Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone With The Blastwave

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 debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone With The Blastwave

It's hard to imagine, I know, but Wikipedia is home to more non notable Webcomics than then entire internet combined. This one can be seen here, already up to its 17th strip! Their forums have less than 150 users and the domain its hosted on has an Alexa rank of 450,000. A prod tag was removed because the comic managed to achieve a rank of 9 on the buzzcomics topsite. This is pretty meaningless, as even tripe like InSONICnia manages to get into their top 25 and with only 130 Google hits, no decent sources, this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Banish it to Comixpedia if necessary Bwithh 00:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, non-notable webcomic--TBCTaLk?!? 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pending reliable sources. nn Ziggurat 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep In my opinion, a web comic is notable.--Summonmaster13 01:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep At least the web comic is referenced. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but if it ever gains notability, don't let the previous AFDs be held against it like Dr McNinja. BoojiBoy 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not currently notable. --Coredesat 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. -- Kicking222 02:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Interlingua talk 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pascal.Tesson 05:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable by reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 05:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable webcomic Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete less than 150 users on a forum shows that it isn't notable.--Andeh 10:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Post-nuke it. --DaveG12345 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This article should be gone with the blastwave. ---Charles 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Xyrael / 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ForestH2
  • Keep The 3-month ranking of GWTB includes a hiatus, and shouldn't be trusted too much. Low activity on the forum doesn't mean anything, since they have a shoutbox they use instead. I think that if Wikipedia wants a "comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics", then we should at least keep comics that are in the top 10 on the major webcomic ranking sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainman (talk • contribs) 03:56, June 27, 2006
    • Comment: As this is an encyclopedia, we require that articles be verified by reliable sources. That is, not somebody's shoutbox or a "major webcomic ranking site." This fails my junior high school research paper test -- since my junior high school English teacher would never let me write a research paper based on somebody's shoutbox or webcomics ranking site, then I definitely don't expect to write encyclopedia articles based on such trivial, unreliable sources, either. -- Dragonfiend 15:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki for now. I agree with BoojiBoy that if (when) this comic becomes notable, it should have an article. But it's notability has not been proven sufficiently at the moment. Xuanwu 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator is at the very border of civility. Please leave your personal opinions out of this and try to stick to facts. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:45, 29 June 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.