Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider (comic)

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic). As only a few people participated in the previous dicussion, new comments would still be welcomed. But nothing has changed since the original nomination. It's Alexa ranking of the host site has improved to 380,000 but I don't think the entire Well of Souls site is notable let alone this webcomic. The only source of information is the website itself. Professional reviews or critical commentary? I find none. - Hahnchen 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Not a G4 candidate because it wasn't re-created by the same editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: it does not have to be recreated by the same editor to be deletable under G4. I think the AfD should play out since it has been six months since the last AfD and the content is very different. Before it was just two short paragraphs. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep greatly improved article versus first time, alexa numbers arguably establish notability within the webcomic context, not unencyclopedic. Arker 07:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Notability within the webcomic context" means Alexa rankings like 1,457 (Penny Arcade), 7,708 (Megatokyo), or 11,340 (8-Bit Theater). 380,000 is nothing like notable. — Haeleth Talk 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Regular delete no assertion of notability, and they didn't even link to their own site! Not CSD G4 candidate - content is substantially different. Kimchi.sg 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have undeleted the previous version into the history of the current article to give AfD reviewers the chance to compare them. The article for this comic on Comixpedia is based on the Wikipedia version deleted in the first AfD. You'll find it at Comixpedia:Outsider. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment please analyze this article carefully before condeming it, and don't jump to conclusions. Hahnch writes: " Professional reviews or critical commentary? I find none." Well Hanchen, I can't find them in way too many articles too, and nobody seems to take it in a bad way. You could improve the article and critize it if you like. Kimchi.sg writes "they didn't even link to their own site!" and this is simply wrong, there is a proper link to the site inside of the box. How Kimchi could overlook it? Perhaps he needs to read the article with more care (or needs new glasses? :). Abe Dashiell writes that the article "is based on the Wikipedia version deleted in the first AfD" well this is amazing, because I compared the two and I don't find them alike at all. The subject is the same but that's it. As for the statement: "But nothing has changed since the original nomination." I completly disagree, and must tell you that that the first nomination was alltoo soon after creation and as such didn't had the time to develope (improve) properly. Since then the article has been improved by a enormous extent. Well, looking at the history of the article you will find that I spent a lot of time improving it, and I would certainly not have done it, if I didn't think that it is a worthy subject. No, I am not the author, but I found and read the comic exactly because I found a good article in Wikipedia and quite sincerly I think that is one of the notions of Wikipedia: Good articles = check the subject out. If you delete it Wikipedia is the looser, and noone else. Flamarande 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, those articles without external sources fails WP:V and/or WP:RS. Unless Abe has turned into a great fat liar for this AFD only, I'm going to go with what he says. When I say "nothing has changed since the original nomination", I mean that the subject is still non notable. So you found out about the webcomic because you saw the Wikipedia article? - Hahnchen 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't knew that it was a crime, so I will take the 5th. Flamarande 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I merely meant that this version which was the last version of the article before it was sent to AfD the first time, is virtually identical to Comixpedia:Outsider, the current version on Comixpedia. Previously this was unavailable, but I undeleted it into the article's history to give reviewers of this nomination more information. It is not an endorsement for either keeping or removing the artlcle. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 09:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a Googable webcomic, with entries on sites like thewebcomiclist and anipike, seems notable in the light of Wikipedia:Notability (web) (reviews in external sites).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do you even look at your own links? Anipike, anyone can add a link in there if they register. The Webcomics List is a list of every single webcomic there is and anyone can add more to it. Heck, I could upload a stickman and get it onto that list. - Hahnchen 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sites like "The Webcomics List" are the definition of trivial; see rheir FAQ, "Will you list my comic? Certainly, just use the suggest a comic page to add comics to the site." -- Dragonfiend 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know anything about it, but the comic clearly exists and has some history. Travislangley 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Has some history"? I have some history and clearly exist also, but I hardly think that qualifies me for notability. And Flamrande's argument sounds like an argument for using Wikipedia to promote a webcomic, which is certainly not how it is supposed to work. I haven't seen any reliable sources of information regarding this web comic. The webcomiclist and anipike entries are just short synopses with links, which I think falls under the "trivial" category. So far, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Wickethewok 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet the WP:WEB guideline or our official content policies, starting with WP:V. Our standards for encyclopedia content are quite higher than any topic that "clearly exists." -- Dragonfiend 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not only does this webcomic have "some history", it has as much as one chapter of history Bwithh 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has two chapters if you count the prologue. And all the background material doesn't count at all, right? Flamarande 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can see that noone is atacking the quality of the article itself, so I hope that we can all agree that the article is good enough. What we appear to disagree is if the subject the (the webcomic itself) is "worthy" enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Well, I think that the author made a genuine (very rare) effort to create a quite "logical and believable" universe (it never stops being sci-fi of course). Unlike way too may Sci-Fi universes and other webcomics, the author created a really detailed background for his setting, look in here: [1], and "you" must agree that the storyline is quite advanced (way too many others are overly simplistic and present the old Good/Evil Hollywood kitsh: Evil is stupid, Good is smart - like in Star Wars: the Empire was completly incompetent, beginning with Palpatine himself :). The art is very good, alltough clearly not brilliant, while the art of the overwhelming majoriy of other webcomics are simply bad, but really really bad. If all these things don't make this particular webcomic "worthy" enough, I must ask you all: Which webcomic is worthy then? Only those who appear in magazines and are thereby "notorious"? Isn't that a bit of circular reasoning? So it doesn't appear in books and magazines specialized in webcomics? Well, against that there is no argument - I can only wonder about the quality of such magazines. If this was a book or a game (computer or otherwise) instead of a webcomic this proposal would not even take place. I will end with this: read first the comic from the beginning at [2] to the end, for Chris'sake, compare it with other webcomics, and only then cast your vote. Flamarande 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We don't decide which topics are "worthy," "quite advanced," or "very good." We're an encyclopedia, so we rely on reliable sources rather than our own opinions. Have you read through our official content policies? If you have, I think you'll agree that this topic has not received sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. -- Dragonfiend 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You find the subject unworthy (whatever) because it hasn't noticed and reviewed by other ppl? Godless: The Church of Liberalism is a good subject and Outsider (comic) isn't? I agree that the first is a good article but soo is the second article. I surely agree with you that the second hasn't been reviewed by other websites, magazines (whatever). But the article does not fail in any of the flaws you present. It isn't biased, it is easily verifiable (simply go to the site) and I challenge you to show me any original research whatsoever. It is in the same level (ok, clearly not soo good) as the article Blacksad and how about Quo Vadis (novel)? You claim that without reviews and other sources we are somehow destined to fall in all these traps. Well some of us (a few) aren't that dumb and incompetent, and please go to Crisis of the Roman Republic; thousand of sources available and the whole article really stinks of original research. By that, I mean that the users have written their own personal conclusions. That's clearly original research. I challenge you to show me something similar in this article. If you want, I can easily add the background link "[3]" to the sources. I really didn't know that external notice was something absolutly necessary for an article. Could you please provide me with the proper wikipedia policy? Flamarande 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First, yes, I can provide you (again) with the three official wikipedia content-guiding policies. They are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Note that WP:V says "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." Second, this is really not the place to solve your problems with other articles. You can do that by editing those articles, discussing them on their talk pages, and/or even nominating them for deletion. -- Dragonfiend 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I have done some research into how notable this comic is. Most of the online reviews of Outsider appeared in 2001-2002, and are unfortunately no longer accessible. The Outsider was nominated in 2002 for Best Science Fiction Webcomic by the Cartoonist's Choice Awards website ([4]) (the site was down few hours ago and the nomination can be confirmed in Internat Archive if it happens again). Also, we should note the history and the trends: there were few upates in 2005, which caused the comic rank to plummet down. I can't figure out if Alexa can give me exact details of the rank few years back, but a rough estimate based on the graph suggest it was around 100,000. Also, if you look at the current trend, it seems the fans are flocking back as new pages have been released over the past few weeks. The reach, rank and daily views are increasing at about 50% per three months, so in about a year if this keeps up this comic will be as popular as the 'top dogs' mentioned earlier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for coming up with some research and proper reasoning, I'm sure it'll help others. I'd just like to offer some of my own thoughts on the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. The bottom line is, I don't think these are notable awards (I haven't nominated winners for deletion, but have done for nominees which didn't win). The thing is, there are just so many categories and nominees, from some afds on Wikipedia, I'm not even sure if the webcomic crowd respect this award. For example, I just took 2 random redlinks on the WCCA article and googled them, I chose "Four Toon Tellers" and "The Tenth Life of Pishio" because I thought they'd be unique names. A google search shows around 70 and 60 unique links for them respectively. Of course, I've not actually looked into these 2 comics, but it's just preliminery stuff. - Hahnchen 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that the WP:WEB guideline suggests a webcomic may be notable if it "has won a well known and independent award." We could debate whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are "well known" (I don't think they are) but there doesn't seem to be any debate over the fact that this webcomic has never won. -- Dragonfiend 16:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Xihr 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Also, I masturbated into a sock last night then threw the sock at the wall. Jerkcity 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend, etc. Nifboy 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty decent comic, but unfortunately has not yet reached a level of notabilty acceptable for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (web content). --Satori Son 06:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Comic is a WCCA nominee. Furthermore, the nom's rant fails to assert factual reasons for deletion. The nom has been told that Alexa is a poor indicator repeatedly and is not an official or unofficial criteria on Wikipedia. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If I don't provide Alexa figures in the nom, someone else sure is going to anyway. I'm going to continue posting Alexa numbers up. You may not like them, they're just circumstantial evidence, Alexa's a slightly better indicator than some keep votes I see. - Hahnchen 23:29, 16 July 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.