Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife

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. CDC (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ExtraLife

del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 20:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. It's a very valid entry, and the webcomic has a large web presence. Google up Extra Life and this webcomic is the first result. Impressive noting how long this term, taken in a gaming related sense, has been around. Many other web-comics have a presence on Wikipedia at the moment as well. 24.61.90.121 21:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. Does this webcomic not fit the Alternate Proposal listed on this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COMIC AfterSpencer 13:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Archive does go back a while, but Alexa of 470,004 is well below proposed guideline of WP:COMIC. #283 at The Web Comic List. I vote Delete. Dcarrano 23:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of way too many somewhat successful webcomics about gamers and geeks. There is nothing unique in the subject matter or, as far as I can tell in a brief scan, in the execution. Although at least the art for this one is decent. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dcarrano--nixie 04:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 09:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

keep with over 100,000 unique visitors per month and a lage 'industry-insider' fan base, I'd say that it is not "non-notable". Keep it. (Unsigned vote by 128.231.88.4 (talk · contribs))

• Comment The 3 month average for ExtraLife is twice what is listed in the proposed guideline WP:COMIC "If the web comic has a 3-month average traffic above 200,000..." ExtraLife is at 470,004 as of today. AfterSpencer 18:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, it means the opposite: the # represents, not the raw amount of traffic, but the rank relative to other websites (#1 is Yahoo, for instance). So a higher number is worse. Dcarrano 19:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. AfterSpencer 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This is confusing. You aren't the first one to get it mixed up. I'm changing the wording of the guideline to read "better than 200,000" so that it is more clear what is meant. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Aranel and Dcarrano. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.