Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radioactive Panda

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 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radioactive Panda

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

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems fairly notable to me. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We got hundreds if not thousands of similar cases. Indeed, it seems notable and well structured article. -- Szvest 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
  • Comment There's no policy that says similar cases have the same notability, and actually, similar cases do not have the same notability (as explained in the essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability). There are no reliable sources, which is the main notability criteria criterion in WP:WEB. So to argue for the keep side, you need reliable sources. ColourBurst 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Per comments of above keep nominations. Chris Kreider 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (edit conflict). So far I have seen no rationale as to why this comic is notable. Two people have said it "seems notable" with no evidence to back them up, and one person has opted to keep because the previous two did. AfD is more than a vote. If it seems notable, I'd like to hear why. I see the author has published one book, but I can't find any information on it, leading me to believe it might be minor or self-published. Most of the links to it are from private blogs, it has a traffic rank of around 450k, and I can't find any third party sources to verify anything. In fact, the only two sources in the article are both primary- we have one from the website, and another from a forum. If someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary of what I've said I'll consider changing my opinion. --Wafulz 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete! AS PER ORIGINAL NOM. Look, this is about consensus, so you have to give VALID reasons why we should keep an incoherent article about a trivial webcomic. Saying that Wikipedia has a long list of other things that should be deleted is NOT a reason to keep it. WP:WEB clearly sets a stadard this does not meet. IF you can come up with a reason to keep it that answers the statements in WP:WEB, great. If not, then please don't spam keep votes just to keep your article up.In ur base, killing ur dorfs 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't look this meets WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trivial web comic, fails WP:WEB, WP is not a list of such things. --Steve 22:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB and I think it doesn't even assert notability. Sandstein 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 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.