Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside the Box

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 Delete --Tone 23:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside the Box

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. You really don't like webcomics, do you? DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Check your talk page for a reply. I don't want to get too off course on this page. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Have we actually determined whether Keenspot is notable enough by itself to pass WP:WEB point 3? I thought the topic was still under debate. ColourBurst 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because Wikipedia doesn't know anything about webcomics, and I'd rather not have my comics listed on it in the first place. -- Brandon Sonderegger
• Delete. Wikipedians don't do original research, so the problem here is more accurately described as "No cited verifiable information from third-party reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy knows anything about this particular webcomic." We can, however, blame Wikipedia for being an encyclopedia and not an internet guide. If Wikipedia were an internet guide that published unreliable and unverifiable information, this article would be perfect. -- Dragonfiend 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So then, by those rules, Keenspot really doesn't belong on this site either, being another internet site, until someone writes a book about it? Or is a magazine/newspaper article enough? What if a webcomic has a book or magazine written about IT? Does that qualify as "verifiable information"? (Asked in seriousness...) -- Alison Bellach
    • See the reference sections of such webcomics-related articles as Leisure Town, Megatokyo, Narbonic, Fetus-X, Nowhere Girl, When I Am King, Svetlana Chmakova, Get Your War On, Sluggy Freelance, Raina Telgemeier, etc. They each have multiple, non-trivial sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine, The Comics Journal, Publishers Weekly, CNN, etc. -- Dragonfiend 19:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Whether the comic is on the web or in print is not the issue. The issue is with sources (as Brandon is on the right track, we don't trust random Wikipedians to write correct things, we trust instead published sources). Dragonfiend has talked about which sources are considered reliable. ColourBurst 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Then I don't understand how you count someone's writeup of the Saw III plot as "verifiable". -- Alison Bellach
        • Comment Whether a plot summary is acceptable falls under the realm of original research, as they use a primary source (the book/film in question). Not verifiability. However, an article cannot be supported solely by primary sources (The Saw III article does not). ColourBurst 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 11:46, 1 November 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.