Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Look What I Brought Home!

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 redirect and merge with Keenspot. Edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look What I Brought Home!

Look What I Brought Home! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is yet another non-notable web comic. Its Alexa ranking is nonexistent (very, very poor), and the only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we avoid pretending that the piece of spyware known as Alexa is a useful source of information? Any person with even moderate technical knowledge would not use it.
Tens of millions of people use Alexa, and it is a noteworthy estimator of traffic, regardless of what your personal opinions of their business model or privacy policy might be. Ask any serious webmaster whether a high-traffic site is likely to have a significant Alexa rating or not. NetOracle 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Founding member of Keenspot, long-running, notable. 66.35.99.183 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Alexa traffic rank is particular irrelevant to determining the notability of a webcomic strip that ended over two years ago. According to the link within the article, archives are only accessible to paid subscribers, and again according to the article, it has a primarily historical claim to fame, i.e., being a founding member of Keenspot. Balancer 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed; as I recall, LWIBH's adult content led to some major policy changes at Keenspot. Keep. DS 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep as others have indicated, this webcomic seems potentially of note. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. To quote BradBeattie, there is an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability. Alexa rankings left webcomic inclusion criteria long ago, and Balancer has a valid point. --Kizor 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Keenspot presence is sufficient notability in itself. This is a very well received comic series, too. Wizardbrad 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep nominated as an attack and in bad faith. Notable comic. Ccfr88 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ccfr88 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Ccfr88 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and especially Balancer. -- Black Falcon 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Keenspot. --Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, etc. Article has no sources, let alone multiple non trivial independent sources suggesting any importance. WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and especially Balancer. Mathmo Talk 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Keenspot. It is an archived webcomic, and the article has little information which can easily be merged.
  • Comment if anything is non-notable it is Alexa. As a professional webdesigner, I know very well that it is far from perfect. It can be used to tag something notable, not non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Short of published server logs, Alexa is basically the only way of assessing how much traffic a site is receiving. It isn't perfect, but the only sites whose Alexa rankings are of no value are sites whose primary userbase detests the very idea of software analyzing their browsing habits, or whose users tend to use systems on which Alexa will not run. Even though I would never let it near my computers, I am not going to deny that tens of millions of clueless users run Alexa and follow links based on the exposure of those links. The site in question can't seem to muster up even a numbered ranking, which tells us that either it isn't very popular at all, or it is very popular but visited almost exclusively by powerusers and Linux users. Linux.com is currently at 5629, yet its primary audience isn't typically thought of as installing invasive toolbars on Windows systems. NetOracle 08:28, 14 February 2007 (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.