Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Mode

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 of the nomination was delete and redirect to God mode. Mailer Diablo 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God Mode

Non-notable.

Google turns up 18 pages linking to www.godmodeonline.com, 391 containing the term godmodeonline.com, (mostly on forums, links lists, user profiles, blog comments, and livejournals), and 51 containing the phrase "God Mode Online". (Searching for just "God Mode" turns up mainly irrelevant sites, as might be expected.)

In addition, the article provides no proof of notability (that would meet the guidelines in WP:WEB or otherwise).

Since the article is a stub and is linked to from very few places (essentially only Keenspot and the List of webcomics, plus a few other trivial/user:/wikipedia: links), the impact of deleting it should also be minimal. makomk 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and Redirect to Doom God mode, because that's where "iddqd" goes. Tevildo 14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The reason for keeping the article is actually in the nomination itself. It's on Keenspot, an independent for-profit syndicate for webcomics, which means it meets WP:WEB clause 3. (I won't budge on this issue, so express your concerns with a separate recommendation, not a comment to this one.) It should be renamed to God Mode (webcomic) though, since the term is far older than the comic itself. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If it does get kept, I agree it definitely needs moving. Having two articles differing in capitalisation is bad enough, but since it appears the "God Mode" capitalisation is sometimes used in relation to the gaming term, and that's both older and more widely used, it's definitely a bad idea. (I spotted and corrected a link to the wrong "God Mode" article in a Doom-related article earlier when looking through "what links here".) - makomk 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be pointed out that the above keep is based on incomplete information. As described below, the creator of God Mode, Chris Cosby, is a co-founder of Keenspace; as such, its position in Keenspace specifically does not meet the third clause of WP:WEB, which requires that it be distributed through a site that is both "well known and independent of the creators." --Aquillion 20:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to God mode - this site is not notable and having a redirect go somewhere else when there is an article differing only by capitalization doesn't make sense. BigDT 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per BigDT. Oldelpaso 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No claims of notability in the article. Wickethewok 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to God mode per above. --Aquillion 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gamecruft Artw 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and super-strong redirect to god mode. -- Kicking222 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to God mode. ---Baba Louis 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per everybody. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No Vote. Curiously, back when WP:WEB was being (re)written (back before webcomics dropped off the page), its "independent distributor" clause was there more or less for the express purpose of keeping Keenspot strips. Time goes on, huh? Nifboy 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is notable. God Mode has been published in print as a 32-page cover feature of a Free Comic Book Day issue (Comic Genesis 2006), with a circulation of tens of thousands of copies. Additionally, God Mode was created by Keenspot co-founder and Superosity and Sore Thumbs creator Chris Crosby, who many consider to be a notable figure in webcomics. Crosby pays Ryan Kerns a page rate to produce the comic as work-for hire, which is highly unusual and notable for a webcomic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.99.246 (talk • contribs) 22:03, July 5, 2006
  • Keep per Abe and 66.35.99.246. The comic meets the non-trivial publishing for webcomics, furthermore there has been a printed version, again meeting the requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Weak Keep per 66.35.99.246. You can find some info on the "Comic Genesis: Generations 2006" sampler at the Keenspot online shop and there's an interview with Ryan Kerns here where he explains how Chris Crosby actually created the webcomic. Seems to meet the criteria for notability. - makomk 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to God mode. The webcomic is non-notable, and fails WP:WEB. Article has no reliable sources and my attempts to find any in my library have turned up nothing (although I've learned a lot about a vastly more notable yet still incredibly non-notable Ryan Kern who is president of the Monaco Air Duluth Airshow). The couple of people who believe Chris Crosby is a "notable figure" or that Keenspot is notable ought to consider mentioning this comic in either of those articles, as not every little webcomic related to those two topics has received sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. Like this minor webcomic, for example. -- Dragonfiend 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I (still) reckon it's probably essentially impossible to do what you're asking in terms of sources for any webcomic (even, say, Megatokyo) and any attempt to try will result in an outdated and incomplete article. In fact, the only webcomic article I've seen so far that achieved this is When I Am King, and it had severe problems (mainly the fact that it consisted mainly of quotes and provided next-to-no information about the webcomic), though those weren't entirely a result of this - and that was a comic that's no longer updated, apparently got a reasonable amount of media attention, and clearly meets WP:WEB for that reason. Most of the webcomic articles (even ones that clearly meet WP:WEB) don't stand a chance. You may well have a point about notability though; however it's somewhat debatable as to whether it meets WP:WEB criterion 3 (depends if Keenspot counts as "an online publisher" or whether it's more of an invitation-only webcomic community with its own private hosting service attached - it seems to be something of a hybrid AFAICT, which makes life a bit difficult - and there's the slight complication that it was apparently created by a Keenspot co-founder). This could be a bit tricky; maybe I should've started with something clearer-cut. - makomk 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding Megatokyo, it (like many other webcomics) easily meets our standards for verifiability and reliable sources -- the article already uses The New York Times as a source, and a quick look in my library shows other articles from The San Diego Union-Tribune, Publishers Weekly, South Bend Tribune, The Tennessean, etc. Regarding When I Am King, yes, it needs expansion; that's why I tagged it as a stub. Its importance, however, has been clearly established by reliable sources. This article, on the other hand, has no real claim of importance and no third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and therefore ought to be deleted. -- Dragonfiend 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Megatokyo uses the New York Times as a source for one small, minor part of the article (the bit about it requiring a certain amount of "obscure knowledge"); the rest of the article cannot be supported by information in the NYT article (or the Iowa State Daily one) and mainly seems to use megatokyo.com itself as a source (which is pretty much par for the course, unfortunately). Unless it's something like This Is Home, deleting webcomic articles on verifiability grounds is probably a bad idea - this is best decided on the basis of notability alone, if possible (and the article does have some issues there). - makomk 10:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry - had a slight confusion of the difference between policy (WP:V), guidelines (WP:WEB) and random essays that are neither (WP:N). It doesn't help that the guidelines seem to reflect actual practice in this area better than the policy does, and that the two apparently contradict each other in some situations. Thanks to Dragonfiend clearing the matter up. - makomk 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that Chris Cosby was the person who created this comic, because Chris Cosby is a notable figure (co-founder of Keenspot is a notable achievement) meaning this comic would satisfy the WP:WEB requirement in that respect. I could be reading the article wrong, though. Xuanwu 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • None of the three criteria of WP:WEB (1. multiple non-trvial sources, 2. Well-known awards, or 3. Well-known non-trivial distribution) support the idea that everything a "notable figure" does is somehow notable. Even the most notable people do non-notable things all the time. -- Dragonfiend 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Since we agree the creator of the comic is notable, then I would also support a merge with the comic info going onto Chris Cosby's author page as an entry about other things he's done, besides helping to create Keenspot. But that's only if the comic itself is found to be NN by others. Xuanwu 05:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to god mode. --Ixfd64 09:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to God mode per above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 11 July 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.