Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi

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. After discounting newer editors (100 edits or less), I see four commenters for keep versus eleven for deletion. The established Wikipedians who argued for the inclusion of this article said relatively little in so doing -- this may yet other case where outside vote solicitation was ultimately self-defeating, as the dialogue was muddied by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia. The arguments laid out in the nomination and concurrences were never fully rebutted. Xoloz 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okashina Okashi

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:AB

WEB: Google test -wikipedia -forums =~598 entries (Most of the sites are fansites and discussion forums not caught in the -forum.)

The article fails to meed WP:WEB.
1)The site has not been the subject of multi non-trivial published works.

In addition the site does not even include a trivial link mentioned in a Lexis-Nexis search of US newspapers for the last two years.

2)The site has won no major/recognized awards.
3)This content is not distro'd via an independant online publisher.
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
4) If any of these criteria exist the article does not provide proof via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Furthermore, this article cites a "large forum" per the guidelines: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

COPYVIO:The article contains The text: Information quoted verbatim from the Okashina Okashi Character page with the comment: <!--This was submitted to Wikipedia by comic author ([[User:Xuanwu]]) and is NOT a copyright violation.-->.
However the page from which they are copied states that "Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy is ©2001-2005 by Emily Snodgrass, Allison Brownlow, Karen Olympia, and John Lee Baird and is hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webhosting and site automation service for webcomics." This is a probable violation of the Wikipedia GFDL.

Additional factors:
AB, NPOV, & VANITY:
The article is heavily edited by the writers of the comic.
NOR:
Finally, no original research. Nothing other than primary sources were cited for this page.

For the above reasons, this article should be removed (or heavily trimmed, or the copyright owners should put the things they want to include in GFDL license.) -- Kunzite 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • To any who read this: please note that I am currently working with the above member on fixing these points that have been raised. Please refrain from voting on this until modifications to the article have been made. Thank you. Xuanwu 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: copyright text has been removed and replaced with wholly original text. So WP:COPYVIO is no longer relevant to this case. I'll let the nominator remove the above tag. I'll work on taking care of NOR next. Xuanwu 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update 2: a reference has been added for the Strange English Project. As for Hess's own information, that can be found in the Hess article also on Wiki which has the Hess main page. This means what the project is and how many kids it influenced can both be verified using the links and references provided in the article and are therefore not original research. Because of this, I think the comic passes the notability requirement due to its influence on the English education of several thousands of students. So my vote is Keep. Xuanwu 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable vanity article which amounts to advertising. -- Dragonfiend 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Digging through the Google listings, the best link I could find was this obligatory passing mention in Ghastly's blog, over a year ago. No convention listings, no evidence of any noteworthy traffic, no awards, nothing. Regarding the Strange English project, I would make this observation: Commissions for small side projects are neither rare nor particularly notable. Penny Arcade has done over a dozen of them, but that's not why they have an article. Nifboy 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Strange English project was not a commission. It was an idea I came up with at Hess and implemented at my local branch. When the main office learned of it, they thought it was a great concept and spread it internationally via their curriculum publications (which, in addition to being "in house" are also sold globally), putting OO comics into classrooms around Asia. I'm aware of PA's school activities (as well as the one time use of Dinosaur Comics in a Japanese classroom), however, this is on a much larger scale, which is why I argue it qualifies as notable. It's a case of a webcomic being officially adopted by an educational organization for the purpose of instructing students of various levels. As far as I know, this is the first instance of a webcomic being endorsed in such a way and on an multinational scale. At the very least, it is an important event, since Hess has over 60,000 students (according to them), all of whom are affected by the curriculum created by the main office. Sorry if this wasn't clear in the article. And you don't have to take my word for it: check Hess's website and Taiwan business listings to see how large they are; Hess is not a small company. Xuanwu 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I was very much not referring or comparing to PA's school activities (which aren't even mentioned in their article). I am referring to projects like their involvement with the ESRB, and the multitude of mini-comics they've done for a number of different companies, one of which by itself (which, I feel, is comparable to OO's volunteer work) would not even come close to giving PA their own article. That you posted a call to action on the front page does nothing to help me believe it deserves an article on its own merits. Nifboy 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My understanding is that it's quite normal to do a "call to action" when a comic's respective Wiki page is up for AfD (many non-comic pages have had similar "rallies"). It helps notify people who may not otherwise be paying attention that something is happening, since not everyone is on Wiki as frequently as others. I think your comparison of OO's work and PA's work with the ESRB and others is a bit off. To me, an educational institution is significantly different from marketing (which is the general category the ESRB example falls under). I won't go into it too much here to avoid clutter, but one way they're different: marketing is very short term in its scope and effect, while a school curriculum has a much more lasting impact on those who experience it. That's why I compared OO's Hess involvement with Tycho and Gabe's visits to schools, since it's at least in the same field. Wiki has many articles on types of curriculums and education developments, because they are notable due to their impact. I think it's arguable that the number of notable marketing campaigns is far fewer in number (at least, those notable in the sense of having a lasting impact on society beyond simply inserting a phrase into the public awareness for a time). So, for me, having had OO contribute to the curriculum development of a school that teaches thousands is a more significant achievement than if OO had, for example, drawn some art for an organization to use for ads. You seem to disagree on this point, which is fine. But I hope you understand my reasoning on this matter. Xuanwu 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
        • A note on convention listings: according to Emi-chan, she's been invited to host a couple webcomics panels at Ushicon in the past. Unfortunately, the main Ushicon site seems to be a bare bones since they closed the con down in 2006. However, I found an independent verification of one of her appearances in 2003 via an anime fansite: Ushicon 2003 Panel. There's probably some more on 2001 or 2002 if you hunt for it. Xuanwu 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote. WP:WEB feels like a bad way of deciding these matters in general, but there's no obvious reason not to follow it in this case. Not voting because I like the webcomic, and am therefore biased</ - many of the references in other articles definitely need to go, though, and it is essentially (as far as I can tell) one of a fairly large number of moderately popular but in no way significant webcomics. makomk 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. It's not one of the really big-name webcomics, but it certainly seems to be fairly well-known online, as far as I can tell. By the way, I can't follow the reason for WP:NOR being mentioned - it doesn't seem to contain original research (it seems to be pretty much the same as the other webcomic articles in terms of sources used, AFAICT) - could someone please explain? makomk 11:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Saying it's not notable enough for wikipedia is ridiculous. Information is what wikipedia is for, whether it's that notable or not shouldn't be a factor. It's not your place to judge what is notable or not. Neopets R God 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It isn't uncommon for "notable" achievements to go under the radar at times, so it's perhaps a bit short-sighted to limit it to what is on searchable venues. The vanity is an addressable issue. I haven't read the comic, but the issues brought up can be taken care of without deletion.Yansen 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, though it would probably be wise to address the vanity issues. I would first point out that by some people's definitions, no web comic is very notable in some sense ( with this coming down to how many internet users are even aware of web comics, to which I don't really know ). Granted I really don't have a good idea of which web comics are "notable" ( in the sense of web comics, assuming that some fair number are to be judged notable despite my first remark ), though apparently a large number are given a glance at the WP's webcomics project page. So while it is of concern that a lot of the editing was done by one of the web comic's authors, this can be remedied ( and in the meantime a marker could be added ). My keep rating is weak both due to the fact that I really don't know what "notable" for a web comic would be, and because I admittedly read the comic ( I'll let you all pick which reason's more important... :) ) DAG 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am apalled by the double standards applied here. How does basic, unbiased information suddenly become advertisement just because the authors entered it and not a casual observer, who might not have nearly as much to say on the subject? By such standards, any encyclopedic work which contains more than a passing mention on a subject is advertisement. It's also a comic with a large following, so you can't say it's not in any way notable. Even if I hadn't been a fan, I would raise these objections in the interest of fairness. Kajiki 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added the warning template above as the OO page currently has a request (Xuanwu's news section dated 18 June) that people come and comment. This tends to cause a large number of newer users to comment, which the closing admin needs to be aware of. To those newer users, we're glad you are here. Please consider contributing constructively to other parts of the encylopedia and building experience with our policies... ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This webcomic passes my test for notability, it is well known enough within webcomic circles to be one of the ones kept. I'm not sure I buy the "and it needs to be trimmed back a lot" argument. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (over 5K edits in case there was any question :) )
  • Keep I find it interesting that newer forms of media, electronically produced and published for mass distribution are considered unencyclopedic while obscure punk bands from the 80's that I listened to in high school, that never had a following more than a few thousand are considered 'worthy' of being wiki'd. This isn't some kid's vanity page, it's a serious long running comic strip. If this is deleted then the slope becomes slippery, who decides if 'Dominic Deegan' or even Sluggy Freelance is worthy of wiki? for the record- I was pointed to this page, I am an avid reader of web-comics, I *don't* read or keep up with this comic, and I am an active wikipedian. Jonathan888 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, just to verify another editor's 'google' test - I show 57K hits on google - that's significant.198.50.4.4 16:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it is notable:it is ranked as 108/6705 in The Web Comic List (Info and current place at TWCL) -Solarius 21:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Citing the primary source is not original research. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To the newcomers I'll point out that "Wikipedia:Verifiability [is] non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. ... Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." -- Dragonfiend 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Assuming by "primary source" you mean the comic itself, the article has at least two reputable third party sources: the Hess activity book, which I have given publishing details for, and the site that shows Emi-chan was invited to host a webcomics panel at a major convention. So the third-party requirement is fulfilled to the extent possible (I would not expect any webcomic to have as many third party sources as, for example, a historical or current events article). If you have a different view on primary vs. third party sources, please state them so they can be addressed. Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • By "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," we mean things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals, not webcomics fan blogs and the like. Our standards for sourcing and accuracy in an encyclopedia article need to be as least as high as that of a junior high school research paper. If this topic is not covered by multiple, non-trivial, reliable, reputable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then we should delete this article, because we are not working on building an encyclopedia full of unreliable, error-riddled trivia. -- Dragonfiend 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmmm... okay. If I'm reading what you and WP:Verifiability are saying correctly, there may be a slight problem. I don't think it's possible to write a useful article on even as widely-known a webcomic as Megatokyo whilst meeting these requirements, though I could be proved wrong. (The current Megatoyko article definitely appears to have verifiability and WP:NOR problems, but at least some are down to carelessness). Of course, it's possible to get some of the information from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but I'm not convinced you'd get a significant amount of information that way. - makomk 00:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I think I understand what you mean, Dragonfiend. From the guidelines: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." Since this is a webcomic, summaries of the comic itself are allowed to use the comic as a "reliable source." So I think we can all agree the character and plot summaries that make the bulk of the article all satisfy verifiability since it is possible to read the comic and confirm what's stated (i.e. the summaries refer to a published primary source). The claim about the forum size is also verifiable simply by going to said forum. The Strange English Project already cites a reference published by a "reputable publisher" (i.e. Hess, whose credentials are quite good in the field of educational publications). And the comments made concerning OO's staff changes are based on statements made by the creative team themselves; publicly viewable direct quotes satisfy the verifiability requirement, especially since I used the ones that were archived (this is as opposed to direct quotes that are not publicly viewable, such as through email, or those that are not archived, like forum threads which can be deleted at any time, which are not verifiable). For example, if John Kerry published an opinion on his blog, said opinion could be added to his Wiki article since it's a publicly viewable direct quote from him that can therefore be referenced in the future (but only in its archived form, so it doesn't disappear). The same type of citation is made here. Not every article requires the same type of references in order to be reliable and accurate; in this case, since there are only a few claims beyond plot summaries, the amount of references is few, though their quality - and associated notability - is high. So the purpose of the verifiability requirement, making sure articles aren't "error-riddled," has been satisfied, since no errors are present in the article and it is possible to prove so with the references contained therein. Xuanwu 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No, actually what we mean by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," are things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals. Things like webcomics or blogs or online forums, on the other hand, generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or credibility. -- Dragonfiend 05:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
            • In that case the article satisfies the requirement to the extent necessary, since it has a reference in the Hess book, which could count loosely as an "academic journal." The book underwent a process of peer review and editing, which is the important feature of a third-party source (in contrast, a non-peer reviewed academic journal would not satisfy the verifiability requirement). I don't think there are any webcomic articles that use third party sources for plot and character summaries (since using the primary source of the comic itself is superior to a third party source for that info). So, the verifiability requirement has been met for this particular article. When OO does other notable things, I'll be sure to watch out that editors reference "credible, third-party sources" to verify it as has been done already. Xuanwu 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
              • So, your only claim of a credible third-party source is a single clasroom exercise that you created with your webcomics? According to your vanity article, "The Strange English Project began in July 2005. Xuanwu, then an English teacher in the Republic of China (ROC) working for Hess Educational Organization, took OO comics and blotted out the dialogue. ... The Strange English Project itself has become adopted by Hess and is now part of its recommended games and activities..." I'm not convinced that classroom games and activities found in a single book are notable, or that you creating a game about your webcomic is a very good third-party claim of notability. Also, your promise to continue your vanity edits to your vanity article don't give me much hope for this article. Let's delete this unverifiable vanity article. -- Dragonfiend 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
                • I recommend you re-read my earlier posts, as I make clear why a "single classroom activity" is important when said activity is then applied on an international scale. If you disagree with this, that's fine, but I think you understand why I view a book published by Taiwan's largest English education curriculum provider as a good third-party source. On another note, your RfA made it clear you're supposed to behave with civility, not engage in bad faith comments by using the word "vanity" like a slur. Please be more polite to your fellow editors. A civil AfD discussion is best for everyone involved. :) Xuanwu 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Please familiarize yourself with WP:VANITY. I believe you will find that "vanity" is not a "slur", but instead an accurate description of many of the problems with this article you have written about your webcomic. -- Dragonfiend 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Just as a side comment: I find this whole conversation very interesting indeed. I recently completed an MLIS degree, and the one thing which every last professor who even mentioned Wikipedia said was "Wikipedia does not, under any circumstances, constitute a valid source for research, but it does tend to have articles which cover subjects which would not be listed in standard reference books and therefore can be useful." I find it tremendously interesting that there are Wikipedia editors who want to pursue academic respectability -- which they will probably never achieve -- at the expense of the one thing which undeniably makes the whole enterprise worthwhile from an outside standpoint. -- An anonymous Wombat
  • Keep: It is hosted (as is plainly visible) on ComicGenesis (neé Keenspace) which is one of the best-known independent online publishers of smaller webcomics; that ought to satisfy #3 of WP:WEB. 81.2.97.157 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If that argument were true then every site hosted on geocities would satisfy #3 of WP:WEB. Choice of hosting company does not make a website notable. --Kunzite 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Comicgenesis is not Geocities. It's an online publisher of webcomics, not a free website host. It does have some quality control, and it is essentially the 'amateur wing' of Keenspot. "Strange Candy" (Okashina Okashi) is well-known, with links from Megatokyo at one time; it's one of the more established comics on Comicgenesis/Keenspace. If you felt OO didn't satisfy WP:WEB, then neither would almost any other Keenspace/Comicgenesis comic, as webcomics are rarely referenced or reviewed in print and therefore do not usually satisfy #1, except for those that have won awards (#2); what is your criterion for keeping the entries of any of the others? Do you feel they are also not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia? I still say keep; I feel that deleting their already-existing entries is contentiously and arbitarily destroying valuable reference material for which Wikipedia is well known. Of course, you're the editors, it's your wiki, it doesn't aim to be complete, and you are of course free to disagree. 81.2.97.157 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Give me a list of others. I'll evaluate the notability and put those up who do not meet WP:WEB as well. I'm not discriminating against this one comic.
The problem is that just because it is published by a publisher with some standards for content acceptance DOES NOT MEANT THAT IT IS NOTABLE. We certainly do not have an article for every scientific book put out by Elsevier, we don't have an article for every science fiction book put out by Tor, or even every history book put out by Random House. We also do not create an article for every single dissertation made the post-graduate students at the University of Michigan. These are places that publish works which more-likely-than not are more notable and contain more important subjects than this web comic. Why don't we have articles for these things? Because notability is not determined by the publisher or the fact that something has been published. Notability is not determined by who links to the site.
If a webcomic is notable it should be listed. You mention Megatokyo which has won national awards and has been published by a non-vanity press, and is listed as one of the top manga-style publications sold in the country by a third party record keeper. It deserves its own article. I hate to put this comic down, as it seems the author has worked hard on his this article, but it's just not notable and it shouldn't get a free ride Megatokyo's or Keenspace's coattails into the notability column. --Kunzite 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, I have a Comic Genesis strip [1]. I can very much say that it does not deserve its own article on that basis alone. Nifboy 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kunzite and Nifboy on this: simply being on Keenspace does not grant notability (this was a point I agreed with when I helped craft WP:WEB). My argument for notability, however, is not based on who it is published by. So pointing out that publisher and notability are not causally related does nothing to weaken my own arguments for OO's notability. :) Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep just because I like the comic and it's well-known enough to have its own article. --Passerby Cat talk cat 16:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    How is it well known enough to have it's own article? Your goodwill towards the publications it does not make the notability claim. --Kunzite 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • 60-some thousand school kids in Taiwan and Singapore know about OO (the templates used all had OO's name and URL on them) thanks to the Strange English project. I think that satisfies a claim of being "well known." Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • And... This does not meet notability.
X-number of people "knowing" about something or using it in a academic setting is not the stuff of notability. Does the math textbook that they use have an entry on wikipedia? Should a class assignment on diagraming sentences that uses cartoons drawn by a student-teacher in Fargo, North Dakota use them? I assisted a librarian in creating a set of library instruction handouts that have been used by 8,000 incoming college freshmen students at a major urban university for the past few years. It has used by several tens-of-thousands of students. My hometown newspaper has a circulation of over 70,000 and the advertisment for the locally owned Super-Jiffy-Quick Tire Shop that runs the same "$10.50 off the next tire rotation" coupon every week also doesn't meet notability.
Secondly, the citation in "Language Learning Games and Activities" vol. 3(?)[2] is a self citation. The book hasn't even been cataloged by a single library in OCLC. How many places use it outside of Hess? How many copies has the book sold? How many were outside of a Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) suggests that we could always add to something like the main webcomics or the Hess page as a trivia item: "Note that if a professor [i.e. educator] is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, or event, it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." Perhaps this is the route that we should take with the information presented here.
An IMBD reference to an appearance on a cable-access style show also doesn't connotate notability. We just recently deleted one for a similar-style show in Alaska called Stupid and contagious.
Could I get the rational for using pseudonyms in the article? It makes this article read like forumcruft. --Kunzite 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kunzite. Creating a single exercise in a text book is a trivial rather than a notable accomplishment. -- Dragonfiend 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I use an alias instead of my real name from personal preference. And I did not intend for the IMDB link to be proof of notability; I put it in there simply as a "fun fact." It's why I did not bring it to the AfD discussion. And see above for my contrasting of marketing vs. education in terms of notability. Xuanwu 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"marketing is very short term in its scope and effect, while a school curriculum has a much more lasting impact on those who experience it." Personal philosphy on the value of (one?) education assignment is still not a reason to establish notability for an encyclopedia article. (As per my comparison to library instruction handouts.) --Kunzite 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom's citation of WP:WEB.--Rockero 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Discount votes from "editors" without edit counts unrelated to this AfD. Ifnord 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Kunzite 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete First one to use my T&E:510 rule on, and it fails. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom or Transwiki to the webcomics wiki, whatever its calledBwithh 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was closed. It was closed Keep - no consensus. It was then reopened and relisted. I believe that relist was incorrect and I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 24. I previously commented that I believed the relist was incorrect but Dragonfiend refactored that comment to the talk page. I believe that refactor was also inappropriate. Please do not refactor this comment. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I initially closed it, but then Dragonfiend raised a concern about whether verifiability had been properly addressed. I felt that it had not, so I relisted it. There is an open discussion at WP:DRV about whether my decision to relist was correct - but, for now, the discussion is relisted and any new comments are welcome. Cheers TigerShark 23:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable only to those heavily into the subject. Most keep votes seem to carry a bias. tmopkisn tlka 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Doesn't quite seem notable enough within the webcomic community. WP:V arguments are silly in this case though, what's to verify? Applying WP:V to a webcomic is like applying WP:BIO to the battle of the bulge. - Wickning1 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Point 1 - This webcomic fluctuates between 3rd most popular and 15th most popular comic on ComicGenesis Top 50, ranked by pages served(Ghastly omitted) . Point 2 - Wikipedia editors tend to flag all webcomic entries as Vanity, due to the webcomic owners over-editing the pages for correctness. Point 3 - You can verify it's popularity from the third party stat tracker. Point 4 - You can verify it's popularity from it's own links to top webcomics (ranked 101 out of 6500, that makes in the top 1%),Point 5 - Wikipedia should no more be used as a staple of content's popularity than google. It's not the end of the world if Wikipedia does delete an entry, but by deleting everything that "isn't popular enough" to an objective value to be included creates a barrier to entry that discourages people from contributing anything in the first place. - User:Kisai 00:47, 26 June 2006 (PDT)
    • Comment: 1) Being about the 10th most popular webcomic on a particular free webhosting site is rather trivial when you consider the tens of thousands which are not on that site. If being number 10 on this website were that big of a deal then their would be plenty of reliable sources writing about this webcomic and the creator of this webcomic probably wouldn't have to write an article about themselves. 2) This is not flagged for WP:VANITY because the webcomic's author simply corrected some errors in the article. It is flagged for vanity because the webcomic's author created the article and has edited it heavily ever since. Check out the history [3] which clearly shows the webcomic author creating the article and making about 60 edits to it, more than all other editors combined. Check out this diff [4] which shows the webcomics author making 14 consecutive edits to the article over the course of several months in which they add 20-some odd paragraphs of completely new content. This is the furthest possible thing from someone simply correcting mistakes in an article about themselves; this is the absolute definition of WP:VANITY where someone creates a lengthy encyclopedia article about themselves. 3) We don't have inclusion standards for web sites based on their traffic. If an extremely low traffic site has a huge impact on culture that is verifiable through reliable sources (it's written about in the New York Times and Wired Magazine, for example) then we might write an article about it. If a high traffic site is unverifiable through reliable sources, then we can't have an article, because we're building a reliable encyclopedia. 4) Simlar to your first point, being just outside the top 100 on a site that measures a fraction of all webcomics is rather meaningless and trivial. 5) This isn't up for deletion because it "isn't popular enough." it's up for deletion because it violates a large number of guidelines and official wikipedia polices, from Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to Wikipedia:Verifiability and beyond. Finally, are you the same "Kisai" that's listed as being one of the two "folks behind Comic Genesis"? [5] If so, that would be a good thing to disclose in order to minimize any conflict of interest issues inherent in telling people how notable the webcomics hosted on your site are. If not, sorry for the mix-up. -- Dragonfiend 06:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above; Google is not the only search engine in the world, nor is it an absolute authority on notability. Plus, this article might be vanity, but it will definitely not be that way in the future after the article is given time to stabilize. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and thus we must work on articles to bring them to an acceptable level of quality. I believe a lot of people forget that sometimes and would rather take the easy way out. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussions above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AB, WP:VERIFY & WP:RS per nom and others. Discount votes from ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/new "editors" per Ifnord. HotWings 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kisai. I have been watching this debate for awhile, now, and I find Kisai's reasoning valid enough to keep the article. JimmyBlackwing 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I know that Wikipedia has alot of difficulty with Webcomics, but I belive this one is notable enough for it to be maintained. Jack Cain 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionaly, I belive that the majority of problems seen with this article are driven by badly misguided good intentions. I mean, we have articles with more serious problems that need the attention of serious editors, like List of misleading food names. Jack Cain 00:16, 30 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.