Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dresden Codak

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 No consensus ViridaeTalk 09:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dresden Codak

Dresden Codak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This non notable website can be found here. Absolutely no claim of notability for this webcomic and an Alexa rank of 350,000. [1] Hahnchen 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no assertion of notability. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, may be speediable. MER-C 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This comic is known and revered throughout the online sequential art appreciation community. elftor 07:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — elftor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, as per proposer and Mailer diablo -- The Anome 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. agreed with elftor, this comic is fairly well-known and appreciated. AceGT09
  • Keep!!. How can one person just say, "This isn't notable..."; maybe not to YOU but to other people it could be extremely notable. For instance, me. Any and all art deserves it's own article... AC 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability, no references provided, googling provides no useful information beyond its existince. -- Whpq 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I considered voting delete despite having heard of it several times, but poking around beyond Google alone I found some interesting stuff which the rest of you may or may not want to consider:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm a new user (I have fewer than 100 edits) so if this information is useless or inappropriate, feel free to ignore it. --Ozy 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to delete. See below.
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, no reputable third party sources. Wkipedia has standards for accuracy and reliability (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV) that keep us from writing about everything we like on the internet. -- Dragonfiend 06:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Had not known about this comic prior to today, found through link from online community scans_daily. Perhaps not famous enough to be noticed by a particularly large crowd; however, I believe this will change in the near future. Taste varies, but I would be willing to deem this notable enough to keep (ubiquity is no accountant for excellence, and merit despite obscurity has kept many authors in encyclopedias despite the fact that their works were little known). My argument is threefold:
    • 1) I believe DC to be of sufficient quality (it is unusual, and unusually good) to merit its entry into Wikipedia,
    • 2) regardless of my opinion, my own investigation (based in a large part on the comments above) lead me to believe that DC (regardless of its quality or the lack thereof) will attain some familiarity with a significant section of the public. I would argue at the least that it's attained a status of sorts among more famous webcomic artists.
    • 3) I feel that the case for deletion has only been made on the grounds of its obscurity. If the article is lacking quality, let it be rewritten. But singularity has enough of a claim here to keep it. I find the "non-notable" assertion to be just that, an assertion, and specious at that. I realize that my points may be mere opinion too, but it requires something beyond facile claims of "not notable" to undo somebody else's handiwork.
-- jasonrhode 01:29 CST 11/28/2006
  • Delete High quality, very interesting style and subject matter, I'm a big fan, yet there's not enough in the way of verifiable source material out there to write an encyclopedia article on it. Mind you I say that about 50-65% of things we do have articles on. Sockatume 07:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Exactly as per jasonrhode above. Obscurity is not the same as non-notability. The comic is very well-known within webcomic circles. dougalg 15:56, 28 November 2006 (NST)
    • Comment, right, there are plenty of obscure topics which are notable. That is the idea that, per Wikipedia:Notability, "A subject is notable if it has been documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent, published sources" applies to many obscure topics such as some cult films, obscure bands, and webcomics. But it doesn't apply to evetyone, or to this one, as the article has no references at all, let alone to multiple non-trivial independent publishes sources. Notability is not "I've heard of it" or "me and my firnds have heard of it" or "Websites I visit talk about this." Think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that requires sources at least as good as a junior high school research paper. We do not have the sources here to cover this form a neutral point of view without using original research. -- Dragonfiend 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is just a comment on the incredibly trivial links presented above. We should not be pandering to the webcomic community, I can think of a bunch of unsigned bands which have picked up more attention and exposure than this has. Plenty are featured on XFM, which is a heck of a lot more notable than popular than the publications you mention. I know of a hell of a lot of Half-Life mods that have been deleted, one could argue that Sweet Half-Life and Azure Sheep were well-known within the Half-Life community, but so what, everything is notable to some community, it's meaningless. - hahnchen 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - i think as long as there's a category on this site about "Defunct United States soccer clubs" then it's really kind of a double standard to take this down cause it's too obscure or whatever.have you seen what passes as "notable" around here? seriously i think a somewhat popular webcomic deserves an article if the Markov strategy, Wisconsin Highway 182 and Frank Defays gets one without arguement. also, a webcomic is different from half-life. see, not everyone plays half-life, but everyone who sees this site has internet, and thus can see the comic, so it's a bit more relevant even if obscure.AceGT09
    • It's evidently not a popular website though is it. As popular as Genmay? Final Fantasy Shrine? Soompi? Everyone has the internet, they can see generic flash games too. Doesn't mean they should have articles, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a directory of every webcomic to have existed. - hahnchen 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • you're not really saying anything there, you have no real basis that it's not a popular website beyond alexa ratings. There is alot of information on wikipedia about sub-cultures, and webcomics are getting to be a notable sub-culture. Dresden Codak is notable in that sub-culture. i see reason enough to not delete.AceGT09
        • Delete - On the grounds of this argument I'm changing my vote. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not so much about knowledge per se as it is about thoroughness, utility, and verifiability. If it was about knowledge first, citing sources wouldn't be necessary. --Ozy 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Vote withdrawn.
  • Keep - on the grounds that all arguments in favour of deletion have so far been pedantic and trivial. --camille-martine
    • Comment - Pedantic/trivial arguments for deleting a given article outweigh pedantic/trivial arguments for keeping it. --Ozy 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability whatsoever. 72.75.153.114 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Dresden Codak was featured in Seed Magazine's 'Daily Zeitgeist' on 9/15/06[2]; it was reviewed on the podcast, The Gigcast, (#60) in October, 2006[3]. As mentioned below, it is a featured link on notable website A Lesson is Learned but the Damage is Irreversible. Additionally, Alexa rankings are neither authoritative nor entirely accurate, and as such are "not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites"[4]. KingNewbs 13:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep - I'm changing my vote again. In light of this evidence, I would like to make the claim that the argument for keeping is no longer either pedantic or trivial. Appreciate your work, Newbs. --ozy` talk 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per KingNewbs, and the wishy-washy ozy`. Black-Velvet 05:00, 2 December 2006 (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.