Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Room for Magic
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 No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No Room for Magic
Too few google hits [1] to be notable Tony Bruguier 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a Keenspot comic, and it's by Count Your Sheep creator Adrian Ramos. The article needs serious fleshing, though. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - This probably isn't going to be deleted, even given it's total lack of content. When websites like Able and Baker are undeletable purely because they belong to a Webcomics promotion collective Dayfree Press (their slogan is "Power in Numbers"), you're probably not going to be able to touch Keenspot comics, I haven't tried. I know an Alexa webrank of the hundreds of thousands and no media coverage other than the site it's hosted on would get normal websites deleted, webcomics are special, on Wikipedia anyway. - Hahnchen 05:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all webcomics not syndicated in non-trivial treeware. Possible merge to Adrian Ramos as part of a list of his minor comics, but this article has nothing to commend it. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of Adrian Ramos's writing of it, in the same way we might keep a less notable band based on a more well-known artist's presence in it. Also, I'd like to ask Hanchen to consider that his comment here might read as a bit uncivil, and to try not to attack even by implication people who disagree with him.-Polotet 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ETA: and yes, article needs significant improvement, but I've always felt that an accurate stub is better than nothing.-Polotet 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Well I still think there's a double standard on Wikipedia, as I mentioned in the comparison to a non-webcomic website. We are much more likely to keep the article on the webcomic, and yet ditch the website. But I didn't vote to delete the article because of its association with Adrian Ramos and Count Your Sheep, which has won lots of awards. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/44 Scotland Street, the author of that book is way more notable than Ramos, but it looks like that article will be deleted because of its lack of content. Wikipedians seem to believe that a webcomic is inherently more notable than other subjects, and that they should be treated with greater leniency. A website with an Alexa rank in the hundreds of thousands and no press outside of their own circle would be deleted, yet a webcomic probably won't be. Claiming that just by belonging to a webcomic collective like Keenspot or indeed the Dayfree Press as mentioned above is like claiming that all published books, all signed bands, every single TV episode is notable enough for an encyclopedia. And that's something I don't subscribe to. - Hahnchen 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: My comment regarding your incivility was based on what felt to me like an assertion in your first comment that people voting keep on this article, and webcomic inclusionists in general, are hypocrites who simply pound in "keep" on webcomic AFDs without giving any thought to arguments for deletion. Your more recent comment is completely civil and, while I don't agree with it completely, does a much better job of getting me to understand your point of view. (And thanks for pointing me to that AFD, I hadn't seen it and think it's a clear keep).-Polotet 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Well I still think there's a double standard on Wikipedia, as I mentioned in the comparison to a non-webcomic website. We are much more likely to keep the article on the webcomic, and yet ditch the website. But I didn't vote to delete the article because of its association with Adrian Ramos and Count Your Sheep, which has won lots of awards. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/44 Scotland Street, the author of that book is way more notable than Ramos, but it looks like that article will be deleted because of its lack of content. Wikipedians seem to believe that a webcomic is inherently more notable than other subjects, and that they should be treated with greater leniency. A website with an Alexa rank in the hundreds of thousands and no press outside of their own circle would be deleted, yet a webcomic probably won't be. Claiming that just by belonging to a webcomic collective like Keenspot or indeed the Dayfree Press as mentioned above is like claiming that all published books, all signed bands, every single TV episode is notable enough for an encyclopedia. And that's something I don't subscribe to. - Hahnchen 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable Keenspot webcomic, meets nontrivial publishing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: At the end of the day it's still a webcomic, and Keenspot doesn't establish anything. --Hetar 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no sign that this article meets WP:WEB. A brief mention in either Adrian Ramos and/or Keenspot articles may be appropriate, as per WP:WEB's "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." -- Dragonfiend 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- What, passing WP:WEB #3 isn't good enough anymore? Keep it. -- Grev 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you're trying to make a case that No Room for Magic is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ..." you may want to mention which site and show evidence that this site is both well-known and independent of the creators, rather than just posting a rhetorical question. If you're speaking of Keenspot, Keenspot falls well outside of my definition of "well known." In other words, could you give more detail on your reasoning, please? -- Dragonfiend 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- What, passing WP:WEB #3 isn't good enough anymore? Keep it. -- Grev 17:43, 21 April 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.
