Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darian's Friends
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 was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Darian's Friends
Contested prod. Non notable webcomic, 68 distinct Google hits.[1] The specially made strip for Gaylaxicon is not really an indicator of notabiity (a convention with some 300 attendees...). No off-line publications, awards, or verifiable non-trivial mentions in reliable sources: the one mention given is truly a passing mention and not enough to indicate notability. A good article, but on a subject that doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia sadly. Fram 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Article fails WP:V (with a feeble attempt at cite), appears as if zealously assembled by WP:SPA(s) with WP:COI issues, on a subject that is very non-WP:N—MURGH disc. 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Darian's Friends does have an off-line publication of comics, and has had public screenings of the film (College Student Investigators) based on it. There is also Darian's Friends apparel, thus leaving it that much more physically tangible. BoltMan 01:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is no source for off-line publication, and note that eventual self-publication does not count towards notability. There is no source at all for the film based on it. The apparel is self-published as well, so that doesn't establish any notability either. Fram 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Even going by the strict guidelines set forth in WP:WEB, a fair argument can still be made for Keep. But aside from that entirely, this is not an article for the comic's website, but rather for the webcomic itself. WP:WEBCOMICS has not yet reached a consensus as to what exactly constitutes notability in a webcomic. Even the most cursory glance at the List of Webcomics that have articles on Wikipedia will yield hundreds of wiki articles for comics, maybe 90% of which are less notable than Darian's Friends, and don't even come close to meeting the standards of WP:WEB, which DF arguably does. In this case, until WP:WEBCOMICS either reaches consensus or is purged of garbage entries, there is nothing to be gained in the community by deleting this article in particular.BoyliciousDarian 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't see how it passes WP:WEB and since you think so, I wish you would make that argument. The fact that 90% other webcomics currently on WP shouldn't be there, isn't an argument for keep, but rather a nod towards what should be AfD nominated next. —MURGH disc. 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Reply WP:WEBCOMICS is currently working through some new notability guidelines specifically for webcomics. The guidelines under discussion there are still preliminary, but the chances look very good that DF will meet them (easily). I really think it would be best to reserve judgment at this time. BoyliciousDarian 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree the guidelines are messy, and all webcomics should be measured by the same policy. But as of Feb4, this draft User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines, was partially merged into WP:WEB, and notability criterion: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, is central and needs to be shown by DF. What is not part of current criteria is notability on account of "a long run", which I'd think is DF's chief claim. There is of course no rush to move ahead of consensus, though. MURGH disc. 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Those webcomics notability guidelines have not a snowball's chance in hell to survive wider scrutiny. If there are no verifiable, reliable independent sources, then no topic will be kept. There isn't even a consensus that e.g. secondary schoold which have existed for 50 years are inherently notable, so the chance that a webcomic which has existed for two years would be considered inherently notable is non-existant. WP:V is a core policy of Wikipedia, and WP:NOTE is the basic guideline of which all other guidelines are specific explanations, not exceptions to weaken that guideline that has a broad consensus. The only way a specific Webcomics guideline can possible be useful is to discuss which sources are reliable, which awards are indicating notability (the WCCA, which its numerous nominations?), etcetera. But if the aim is to lower the bar for webcomics (which seems to be the aim, probably because many webcomics are deleted currently), then it seems a wasted effort. Fram 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree the guidelines are messy, and all webcomics should be measured by the same policy. But as of Feb4, this draft User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines, was partially merged into WP:WEB, and notability criterion: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, is central and needs to be shown by DF. What is not part of current criteria is notability on account of "a long run", which I'd think is DF's chief claim. There is of course no rush to move ahead of consensus, though. MURGH disc. 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Reply WP:WEBCOMICS is currently working through some new notability guidelines specifically for webcomics. The guidelines under discussion there are still preliminary, but the chances look very good that DF will meet them (easily). I really think it would be best to reserve judgment at this time. BoyliciousDarian 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't see how it passes WP:WEB and since you think so, I wish you would make that argument. The fact that 90% other webcomics currently on WP shouldn't be there, isn't an argument for keep, but rather a nod towards what should be AfD nominated next. —MURGH disc. 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry to have to do this, as I love the comic. Sadly, we have to go with Delete. Why ? Because it is a basic requirement of a Wikipedia article that it provide adequate references/sources, and this isn't the case here. Sure, there are references to the comic RSS feed and blog, but these are not independent of the comic itself. We need our references to be (a) independent, and (b) from a source generally regarded as reliable and reputable. We don't have this here, so the article fails our criteria and must go. I would like to say, though, that we should strongly encourage the creator to carry on with the strip: focus on making the best comic you can, and ( probably when you least expect it ) it will be recognised by independent sources and discussed and reviewed widely. Then, when you've forgotten all about this discussion, a Wikipedia entry will arise, and no-one will question it. The best role model is Doonesbury; Trudeau didn't seek fame, he just wanted to write a good comic: the fame came automatically as a result of his hard work and talent. Work hard and hone your talent, and everything else will follow. ( This is a good rule for life generally. ) WMMartin 14:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Cornell Rockey 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 10:42, 8 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.
