of the nomination, when {{unreferenced}} or {{notability}} may have sufficed. Black Falcon 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, with a reminder to everyone to have a quick look at WP:ILIKEIT (do we need a WP:SOMEONENOTABLELIKESIT for arguments to avoid too?). Unless reliable sources have covered this, which I see no evidence of, it's not notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And what pray tell is "relaible" by your definition? A major MMORPG software developent company like Blizzard covers it on the flagship games website home page, and it doesn't meet your "reliable" criteria? The largest webcomic award - WCCA - nominates it for an award and that's not "reliable"? Timmccloud 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Blizzard? There's a link to mmorpg.com, which is also the source cited for that assertion, but I followed the link. Nothing on that page supports that assertion whatsoever, it's just the site's homepage. As to WCCA, no, Notability is not popularity, nor did the site even win, it just received an honorable mention. I suppose the award site is reliable as to who won an award, but certainly, that's not enough source material for a comprehensive article-the award site only mentions their name once! Coverage must also be non-trivial, certainly a name-drop is as trivial as it gets! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Blizzard, World of Warcraft, worldofwarcraft.com. Your lack of knowledge in the area of MMORPG games dilutes your opinions on notablity - within the gaming communitiy this comic is very notable. And that gaming community is larger than the wikipedia community in size, so notability is herby asserted for "a noticeable effect on culture". Granted that it's not YOUR culture is obvious, but members of the gaming culture who are in this thread assert notabily, and it should be respected.Timmccloud 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens and others. Mathmo Talk 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep saying this comic is not widely recognized is ignorant. There is a huge fanbase. People like it. It is notable. Period. 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Gozerthegreat 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Gozerthegreat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Uh, I just saw a thread about this. I have to say I am really quite shocked. This is one of the biggest comic strips out there. Its everywhere. And on every important forum and weblog directory too. Deleting this would be illegal censorship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doomtrooper6 Doomtrooper6 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk • contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Doomtrooper6 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this article. I don't see what purpose it serves to delete it. It isn't like Wikipedia is going to run out of memory. Zeruzero 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Zeruzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep per the fact that many other Webcomics are listed. It seems like a well-written article. Usually short stub-type nonsensical articles get tagged for deletion. If this is deleted, maybe wikibooks will accept it, if they accept comics. BuickCenturyDriver 08:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Timmccloud said basically everything I want to say. FWIW, this seems to be just wasting time and creating tension. The Nazis in the anti-webcomic camp need to learn some tolerance. Dorikonu 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Dorikonu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Ohforf'sake. --Kizor 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    huh? BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, and I've always wanted to be an illegal censoring anti-webcomic Nazi! One Night In Hackney 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    The frustrating thing about notibilty is that people will base it on whether or not the subject familiar to them or their peers as opposed to a whether or not it belongs on wikipedia and the community accepting it. BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm basing my vote on whether The noob meets WP:WEB. Has it been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? In my opinion, no. The coverage it has isn't from reliable sources, or it's trivial. Take the World of Warcraft "review", it doesn't review the site at all. The ubersite "review" is on a site where submissions seem to be open to all and sundry. The article states The Noob has been invited (article's emphasis not mine) to post on MMPORG, but that isn't verified by the reference. In my opinion it's a long way short of WP:WEB. One Night In Hackney 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That teaches you a lesson about consensus. If you want to call them votes, just count the number of users. But these are comments and they are counted based on experiance. New user comments are discounted (because accounts are free on WP) but account with experiance and especially sysops and admins usually have more impact. The legitimacy usually depends on experiance and reputation. BuickCenturyDriver 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Actually, I normally use the term !vote but I neglected to include an exclamation mark on this occasion. I regard your condescending tone as inappropriate, and I suggest you return to debating the matter at hand. One Night In Hackney 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is asserted - The january 2007 issue of the Norwegian Print magazine PEGASUS (ISSN 1890-0704) has started publishing the noob - on page 4 of the following link Pegasus January 2007. This meets notablity per "and are cited by established publications". I have included this reference in the article as well. Timmccloud 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is "notable", and stuff. Nothing I see that's wrong with it. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in print is in print, and that makes this "notable". This isn't some comic that some kid drew in art class one day. This is a real publication. Mikemasterful 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Mikemasterful (talk • contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Dorikonu (talk • contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Mikemasterful is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep subject is certainly notable. Frobber6 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Frobber6 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Dorikonu (talk • contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Frobber6 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Timmccloud, Kizor, and Balancer. It is clearly referenced by notable sources. JackSparrow Ninja 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The puppetry here is out of hand, and this has become the Ugly Hill AfD all over again. I'm going to get it cleaned up, and then we can proceed. NetOracle 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This comic is generally well known, it has been referanced on major sites (web comic awards, Blizzard main page, various gaming sites), and as shown above even published. My own initial exposure to it came from ingame references from other players and images from it being used as forum avatars/linked inside posts, on the World of Warcraft forums. Which says something about it having a following in the gaming community. There's probably 5-10 or so other webcomics of similar notability that i can think of, and i don't think cutting off most of the webcomic content on wikipedia helps anyone who actually has any interest in the subject. --Helixdq 02:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I contest (and removed) the {{spa}} that was given to this user. As Special:Contributions/Helixdq shows, Helixdq has made several edits outside this topic (even to articles not connected to this topic at all), and the account has been active for much longer than this AfD. To keep it civil in here, I think it is paramount that a clear distinction is made between those who create an account just to !vote here (vote stacking/meat puppets) and 'normal' !votes. I quote from WP:SPA: "Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you."
--User:Krator (t c) 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have not seen adequate evidence provided that this webcomic has met any of the guidelines described within WP:WEB. There are some sources, but not a substantial ammount sufficient for covering the requirement of multiple non-trivial published works. The awards and recognition have been limited to non-notable organizations and blogs. Leebo86 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is established, and this is routinely mentioned on sites related to the MMORPG culture. Also, calling something a subculture with derisive implications (as in that makes them non-notavble) is silly. Millions of users is beyond notable. And this has been on the front page of the "main" mmorp portal, mmorpg.com, and World of warcraft.com - Denny 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all of the references meet my personal standards for reliability, but there is sufficient sourcing of a reliable nature to suggest that this comic is in fact notable. (jarbarf) 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Holy crap, this is the longest deletion discussion I've ever seen. As it stands now, the article is not deletable. YechielMan 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete though I can see that won't happen. If Wikipedia does not want to be overwhelmed by internet ephemera it must draw a line in the sand. An official policy is definitely needed. Rkevins 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per others above and because of the massive amount of sockpuppetry in this AFD. SakotGrimshine 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The sockpuppetry has been well identified in order to ignore it's contribution to the discussion. Deleting the article out of spite because some people make ill advised attempts to save it is NOT a reason to ignore the validity of the other commentary. It makes it more difficult to mediate, yes, and I personally wish they hadn't done so, but there are serious reasons to keep this article, and serious discussions between the meat puppetry.Timmccloud 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
While I certainly don't agree with you on the notability of the subject, I do have to agree with your stance on the sockpuppetry. The presence of puppets alone should not sway a person to disagree with the viewpoint held by the puppets out of spite. If this deletion goes forward, it should be on the merits of the discussion held, and not the interference in the discussion by those who don't wish to play by the rules. All that can be said of the puppetry is that a large fan community exists, many of whom have no problems in introducing cruft into articles, or puppets into discussion NetOracle 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The comic (and by extention the article) seems to have quite a bit of support and in any case the articles quite well written--Bisected8 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The quality of the writing and existing support are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Please cite a policy or guideline to back up your position. Leebo86 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qualiy of comic: irrelevant. Author on vacation: irrelevant. Lots of people like it: irrelevant. Lots of noise on blogs: irrelevant. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources: relevant per policy and guideline, not yet rebutted. Please provide sources. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, three published books on it sounds notable enough for me. >Radiant< 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete has not had "...a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. " - Francis Tyers · 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Is it worth noting that NetOracle just made those criteria up himself, and furthermore has shown himself to be operating under his own idea of what Wikipedia should be by saying that we should restrict ourselves to those subjects that will "stand the test of time"? --Kizor 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Where you say


*** During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
***

I would like to disagree. What calls the reputation of wikipedia into question is the fact that a small minority keep on calling wikipedia's objectivity into question by deleting what they have subjectively determined to be subjective content. The objectivity of wikipedia is of more value to the site's reputation than anything else. If wikipedia is not objective, then how can it be trusted at all? Just because it contains vast amounts of what could be considered trivial data (please note that the articles regarding Knuckles the Echidna and Hitmonchan are longer than the article on European History), that does not mean that this data is not a valid reference for those who seek it. Furthermore, due to the open nature of a wiki they are going to struggle for a long time to come before they are regarded as "solid and reliable". Right now, objectivity is all that wikipedia has, and it is being fast eroded by the same pomposity displayed in the passage I have quoted. TNUK 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? I agree with you that objectivity is essential, and that is why I launched this deletion process to begin with. Writing a long, in-depth article about a subject because you like it conflicts with established principles of verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. The articles you mentioned are far too long for an objective encyclopedia not associated with a specific form of pop culture, and probably shouldn't exist. Writing a long and detailed article for a non-notable subject only gives it a false sense of notability to those not familiar with it. Wikipedia needs to be objective, and part of this involves fans of a particular entertainment medium or specific work controlling the impulse to bypass encyclopedic standards and source integrity simply because the subject in question made an impact on their life. WP:BAND frequently sacks articles profiling small, non-notable bands. The people writing these articles (generally the members themselves, or their close friends) do so in good faith, but without the objectivity of a neutral observer. There are thousands of non-notable bands, just as there are thousands of non-notable webcomics, and neither belong on Wikipedia. Inclusion in Wikipedia can give a reader a false sense of notability, and readers of Wikipedia should not be deceived as to notability because several people like it.
Conversely, holding a distaste for something is not a valid reason to delete or prune it. At this point, let us make an important semantical distinction: not liking something is not the same as disliking something. Of particular concern are some of the comments that I have received indicating that someone who does not like webcomics has no business in pruning them down or deleting them. This notion is misguided; if only people who like webcomics participate in those articles, then they will fill up with biased fancruft. How can an article be objective if only one viewpoint is considered? The only people who should not participate in webcomic-related discussions are those who have vendettas against webcomics. I don't have a vendetta against webcomics; I simply don't find them humorous, and I don't associate with the typical nerd/gamer stereotypes portrayed in them. If I were to go around nominating things which I dislike for not being entertaining at all, I would have started with Speed 2, as pretty much everyone agrees that it sucks. If I were going to troll the genre, I would have started with a notable webcomic such as Penny Arcade.
The reason this discussion seems excessively long is because a significant amount of biased editing by fans has transpired in the past, and the community as a whole needs to develop standards for webcomic inclusion. This debate has already been had with other fancruft-prone subjects, such as Star Wars and Star Trek, and the articles in those genre have been evaluated for notability, and much of the cruft transwikied to places which exist specifically for non-objective writing. When we look at articles, we must do so from a neutral point of view. If multiple, non-trivial published sources document a subject, then it meets inclusion criteria, and should be documented in an objective way that does not falsely misrepresent the notability of the subject to multiple, disinterested third parties. I have a concern that the cruft found in many of the webcomic articles is both not useful and misrepresentative to those reading Wikipedia as an objective encyclopedia. I could have just as easily gone after other instances of cruft; the massive number of articles on non-notable Idol contestants is ridiculous too, and had I encountered it before I did similarly problematic articles on webcomics, I'd be off trying to apply encyclopedic standards to it, instead of here. NetOracle 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is specious. "There's cruft in there, so we should delete the entire article". That reasoning warrants a {{cleanup}}, not an {{afd}}. As we've already established this webcomic is notable, so don't try pulling that one. –Xoid 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The presence of cruft in an otherwise notable article is a symptom of the same ILIKEIT editing which has created non-notable articles to begin with. Thus, non-notable webcomics do far more harm than fancruft-filled articles like the Final Fantasy series. An article such as Sinfest would be much more deserving of a cruft cleanup tag than an AfD tag. Completely unencyclopedic articles are a much greater concern than articles with a bit of cruft; i.e., cruft in itself is less misrepresentative to a reader than the existence of an article which probably shouldn't be around in the first place. AfD is not a substitute for cruft cleanup, and we haven't established that this webcomic is notable, given that this AfD is still open. NetOracle 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any deletion proceeding where a claim of "cruft" is the primary motivation for deletion should not happen. Cruft forever! Rogue 9 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to seem like I'm questioning each keep !vote, but if you could cite some policy or guideline for your reasoning, it would be appreciated. Leebo86 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:CRUFT itself states that cruft cannot be the primary reason for deletion. However, an article's cruftiness can be a determining factor when other valid reasons for deletion are met. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment Justyn beat me to it. Yelling "cruft" isn't a reason to delete anything, and the reasoning behind the nomination boils down to "I think this is cruft." Given that "cruft" is an entirely subjective measure (one could argue that articles on high schools, for instance, are cruft, just to give one example), one person thinking an article constitutes cruft is not a reason for deletion. Rogue 9 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Rather weak keep The print references are a bit thin (the magazine listed appears to be a new one, though I have very little clue about Norwegian) an self-published books don't count. That said, they may weakly satisfy the notability. The article needs some old chainsaw love though. Perhaps AfD it again a little bit later? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: The the article itself sites sources and asserts its notibility, it has more then two real reliable sources, it meets the relevent criteria for inclusion. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

In response to NetOracle: You ask why do I classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? The answer is simple. Wikipedia uses set criteria to assess objectivity in articles - criteria which the article under discussion certainly meet. Deletion (and even the motion to delete the article itself) is therefore subjective, by the standards of wikipedia. This blatant display of double standards is the reason that I felt compeeled to add my two pennorth', and the reason why I am very close to giving up on ever being able to treat wikipedia as being an objective, credible source.
You may or may not be aware of my meaning in my initial response to you. I am unsure, because you say things like "The articles you mentioned are far too long for an objective encyclopedia not associated with a specific form of pop culture, and probably shouldn't exist." as though this adds weight to your query regarding objectivity. In actual fact, you have merely repeated my setiments quite succinctly. You go on to say that you are trying to "apply encyclopedic standards to articles" such as this one. What I think you mean is that you are deleting articles entirely subjectively. Case in point: this article meets the required standards, and therefore in order to apply encyclopedic standards, one merely needs to clean up the style (not the content) of the article so that it may be brought into line. You say that "the community as a whole needs to develop standards for webcomic inclusion", yet instead of this, you are acting in an highly subjective manner by removing content before such standards have even been established.
You refer to "cruft". If "cruft" is the problem, then why not remove "cruft" from the article and ensure that it properly conforms to the required standard, then protect it. Surely a basic article giving objective and encyclopedically delivered facts is far better than a gap in the supposedly omniscient databank that many editors seem to regard wikipedia as?
I can only hope that the madness does not spread, or next any article that mentions God (or references another which mentions God) will be deleted for not having an ojective enough worldview, and being about entirely subjective worldviews (which is of course an entirely subjective opinion as God's existance can not at this point be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either on the site would be frowned upon as "original thinking". If this happens, then who knows where it will end?
The pomposity and hypocrisy of those who would seek to control and/or limit the flow of information across the internet never ceases to astound me. Just as I think I have seen the worst example possible, another crops up that is ten times as bad (and often this is the case when one bad yet impassioned idea is raised in support of a previous and equally execrable idea).
TNUK 23:13, 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_The_noob_%28Second_nomination%29_494b.html"