Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubble (webcomic)

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. This is a close case with the straight vote count at two thirds for deletion, but the argument that this webcomic has very little, if any, external reviews has not been adequately answered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubble (webcomic)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubble (web comic)- previous afd.

Does not satisfy guidelines for inclusion of websites Google search returns less than one thousand hits, and only 59 unique. None of these are from unbiased sources, just Wikipedia mirrors and livejournal entries. Deleted once already, the new version escapes speedy deletion as a recreation but only just:
Deleted version:

Stubble is an independent humor/drama webcomic by Josh Mirman. It stars the sometimes angsty Clint Wilson and his friends as they experience and struggle with life, love, betrayal, and death. Stubble has been online since the year 2000.

Current version:

Stubble is Josh Mirman's second and longest running webcomic, starting in 2000. It also had 2 spin-offs, a mini-series for Keenspot, The Misadventures of Timmy and Yin-Yang, a story about Roland Warui, the series antagonist. The story is about Clint Wilson, an angst filled semi-goth youth and his friends and rivals.

I find no evidence that this had been mentioned in print or reputable online media, nor do I find any indication evidence that it has had an impact beyond its narrow circle. Delete as non-notable website.
brenneman^{T}{L} 01:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Stubble received a Keenspot invite, which is good enough for me. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Stubble also was in a crossover with Ian Jones-Quartey's RPG World, who does have a notable work. Also per Adashiel. --Videowizard2006 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Crossovers happen all the time in webcomics, they like to help each other out and crosspromote their work. Having a crossover with a piece of work does not make it any more notable. There may be other reasons why this comic is notable/non notable, but the argument you put forward isn't the most convincing. - Hahnchen 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Crossovers do happen, but they are more work than just making one's own comic. Canonically joining 2 fictional universes can be quite a lot of work. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no references to reputable sources, I haven't been able to find any, article does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Dug through Google and Alexa's "What links here" but this was the best I could find. Nifboy 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reinforcing my vote due to a section at Josh Mirman, not only where there's a more expansive entry (no merge necessary), but I like condensing information as necessary. Leave a redirect if you feel like it. Nifboy 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Videowizard2006. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything that pops up in something (borderline) notable doesn't than inherit notability. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this would first bootstrap in this webcomic, than every webcomic that had done a crossover with stubble, than every webcomic that had done a crossoever with that one, and on and on and on...
    brenneman^{T}{L} 05:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Abe and videowizard. In addition, try searching for stubble and webcomic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, that search yields 286 unique results, including I'm clean shaven, no stubble, NO NOTHING! And Chaddeh, how would you know? ... Yarr! Link - My crappy blog and webcomic [1] and Cyanide and Happiness, a daily webcomic... I mean, i am partial to McDreamy with his rugged stubble [2]. - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and if anyone is interested, leave a redirct to Josh Mirman which already has a section on this.--Isotope23 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brenneman's comment above. Isotope's suggestion works too. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. 159.134.245.26 01:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Relisting on Brenneman's request. - Mailer Diablo
  • For a little exposition: This is a clear case of "argument vs. guideline". Without prejudice to the quality of the arguments to keep here, which are reasonalbe enough, it's more appropiate to look for broader consensus in such an event. Any one AfD draws a very small sample of interested users, but by widening the sample and running a few more days we can more accurately guage community feeling. This drew in a few of the regulars (ahem, e.g. me) but more eyballs is always better. That's all.
    brenneman^{T}{L} 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Gee, am I a "regular" yet? Man, this is tougher than many. Seems borderline to me, it's been around much longer than many, there's a forum that close to a thousand users (surely some fraction inactive), it has exposure at Keenspot and the artist has done other work. But I cannot find evidence that it's influenced other things significantly, or has been referenced significantly, can't find any metric that it satisfies WP:WEB suggested guidelines. So, regretfully... Transwiki to Comixpedia. Note: this is NOT to be taken as a straight delete, until the material is moved safely somewhere, I would oppose deletion (even though the current material is but a stub)... ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am displeased that this was relisted. It received a sufficient number of responses, and the result was NC, IMHO. Immediate relists should only be done if an AfD only receives a couple votes. My opinion on this AfD remains unchanged. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I concur with Abe. Keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you may have said that twice. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Abe. — Adrian Lamo ·· 09:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Josh Mirman. Do not keep, fails WP:WEB. Proto||type 12:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment actually, it is probably better to relist it now and get a clear consensus. A true Keep would be a strong argument against a future AfD whereas a No Consensus basically means we will have this exact same conversation again in a few months when someone else comes across Stubble (webcomic), sees that it fails WP:WEB miserably, and pops it up for AfD. I still support deletion, but if keep is the consensus, perhaps an info box in the discussion page stating that will avoid a rehash of this.--Isotope23 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• And if it doesn't get clear consensus now? Relist it until it does? No. It sets a bad precedent. We're not working on deadlines here, so there's absolutely no reason why we can't revisit the issue in a few months. At least that will give the article time to improve and establish notability. That typically doesn't happen under the gun of AfD, after all. And, if in a few months it still looks like a nn stub, then it only strengthens the case for deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• If it doesn't get clear consensus this time then it will sit for 3 months, it will get AfD'd again, it will still not meet WP:WEB, and it will get another no consensus. Rinse and repeat. Sorry... I'm a cynic. I don't have a problem with 1 relist to break a no consensus. If this is still an obvious no consensus after that though I would refrain from a second relisting.--Isotope23 18:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• And a cynical perspective has what place exactly in a project that strongly encourages the assumption of good faith? It's not as if this was an article created by a redlink newcomer, after all. AfD already has a reputation for being unnecessarily combatative and discouraging to contributors. Re-listing except in the case of barren AfDs is a step in the wrong direction. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Who created/how the article was created is completely immaterial to this discussion... as is the wider discussion of the place of cynics vs wide-eyed optimists in the context of Wikipedia. You have your opinion of relisting and I have mine. Since I don't think we are hammering out any policy changes here, I'm content to leave it at that.--Isotope23 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. What is going on in this AfD is precisely the same controversy that happens repeatedly with webcomics with some local recognition (i.e. among a small, close community) and little to no global notability. The WP:WEB standard is not precise enough to determine these cases, so by default (and precedent) we will end up including them regardless of the individual vote.  Cdcon  19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Isotope23. All the arguing in the world about whether it "should" have been relisted this soon or by a certain person is irrelevant; the site doesn't meet WP:WEB, so bye-bye. --Aaron 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. Stifle 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V (and WP:WEB by extension) No good sources means no article without doing original research... --W.marsh 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I nominated this comic last time around, it seems to be one of Josh Mirman's lesser works. And it's already got a mention in the Josh Mirman article per Nifboy. This has not attained big popularity outside of the Josh Mirman fan circle, maybe had it accepted the Keenspot offer, it would have been different. - Hahnchen 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Abe Dashiell. Nothing wrong with making our comics coverage better. -- JJay 09:57, 5 March 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.