Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comixfan

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 per WP:WEB; blogs are not reliable sources. Sandstein 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comixfan

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

Image:Comixfan 04-03-2007.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable website, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Assertion of notability was made by adding an "Awards" section, though the awards don't seem to be notable themselves, and in some cases are not that accurate. For example, "Runner Up" is actually 7th or 10th runner up, and "Winner" was because there were no other competitors in the category. I guess using footnotes to link to every single page on the site set off my WP:VSCA radar. Contested A7 speedy and prod. Leuko 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - almost all the references are to their own website, or to other pages hosted there, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MSJapan 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a web guide Alex Bakharev 01:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: The site is regularly linked to by other online news sources, such as Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, The Pulse, and many others. Such examples can be found here, here, here, here. In the 10 years it's been online, the site has established a very good reputation with major comic book publishers, freelance writers/artists, games publishers, and movie producers, so much so that it was responsible for my landing a freelance contract with Marvel (and hence my stepping down as EiC to avoid any conflict of interest).

It's listed as a Webzine link here as being "one of the Web's premier comic book and pop culture resource sites".

That said, I think the main reason for retaining an article on this - and other comic news sites - has been said best here. --Daelf1969 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Links from forums really aren't WP:RS, and the other site linked from is under AfD as well for not being notable per WP:WEB. Also, a link from a link directory where you can submit your own link and description definitely is not a WP:RS. Finally, the argument that this site merits a Wikipedia article because Anna Nicole Smith has one, well what can you really say to that? Leuko 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't merely discussion forums; they're articles that are featured on the respective sites' front pages. That's how a lot of comics news Websites operate.

I'm all out of arguments on this. If you guys can't see the merit, well there's not much else I can do. Fans and professionals in the business know what the sites rep and importance is, and as such I thought it would be cool to have the site featured here.

After the amount of hassle I've had to go through just to (most probably) see my first contribution wiped, rest assured I won't bother to contribute any further articles to this or any other Wikipedia-affiliated sites. It's just not worth the time and effort. --Daelf1969 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep:Have personally never heard of this stie before yesterday, but I beleive it's notable and has enough references to warrant it to stay on.--Shaoken 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update!: I have a link from Peter David's Blog mentioning and linking to Comixfan. Considering that Peter David has his own page here and is notable I beleive this qualifies as a reference and therefore proves that comixfan belongs on wikipedia!

I also have a link from Greg Pak's offical news page linking to comixfan. --Shaoken 06:30, 10 March 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.