Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Keep, 19 keep, 5 delete, 1 merge (counted as keep) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Checkerboard Nightmare

Delete this non-notable webcomic. Article itself gives no indication of notability, listing only plot summaries and character descriptions. The comic concluded days ago (November 11, 2005) after five years without ever finding a large audience. Its current Alexa ranking of 292,426 [1] is either 3 to 30 times the maximum per proposed guidelines at WP:WEB. There appears to be very little demand for a print collection; Amazon.com lists its sales rank as "none" and it has no reviews. [2] A google search turns up 214 [unique site] results [3]. An early vesion of the comic was apparently printed in UCLA's student newspaper in 1999 [4], but not every college student's comic that appears in a student newspaper with a circulation of 17,000 [5] is encyclopedic. This looks like just another non-notable webcomic, and WP:NOT a web directory. Ironically, "Chex's weekly exploits usually involve some sort of harebrained scheme to increase his readership." Dragonfiend 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge (without the crap) to Kristofer Straub, and note I think this AfD is rather distasteful for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that the comic JUST ENDED. I will, however, concede that the comic in question is largely an entity within the webcomics spectrum, rather than having any influence outside it (and, largely, that seems to be WHY it ended). Nifboy 04:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't find the nomination distasteful. Direct, maybe, but the points are well-made and well-taken. I think noting it has just ended is relevant: as an already unotable webcomic, it is likely to sink lower. That's a fair point to make in a nomination. Dottore So 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Just a minor point, but unnotable, not unotable. --Dd42 01:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) The webcomic itself is probably unique in the fact that it is entirely, functionally self-aware. A side effect with this is how many othe comics it references. This makes it something of a meta-comic within the webcomic community.
Comment: Webcomics that are self-aware are far from unique. According the article on the webcomic No 4th Wall to Break, "the technique of breaking the 4th wall is a common attribute of webcomics." A Modest Destiny "occasionally breaks the fourth wall," Road Waffles has been "effectively shattering the fourth wall," and Framed! "is a metafictional webcomic." Comixpedia.org's article on Fourth Wall gives five other examples without mentioning this one. Webcomics referencing each other is also far from unique -- there have been countless webcomic cross-overs, cameos, homages, guest strips and parodies of other webcomics. Dragonfiend 01:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
What about the crossover/meme (unsure of how to categorize it) with Queen of Wands and Something Positive? (Kestrel from Queen of Wands, is shown in Something Positive, hit by a red car, which is shown in Checkerboard Nightmare to be by Vaporware. Following the end of Checkerboard Nightmare, Chex was later shown in Lost & Found being hit by a red car himself. Furthermore, Chex *did* attack Piro from Megatokyo as well as several others with a shovel during a story arc, and had a friendly adspace battle with Sore Thumbs, causing some controversy (mostly from the former event). It's also linked to by several other pages. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
We've already established that webcomic cross-overs are plentiful and that this comic "usually involve[s] some sort of harebrained scheme to increase his readership." What we haven't seen is anything to suggest any of these schemes actually worked, that is, anything to dispute Nifboy's assertion that "the comic in question is largely an entity within the webcomics spectrum, rather than having any influence outside it." Following your link to the webcomics blog "Websnark" only confirms this: One of the comments off the home page is from the creator of Checkerboard Nightmare saying "I gave it five years and it plain old didn't do enough to justify me continuing it." I'll respectfully suggest that you reconsider your vote while trying to apply the same standard that you would for other media. A self-published book filled with numerous literary allusions that only attracts a handful of readers is un-encyclopedic. An un-signed band that attracts only a very small audience while playing numerous cover songs is un-encyclopedic. A webcomic whose only claim to fame is that it did numerous cross-overs and cameos but never attracted a large audience is also un-encyclopedic. Dragonfiend 20:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Dragonfiend, I find it a testament to the strip's pervasive how you have fallen for every single meta-property Checkerboard Nightmare purported to be, in its effort to deconstruct the nature of webcomics themselves. Checkerboard Nightmare should not be deleted by virtue of it being the only webcomic that used its self-aware nature as a means to further exploration of success and failure on the internet. All other webcomics you have referred to simply use it as an excuse for lack of a punchline. Straub is being playful (as he often is) in his "admission" that the strip failed. He has been invited to speak on webcomics panels with Gabe and Tycho from Penny Arcade, Scott Kurtz from PVP, and many other popular webcartoonists. His strip has been referenced as THE standard for metahumor in webcomics by many webcartoonists and readers. Straub himself has said that if the strip did become popular, it would sort of have failed at its own mission, which is why I believe he decided to end it. He had said all that was needed to say about webcomics as a search for internet fame. If Checkerboard Nightmare is deleted, so should the equally "unsuccessful" strips Road Waffles, Framed!!! A Modest Destiny, No 4th Wall to Break and Queen of Wands. DrHot 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to add that the above panel was at the San Diego Comic-Con. Which, I believe, is the largest comic convention in the U.S. if not the world. Somebody, obviously, thinks CxN is notable. King Nerd

*Keep. A far more valid example of webcomics metahumor than any other webcomic mentioned in this AfD. The author, Kristopher Straub, has been invited to speak on many panels at conventions at the same table with web giants Penny Arcade, PVP and Bob the Angry Flower. It is the quinessential example of metahumor, to the point where the original requester for deletion missed its nuance entirely. DrHot 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. This is a joke, right? It would be hard to consider a more notable webcomic within the webcomics community outside from absolute top tier webcomics like PvP or Penny Arcade. It was significant news and of significant impact when Straub left Keenspot to connect with Blank Label Comics (after several years on said Keenspot and significant time as one of the top webcomics on Keenspace, both of which would on their own indicate automatic inclusion over here). Clearly, whoever put this up for deletion doesn't understand even the most cursory elements of the artistic field he's trying to 'edit.' I would recommend he or she not muck around with the webcomics entries without significantly more exposure to webcomics in general and the community in particular.Eric Burns 23:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I have to agree with the Websnark here. Perhaps CN may not be "notable" or "important" to your little circle, but to the general webcomics community CN has become a rather important strip, even if only for Straub's personal effects on the community through the strip.--Plaid Phantom 23:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    • User has two edits - Plaid Phantom (talk • contribs)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, as per Eric Burns. Nobody 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep: The reasons given for deletion seem spurious and show a lack of understanding of the material. And the phrasing of the statement "The comic concluded days ago" simply speaks to the increasing ridiculous of intenert time where a week is the equivilant of five or ten real years. Nedlum 23:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, as per the other keeps. --Meeowth 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    • User has 15 edits. Meeowth (talk • contribs)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, as above. Comment that it's pretty important to see the person suggesting is blatantly lying: the google search he links to which he claims "gives up only 212 results [6] " actually gives up about 53,800. [Apologies if this is too much bold, but this is a point which is pretty bloody important to note. Given this guy's link is evidence for the opposite of his point, don't forget this]. 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 138.251.224.11 (talk • contribs)

    • User has 9 edits. 138.251.224.11 (talk • contribs)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. Notability is something beyond Alexa rankings and currency. I would certainly consider a critically regarded webcomic to be more notable than Alien 5.2 in Star Trek, Episode X. Dismissing CN on notablity grounds is both spurious and grossly uninformed. --Catnik 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, also as per Eric Burns. samd 00:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep: Checkerboard Nightmare is one of the most brilliant and noteable webcomics in the artform's history. A vote to delete the entry betrays a complete lack of understanding of the artform -- some may say that it's just another fourth-wall-breaking strip, but that's because they haven't actually read it. Checkerboard Nightmare actually parodies these conventions and others. Its sharp, penetrating satire will continue to be relevant as long as webcomics exist. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.249.220.249 (talk • contribs)

    • User's only edit. 68.249.220.249 (talk • contribs)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Strong keep. Checkerboard Nightmare has been a fixture on the web comics scene for years, and is definitely notable. RMG 01:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep: Checkerboard Nightmare was and is an entertaining engine for parody and analysis of webcomics and our society at large, and is easily worth note. —preceding unsigned comment by 128.135.98.55 (talk • contribs)

    • User's only edit. 128.135.98.55 (talk • contribs)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Strong keep. Kristofer Straub is an extremely respected artist, who has, besides Checkerboard Nightmare, participated in many guest strips, conferences and has supported other webcomic artists. he is also one of the key founders of Blank Label. He DOES NOT deserve to see his first creation to be forgotten. The comic ended only a short while ago: deleting the enntry is plain ridiculous. —preceding unsigned comment by Psyclone (talk • contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This webcomic is quite well known. Yes, it's well known in the area of webcomics, but how many people other than Geologists care about Creedite? Or Joseph Robbie, how many people other than lifetime fans of the dolphins could say who he is? Wikipedia has always been important for fringe groups. -Fuzzy 02:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep I'm neither a fan of Straub nor his comic, but to imply that it is not a major influence in the webcomics community, or that it is 'unnotable' due to spurious statistics or because it is ended is to ignore all the discussions inspired, the events chronicled and the concepts explored by this very, very well known strip and by Straub. I would recommend that if you want to consider whether or not an entry concerning webcomics be deleted in the future that you actually consult with someone with at least a passing familiarity with them. For future reference, a strip ending does not always mean failure, and after a number of years, such as this, it almost never does. It just means that the author has said what he/she needed to say.--Blackbyrd2 02:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 216.134.160.149 (talk • contribs)

    • User has two edits. 216.134.160.149 (talk • contribs)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Suggest politely that Dragonfiend stop nominating webcomics for deletion, as he is very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability if he is nominating this. Phil Sandifer 02:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ravenswood 03:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Also, Alexa is not a very good indicator of popular opinion, since it can only be used to poll people who are dumb enough to install Alexa. Smart people, therefore, are underrepresented. Ravenswood 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • User has over 250 edits. Ravenswood (talk • contribs)
      • I appear to have 272 edits. How do you put that link on there? Is there a macro or something? Ravenswood 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, as per above. 149.169.88.9 03:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    • User has four edits. 149.169.88.9 (talk • contribs)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep What is wrong with some of you people? Do you even read webcomics? And its aleady pretty much a given that a sites Alexa ranking is by no means a proper test of its "worthiness" for inclusion in the Wiki. - Donny !—preceding unsigned comment by 69.170.218.57 (talk • contribs)

    • User has seven edits. 69.170.218.57 (talk • contribs)
      • Edit: Evidence? What evidence has been shown that it ISN'T relevent other than ignorance of the comic and conjecture by the person who put it up for deletion? Evidence? How about being recognized as a voice for webcomics by the likes of PVP and Penny Arcade? Helping to start Blank Label Comics? Being a top comic on Keenspace for years? And as other users have stated, Kris has been a speaker at major panels for webcomics.
        Edit edit: Oh nos! Seven edits? That totally invalidates my and other's opinions!—preceding unsigned comment by 69.170.218.57 (talk • contribs)
      • Please provide some way for participants to verify that this is "recognized as a voice for webcomics".
      • Please provide some way for participants to verify that "Kris has been a speaker at major panels"
      • It's all very well to claim such things, but unless it can be confirmed, the deletion decision will progress as if such claims had not been made. Something like mentions in newspapers, weblinks to media, anything other than simply "it's so because I say it is."
        brenneman(t)(c) 05:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • And yet you're not holding yourselves to those standards. All your arguments for deletion are "because I say so". By your own admissions you don't even READ the comics you're putting up so how would you know their value? And have you ever considered simply asking Kris about some of this stuff? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult to get confirmation that he goes to the San Diego Comic Con or that he's been a speaker there. And if you're looking for a recent link at a major site, Blank Label Comics (Kris included) just got done a shortwhile ago with a guest week at PVP. - Donny (who doesn't give a flip how many edits he has)
          • I think you're a bit confused. I don't read webcomics? Regardless, the burden is upon the person who makes a claim to support it. If you cannot ot will not provide refernces per WP:CITE than it must be assumed that such references do not exist. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Fine. Here you go. [8] The San Diego Comic-Con's program. "Is Newspaper Syndication Dead? The Future of the American Comic Strip". Bobulus 07:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Here is one of the Comic-Con 2005 panels. Straub spoke on two. [9] DrHot 09:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I think its clear that anyone speaking in favor of deleting this comic's entry doesn't read webcomics. Is that specific enough for you Brennemen? And whether you like to admit or not the people who submitted it for deletion are the ones who shoulder the burden of proving their point. Like I said, its as simple as asking Straub about the cons and a look into PVP's and Penny Arcade's archives show that Kris is linked by them not simply because they like his comic, but because they view him as a peer, as an equal voice in webcomics. I'm tempted to say that the shit-storm you guys unleashed simply by nominating this comic is enough to prove its worth but you're likely to question that as well. - Donny.
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep: As stated above, a great contribution to the field of webcomics. Take the requirements Dragonfiend linked to; Checkerboard Nightmare qualfies for, at the very least, two of them. By his own standards, it should remain. That aside, Checkerboard Nightmare was a pioneer in the metahumor of mocking the flaws common to the thousands of terrible webcomics out there. Bobulus 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Since, while I was spellchecking my writing, a warning about ensuring citing appear, let me list more directly why Checkerboard Nightmare should continue it's listing:
  • It is a part of both Keenspot (retired) and Blank Label Comics, two places the WP:WEB lists as large enough Webcomic Syndicates to count. [10] [11]
  • As mentioned above, a Google search turns up 53,000 hits, not the 212 listed by Dragonfiend. His link: [12]
  • If I'm understanding the WP:NOT Directory argument correctly, it only applies if the wikipedia article is being used to provide only, say constantly updating information or scheduling. This is not the case with this article.
  • The fact that the comic is based around the quest for popularity does not mean that is lacking in popularity. Rather, it is entirely based on mocking the average webcomic's quest for fame and glory. All the various cheap 'tricks' that a webcomic will try to gain viewers are pulled out and mocked, a field that is not exactly deeply covered in webcomics. Bobulus 05:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The criterion in question was actually added as a result of this discussion, is now being used in support of this discussion, and has very little support outside that of the person who added it to WP:WEB.
  • Searching for ""checkerboard nightmare" webcomic" yields 17,400 hits, but nothing impressive [13]. Compare that to Megatokyo's 50K+ and Penny Arcade's130K+.
    brenneman(t)(c) 05:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand what you mean. According to [14], that criteria was added on October 24th to that page, and therefore was added a couple weeks before the motion to delete for this topic appeared. I would argue that if the original poster uses it as evidence for a deletion, then the people opposed to said deletion should then be able to use it to help their case, should it apply.
  • While it's not as popular as Penny-Arcade or Megatokyo, I was mainly pointing out that 53k was actual number of results for the search linked to in the original objecting post, when he had incorrectly stated it was 212. Bobulus 06:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That guideline had been removed as not compatible with one of the five pillars of wikipedia, which requires external verification from independant sources. "Syndication" in this instance is only very loosely aligned with readership, notability, or profitability, and thus had been excluded by the majority if participants in the the discussion. It was only added back in the last few days, purportedly based upon this discussion. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence provided that this is encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you provide evidence that it isn't encyclopediac? Offer some criteria in determining if it is encyclopediac? --John Lynch 08:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It gets about one-fifth as many search hits as Leeroy Jenkins. Clarification: by my count it's 309,000 to 63,800. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is this a reason to delete??? Scix 06:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? By my count it's 86,400 [15] to [16] 53,800. And you're ignoring the fact that by WP:WEB CxN is notable by being a [founding] member of Blank Label [17] and a former memeber of Keenspot [18] both of which are listed as examples of syndicates which being a member of should immediately constitute notability. While it has not actually won any of the awards listed, it's useful to note it won an honourable mention this year [19]. J•A•K 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - I commented before but have just created this account
  • Keep I never cared for the strip much, but as an avid webcomic reader, I am willing to assert (though adittedly too lazy to calidate with links) that this comic and its creator are often referenced, and quite infulential, within the webcomic community. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As nicely as possible, that really doesn't help. This is not a vote so unless you do provide the links, how are we supposed to check the facts? - brenneman(t)(c) 06:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Google finds 53,900 hits for the full-length title alone. The community is as active as any I've seen, barring the superstars of the genre. What more is needed? I don't even understand why this is up for debate. Scix 06:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep Since when has being mildly obscure been a reason to not have a Wikipedia article? In fact, I read somewhere that we were 'encouraged' to create articles on obscure and little-known things.
And within its field this is NOT obscure and little-known. Do not take at face value the angst of the protagonist. It's fictional, y'see. 'Further' -- don't you think this much discussion might be evidence 'in and of itself' that the comic is not insignificant? I say keep the article, but call for a rewriteScix 06:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find the original argument compelling. I also want to add, as I always do, the importance of guarding against a bias in favor of internet trivia while excluding things that are more notable in the real world. We need to apply consistent standards. Everyking 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand this argument -- is there a shortage I don't know about, where keeping an article means another article doesn't get space? Scix 06:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I just won't go along with the inconsistency. I've seen articles I've written deleted even though their subjects were far more notable than this trivial webcomic. If it was a genuinely notable webcomic that succeeds in meeting the general guidelines for giving websites articles, then I would vote to keep. But the original argument suggests the opposite. Everyking 07:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for explaining. I'm don't know whether CxN is more or less important than the stuff you've seen deleted, but I'd hate to see something removed that someone might actually find useful one day. I am admittedly new here -- I'm not sure WHY anyone would delete ANY article that wasn't specious or damaging. Consistency is important, but isn't it better to err on the side of inclusion? And mightn't it be a bad precedent to fight to delete something because something else was deleted unfairly? I'm just curious aobut this whole process.Scix 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Please. There's articles for every single railway station in England in Wikipedia. If we started applying "consistant standards" of notability, half of Wikipedia would disappear overnight. ALSO: What makes you think this comic is obscure? Just because you've never heard of it? Come on. Ravenswood 07:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • That seems just a little biased, don't you think? The original poster has at least one of his facts wrong, and if you don't investigate yourself, or at least read an opposing viewpoint, how would you know? Plus, comparing the rate of deletion in a different topic area doesn't really seem fair. Bobulus 07:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In regards my original Google search, 212 was the number of unique sites Google turned up when I created this AfD. Looking at the number of unique sites is commonly used to avoid over-counting sites which have multiple pages with the same keyword. For example, right now when I go to the last page of a Google search for "Checkerboard Nightmare,"[20] I see "Results 221 - 223 of about 53,900." That means that 223 sites mention Checkerboard Nightmare. The 53,900 figure isn't statistically useful because it includes, for example, all 640 pages on checkerboardnightmare.com[21], all 941 pages on nightlightpress.com [22], 444 pages on keenspot.com [23], etc. What is important when judging the reach of this comic is that around 200 sites have mentioned it, not that some of those sites mentioned the comic many hundreds of times. I have edited my nomination to clearly say "unique sites" and apologize for any confusion. Dragonfiend 07:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't quite right. When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. It's far from scientific, but it gives you a rough idea of the overall web presence, compensating for Google's search return system. This, btw, is why the number of duplicates frequently changes, even over several minutes or hours. Google is returning a slightly different sample. A quick verification of this is using wikipedia itself on google. You will see that WP only generates a few hundred 'unique hits,' despite millions of returns. That is the duplication within the 1000 sampled result. In this case, based on your link above, the 53,900 google hits should be multiplied by a fifth - or roughly 10,000 unique hits. This organised forum voting notwithstanding, a defunct nn webcomic with a few rabid fans is still a defunct nn webcomic. Eusebeus 13:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Then I still don't understand your system. A search for "Checkerboard Nightmare", take to the "last page" [24], shows 336 unique hits, by your system. Megatokyo, a counter-example given above and obviously a lot bigger, under the same system, only goes to 439. [25]That system doesn't seem to provide very reliable results, if I'm understanding it correctly. Bobulus 07:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems to imply that Megatokyo is only 1/3 more popular than CxN. Which is interesting, really. Not that this is a popularity contest. Scix 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Reading [List of ways to verify notability of articles] suggests the number of backlinks is a way of guaging notability: for the current domain name which I believe has been in use for under a year we get 713 results, 99 of which aren't similiar [26]. Is this appropriate? J•A•K 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It's official. I thought my respect for the webcomics coverage at Wikipedia crumbled when certain Wikipedians outright REFUSED to accept any form of a coverage within the webcomics community clause in the new guidelines for webcomics inclusion. No matter how carefully worded Under the new guidelines, I'd say even Megatokyo deserves to be deleted for goodness sake. The webcomics community at Wikipedia has been commandeered by a few loud voices. Forget this encyclopedia. Tedzsee 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How many edits does Dragonfiend have? Or Nifboy? Let's get everybody's edit count out in the open. It's unfair otherwise. Ravenswood 07:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC) (Ravenswood has 250+ edits)
  • Keep. For the comic to have continued for five years seems significant. More important to me, however, is that several of the editors who have previously edited articles in the comix area believe it is notable. I see no reason to delete it. -- DS1953 07:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Doesn't break any of the official Wikipedia guidelines. References to WP:WEB are pointless at this stage as it is only a proposed guideline. It's quite possible it will never be an official Wikipedia guideline. I could make a proposed guideline tomorrow saying all articles have to include the word hallelujah or else be deleted. Doesn't mean articles have to follow it. Notability - point to me where this an official wikipedia guidelines states it is a requirement for articles to only be about notable topics. I've searched and found no such reference. Why should articles have to meet a non-existent requirement? Any logical person would say they shouldn't have to. Also comments that Wikipedia isn't a web directory are dishonest at best. The article WP:NOT merely says that an article shouldn't be just a collection of links. The Checkerboard Nightmare article is definitely NOT a collection of links. To say it is is ridiculous. I also find that stating how many edits people have is antagonistic and will only serve to further drive even more people away from Wikipedia. Oh and I've only got 200 edits, so I suppose my opinion is equally meaningless.--John Lynch 08:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not paper??? Even if CxN was "non-notable" (which I disagree with), there would still be grounds to include it. Dragonfiend, I think you're being a bit too eager to delete things, there. (My opinion) Ravenswood 09:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to add: One of the things Dragonfiend mentioned was, "Article itself gives no indication of notability, listing only plot summaries and character descriptions." -- In other words, the article is badly written. The cure for that is fixing up the article, not deleting it. The Wikipedia guidelines agree with me on this. Ravenswood 10:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: nominating an article about a successful webcomic on the grounds that it has "finished" is like saying that Bleak House shouldn't have an article because Dickens finished writing it ages ago. This stupid conflict about webcomics has gone on long enough; maybe those nominating these articles should go and write something themselves for a change. —Phil | Talk 09:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

* Keep: The only reasons given for deletion is it wasn't popular and it already ended. In a few minutes I've found three wikis that fit those requirements: the nintendo Power Glove wasn't popular, the cartoon Swat Cats only lasted two years, and the cartoon Sonic Underground lasted but one year. Yet all three of those have pages. So it seems the strongest argument for deletion has NO CHANCE unless you plan on deleting ALOT of other pages. —Captainhero 04:40, 21 November 2005 (CT)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The notability criteria is going insane. We need to bear in mind the INTENT behind wikipedia's guidelines, and there is no way that this deletion would enhance wikipedia. The people putting up articles for deletion for 'non-notability' need to take a long hard look at their reasons for doing so. You can't just expect to alienate one small community after another, and get a good project out of it. If in doubt, don't delete. The fact that a community exists around a topic which can protest its deletion at all is a proof of notability that overwhelms statements confessing personal ignorance from any other number of outsiders.--Fangz 12:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to add that I don't think comparing the edit counts of voters is at all useful here. Edit counts are only needed if you suspect sockpuppeting or attempts by vandals to sabotage the process. Every indication in this case, and many such cases is of the opposite - that the low edit votes amount to popular action by those outside wikipedia who are unhappy with this deletion. I do not believe that there is a credible argument that their voice is worth less in deciding notability than established wikipedians. Turning away newcomers, dividing readers from editors and elevating the existing cabal is precisely opposed to the stated mission of wikipedia, and is an assumption of bad faith.--Fangz 12:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but delete the ugly orange banner from the top of the page, per Fangz and his mention of 'the assumption of bad faith'. - squibix 13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This comic may not exactly meet any one of the proposed guidelines, but it comes close on enough of them that it shouldn't be removed. I also agree with the sentiment that it's influential. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep well-known comic by well-known author, often referenced by webcomic commentators. (And I have >500 edits.) DenisMoskowitz 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep I'm not sure I see why this would even be seriously considered a candidate for deletion. The article could stand improvement but does present information that those seeking it would want to get. The topic is popular enough that it should be included in an encyclopedia with 800,000 plus articles. I think someone has a bit of a vendetta against webcomics, or at least is giving that appearance with these actions. I agree with the poster that pointed out that many UK railway stations have a lot less relevance... To me Wikipedia should be what its authors want to make of it, and if several editors have been contributing content that seems good enough to me. Further, I'm not sure what the relevance of posting edit counts is, but go ahead and post mine, I'm curious, I can never get the tool to work for me to find out where exactly I stand... ++Lar 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep First of all, I'm not sure how many "edits" I'll have, as I'm on a rotating IP address, since I sign on from various locations at my college. And secondly, I'm disgusted that it matters. If someone cares about the content of this encyclopedia, even in this one case, then by the founding principles of Wikipedia their voice counts as much as anyone else's. If someone has three edits--all on Webcomics--why should their voice be less than one with 350 edits all on, say, United States politics? It's artificial elitism, and it's disgusting. Next, this is a ridiculous candidate for deletion. The rules were designed to prevent vanity posts. This is not a vanity article. CxN may not have gained a huge readership, but it was exceedingly influential in the webcomics community. Mr. Straub has spoken alongside lumanaries such as PvP and PA repeatedly. It is by nature a webcomic about webcomics, and as such is a humor parallel to a webcomics trade journal. Finally, this discussion should not be taking place. Remember: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rules are not applied regardless of applicability. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit to what may be covered. Dragonfiend, you are nothing but a loudmouth and a bully, and your attack on this page is nothing short of reprehensible.

    • Um ... WP:NPA anyone? I know I'm not exactly in the best position to do this, but it does seem like Dragonfiend has made a mistake, been somewhat abrupt, but all he's been doing is trying to make wikipedia better, for his view. Which is what we all should be doing, really. I think there seems to be a consensus that no one still thinks there's justification for deletion, as policy stands. Chill. And wonder about the deletion policy that means no one noticed for almost long enough for the deletion to go ahead.J•A•K 17:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote Despite being a CxN fanboy, I can find no compelling reason why it absolutely needs a WP article; I think it would be somewhat remiss to let it pass without any mention at all, but the exact details of the strip are probably not of great importance (and are readily available on the strip's own site). However, I can't help but think that this deletion proposal is an arbitrary one; it's based on proposed guidelines that could potentially exclude a majority of the items on the List of webcomics (depending on how strictly the fuzzier ones are interpreted), yet I don't see anything else up for deletion and it's not like CxN falls outside of those guidelines by an especially flagrant margin. Unless someone's willing to bring out the pruning shears (or more likely, the chainsaw) on Wikipedia's webcomic section, I think this debate would have been more appropriate as part of the discussion on the guidelines for webcomic inclusion. Given the broader discussion that's taking place on webcomics policy, I think that it should be examined not only why CxN should or shouldn't be deleted on its own merits but also what makes it more or less worthy of deletion than any other questionable webcomic entry. I certainly assume Dragonfiend had no ulterior motives in moving this for deletion, but the only unique qualification CxN seems to have compared to other entries for non-major webcomics is that the series just ended. Is active update status going to be a consideration for future deletion policy, then? In the absence of any other visible reason why CxN in particular should be moved for deletion, it seems like its update status is the deciding criterion for this proposal. Either some deciding factor (whether the strip's recent ending or some other reason which I have missed) that's been applied for the consideration of this page's deletion should be brought to the talk page on websites, or it's time to take an axe to the webcomics section. 137.48.20.136 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) (I have a grand total of 2 edits, as I fixed a typo once a couple months ago. Make of that what you will.)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - looks like a factual, verifiable and neutral article can be written here. Certainly no valid reason for deletion is given. Trollderella 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - Wikipedia's job is to archive and categorize information. not to decide which information is "good enough".

Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a fairly well-known webcomic... *shrug* An argument could certainly be advanced for it's deletion, but I don't think it's a good argument. Fox1 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable Webcomic. Whats with the rush for AfD? Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 20:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable webcomic. Factitious 21:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (At the very least, minor) notability established. El_C 23:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems to be popular in the webcomic community, and I see no reason to be deletionist about anything that's not blatant vanity or nonsense. Some people on other sites are badmouthing Wikipedia because we're even considering deleting this; while I don't favor caving in to outside pressure on any issue here, this is one where there just isn't any reasonable justification to delete compared to the justification to keep. *Dan T.* 00:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. Not only is the comic notable, but I don't think Wikipedia is in any way helped by removing the article. neongrey 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Pre-emptive note: user has ~20 (non-webcomic-related) edits. To new users and/or those user with very low edit count: your votes will never count as high (if at all) as those of more established editors. This is simply a precuation to prevent self-promotion. You are, of course, welcome to vote and comment. But expect such notices as the above. The best suggestion I could offer these users is to provide sources which help establish the given subject's notability. That carries infinitely more weight than voting keep & commenting. El_C 00:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for many reasons! NSR (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm fascinated how lack of coverage in Websnark is being used as reason to delete, and when Eric Burns, the writer of Websnark, votes to keep, his vote is discounted because of a low edit count. If the President of the United States voted "Keep" by announcing that Checkerboard Nightmare was America's Official Webcomic, the Wikipedia admins would cross it out: "only one edit." I imagine a good way to build an edit count is to nominate as many things as possible for deletion. DrHot 01:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow. Discounting votes bewcause of low edit counts seems a bit ... odd. Especially as I tohught this was pretty clearly stated as NOT a vote! (and for the record, I have more edits than recorded, because it took me a while to register. What do you suppose the cutoff count is?) At leastt he comments are still fairly legible, as I think some good points have been made entirely separate from "voting." Scix 01:18, 22 November 2005 (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.