Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disassemblance

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (5 Delete votes, 1 Keep vote, 7 anonymous votes, 1 new user, and an anonymous user claiming to be a new user) --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 16:42 (UTC)

[edit] Disassemblance

Non-notable webcomic. No Alexa rank. See also author Brian Hart (also on vfd). — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Am familiar with the comic, been running consistant for 2.5 yrs., but article needs serious expansion--64.223.199.2 1 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
• delete. No alexa ranking. Betting that this fails Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Webcomics's notability guidelines. humblefool® 2 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
• Strong Keep According to the Inclusion guidelines alternative proposal, this web comic is worthy of an article. It has nearly 400 strips and has been regularly updated, without missing a day, for the past two and a half years. This is a comic that is regularly posted on messageboards and communities like LJ (how I first heard about it), so it might not get much direct traffic. Perhaps Alexa alone may not be sufficient in determing if its worthy of inclusion? On a related note, the author has stressed in the past that he is mostly relying on word-of-mouth and does not currently utilize mass traffic influx techniques like ad placement. So it may be more of a slow grower. It is a decent project and is still worthy of note. I'd be willing to write a more detailed article if that would appease the Wikipedists... --Sumsumone 2 July 2005 01:20 (UTC) (user's only edits are to this VfD and a related one)
• Delete as per Humblefool. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability - longevity alone isn't enough.CDC (talk) 2 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Well, what exactly is evidence of notability in your eyes? As mentioned before, it meets the requirements for the three-point Notability and Inclusion Guidelines. What evidence do you specifically need?--Sumsumone 2 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that those are proposed guidelines, and are currently under dispute on the talk page. — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
    • It seems on the Talk Page that there is just general dispute about what makes a comic noteworthy. People are suggesting for many criteria beyond Alexa. Is Alexa the only true measure at this point? If so, what justifies Alexa as the unrivaled basis for determination? If there is general dispute over how to determine "noteworthiness" then by what criteria can anyone on here make a compelling case/decision for or against this entry? --24.198.18.42 3 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
      • The dispute is over whether the alternative proposal is too lax, and whether it should be amended or dropped entirely. The Alexa test has precedent for determining whether an article on a website should be deleted or kept. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance may have a relatively small following but its strong and loyal. It constantly gains new members and *is* growing. There is no sense in removing the article when it has the potential to boost Disassemblance's notoriety and actually make it "worthy" of a wikipedia page. Disassemblance has much to offer the comic-reading community. But without pages such as these many of them will miss out on this entertaining, witty and insightful comic. Also, do you really have to rely on a website to see what is good and what isn't? If you read the comic yourself, you'd see that it deserves this page. It makes me sad that people can't decide things for themselves anymore. — unsigned vote by 80.225.70.65 (talk · contribs)
  • I'd like to clarify my point about Disassemblance's "notoriety" as i obviously didn't express it in the best way. My point is that Disassemblance deserves this reference point; I was not implying advertising purposes. It is established as a respectable comic within its community and is not an off-hand project that will fade away. As a tribute to this, the page should stay. unsigned comment by 80.225.82.107 (talk · contribs). User: please sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~
• Strong Keep it meets the criteria, those for deletion have no grounds to defend that stance. Dis is a great comic, by a great guy. The art is unique and original. To those who say it doesn't get enough hits: the guy doesn't shove it down peoples' throats and pimp himself like so many other webcomic whores. And maybe if he had a Wiki entry, more people would see the damn site. --DragonGuyver July 2, 2005 16:05 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd just like to point out that "There is no sense in removing the article when it has the potential to boost Disassemblance's notoriety" and "maybe if he had a Wiki entry, more people would see the damn site" are not good arguments for keeping this article; in fact, it's almost an argument against keeping it (and has been interpreted as such before): Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  • Too true, but apart from the 'arguments' that you would suggest go against its inclusion, I believe the rest of their commentary shows a genuine interest in the topic. --Sumsumone 2 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
• Comment: Alexa and traffic are being pointed out as the only area, so far expressed, where Disassemblance fails the 'inclusion test.' I would like to point out from the Notability and Inclusion Guidelines the following: Sites that are close to, but still under, these thresholds may also be included on the basis that web comics customarily grow in size and have a higher likelihood of increasing in readership and, thus, becoming encyclopedic. As well as the Websnark commentary that often gets mentioned throughout the guidelines, about what comics should be included: I think every webcomic with more than 100 strips worth of archives on the web should have an entry in Wikipedia, and I think the Webcartoonist should not be the person writing the entry. Disassemblance has longevity, an extensive archive, and from the comments so far, there is obviously a fan base and interest. --Sumsumone 2 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Disassemblance is not just a webcomic that's out there to get statistical ratings or advertising. Mr. Hart makes more than jokes and 'pot shots' in his strips. It is an intellegant strip that addresses a myriad of current social, economic, cultural, religious and HUMAN issues. Dissenters would do well to go through the comic archive and experience the range of strips. Disassemblance.com is also not a site that is just about the comic. Disassemblance.com is a COMMUNITY -- a refuge for people to experience honesty, open dialogue, support, and a lot of fun in it's forums. The level of civility/etiquitte on the boards is unparalelled to any other forum i've been part of, and yet it is a natural friendliness -- not strained or fake. I'd love to see the article here in Wiki expanded to reflect Disassemblance's true nature and encompass more than just the stip. 65.40.121.21 3 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  • Edited the above for a slight format error --Sumsumone 3 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I've been follower of Disassemblance since right after it came online. It's a great comic that is more that worthy to be on this site. It has a very loyal following and even though it's small it's been growing. I remeber when their was only a hand full of people that read it and now there's more than two hand fulls. The writer of Dis has chosen not to site whore and that's one the reasons that I like it so much. I believe that there is something in this comic that everyone who reads it will get out of it, be it a simle, a laugh, a giggle, an idea, a deep though, or even a tear. I don't think chosing that it should be deleted because it doesn't get that much traffic is a good reason when it meets all the guidlines.

• Strong Keep Disassemblance has proven in my mind to have always been directly on the money for social, and political issues. Most specificly those that have no easy answers.— unsigned vote by 69.37.91.92 (talk · contribs)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance is a highly amusing webcomic that focuses on some serious issues. It's certainly one of the more noteworthy webcomics out there. Focusing on social and political issues past and present, Disassemblance provides an insightful, humorous outlook on things that would otherwise be considered stiflingly serious.— unsigned vote by 172.172.174.20 (talk · contribs)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance is a rare gem in the world if webcomics in that it is a) clearly poduced with care resulting in a very polished look. b) has a distinct look, very diferent from other webcomics. c) has continuity and story while remaining funny. c) manages a large cast very well. and d) has a point. I am consistantly impressed by it.— unsigned vote by 68.198.94.22 (talk · contribs)
  • Format fix for the above few entries. Obviously authors not familiar with WikiFormat. As stated above, please sign your comments with four tildes, like so: --~~~~. Even if your just an ANON creep like me. >:) --24.198.18.42 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
• Please note that sending members of your forum is considered Sockpuppeting and is likely to count against you in the long run. Also, being "on the money", "a rare gem", or having "civil forums" does not qualify you for a wiki entry. humblefool® 4 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm no sockpuppet, you should check on that before you say that kind of stuff. I've been a Wikipedia member for a while. Though I haven't been too active in editing, there's hardly a week that goes by when I don;t use Wikipedia for reference. Also, I didn't see anything on that page you referenced about alerting fans about an action like this as falling under sockpuppeting. — unsigned comment by DragonGuyver (talk · contribs)
  • Comment: I believe Humblefool was referring to the many anonymous IPs whose only edits are to this vote page. VfD is here for the Wikipedia community to form a consensus on whether an article should be deleted or not; rallying people who do not otherwise participate in Wikipedia to stack a vote goes against that purpose. See the section "Meatpuppets" in Wikipedia:Sock puppet. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, redirect to Disassembler. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:00 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance is a very unique comic. First of all, it has a most unusual reader demographic which seems to break fairly evenly into 1/3 christians, 1/3 atheists and a 1/3 pagans. That is a very unusual balance of readers. And it gives insight into the gem that is Disassemblance. The fact that the author has managed to capture relevancy to such differings groups and to bring these readers together (and for the most part - quite peacefully) is impressive. Perhaps due to the unique content & message and the author's method of delivering the messages. The content of the strips deal with every day life issues but all within the objective of building further understanding in mankind of one another. They are extremely reflective while at the same time quite humorous. I've read quite a few web comics, and sure many are more true to life. But few are quite as imaginative and so very satirical and yet at the same time very optimistic. I am actually amazed at the reader retention of Disassemblance. I have repeatedly been surprised to find out that someone I sent a comic too a few months back is actively reading the strip. Especially when it includes my own father, co-workers, etc. I find it interesting that Disassemblance crosses the age barrier as well with readers ranging from teenagers to 50+ year olds. Disassemblance is a comic that has been built up soley by word of mouth (and a bit of merchandise stickers/T-shirts/etc). Is it as large as Red vs Blue. Nope...but many of us find it much more relevant. Furthermore, I can say that Disassemblance has had a direct impact on my life, in bringing things to mind and affecting active thought on my part with regards to the issues. Often necessitating change on my part. That is an impressive "achievement" for a web comic. So sure...you can delete Disassemblance but Wikipedia would lose much respect in my eyes for doing so. Disassemblance is a great and unique comic that needs more support and attention...not less! People need to hear the messages Disassemblance comics say. And in truth, we need the humorous approach to let us hear them openly with out taken to our defensive postures. Please show me another web comic that is not simply humorous but address socio-political issues and has a reader demographic that ranges from teens to baby-boomers, conservative Republicans to leftist liberals, includes christians, atheists, pagans and treats such with relevancy. So if Disassemblance's only failure is to rank low on Alexa (not that I've ever heard of Alexa before) and if such were to be the justification for it's deletion. Than I will strongly question whether Wikipedia's will truly continue in it's goal or simply become another bean counter like so many other web indexes. Disassemblance has a strong, loyal, and growing following. It provides a unique perspective to a broad demographic in a humorous and enlightened way. - The Saj (July 7, 2005) "The Saj" is 65.85.113.98 (talk · contribs)
• Added some character information in hopes of bringing the article "up to code." Any of the "meatpuppets" want to help out in this respect? If people are so fanatic about the comic and want the article to stay, then they might want to consider adding to it. Give the Wikipedians all the more reason to keep it around. Does anyone know any place that has more indepth information?--64.223.199.2 8 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

• comment just a side note....many of whom you're calling "meatpuppets" are people [like me] who use wiki on a regular basis for gathering info, but who [until this point] either 1. haven't been aware that we could be on the 'edit committee' or 2. didn't know how to join it, or 3. haven't known that it existed at all. I'd have been a wiki member long ago if i'd known how to do it. Honestly, i STILL don't know how to become a registered member, but after this experience with trying to keep an article that i feel strongly about, i'm very interested in joining so that my voice will be heard in other matters..... -deepwoodsdancer 65.41.87.131 8 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
  • Ditto. I've never bothered to register, though I use Wikipedia all the time, and have even edited/added to articles on occasion. If you want to register click on where it says "create account" in the very top right of the screen. It doesn't take much to register, and after what has gone down with this article, I don't think I can continue without registering myself.--64.223.199.2 9 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
• Precedence It seems that those who have opposed this article do so on the grounds that this webcomic fails the "Alexa Test." I would like to note that Wikipedia already contains entries for a number of webcomics that have no Alexa traffic entry but have been allowed to remain here on Wikipedia...
  • The Jaded
  • Station_V3
  • Whimville
  • Apathy Kat
  • Arthur,_King_of_Time_and_Space
  • As_If!
  • Avalon_(web_comic)
  • Buttercup_Festival
  • By_The_Saints
  • Carried_by_the_Wind
  • Fuzzles_the_Snugly_Little_Puppy_and_Grumpy_the_Cat
  • Khaki-Man
  • Two_Eighty
  • Whispered_Apologies
    • So what are the justifications for Disassmeblance being singled out? Disassemblance meets the inclusion guidelines in all respects but the "Alexa Test", but obviously the "Alexa Test" is not all there is, or even "has precedent," if other webcomics "make the grade" without it. The bottom line is that Disassemblance is a good webcomic, regularly updates, has longevity, a loyal fanbase, and worthwhile subject matter and viewpoint not seen in many strips. It is worthy to note, and its lack of inclusion, would not only be unfounded, given the precedence, but also a terrible mistake. --24.198.18.42 9 July 2005 05:38 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.