Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Epicenter

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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Adventures_of_Epicenter

Delete Non-notable webcomic. A few hundred google hits, but almost all are from various Dmoz directories. Impossible to get an alexa ranking, as it doesn't have it's own domain. Xyzzyplugh 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete oh the vanity, the sheer unbridled vanity. Eivind 02:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Nifboy 03:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Monkeyman^(talk) 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN and vanity Crzrussian 07:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eivind. Bucketsofg 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, vanity and not particularly good. Two of these items are actual criteria for deletion; one is just an opinion. The distinction is left as an exercise for the reader. --Cymsdale 15:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, doesn't look particularly notable. JIP | Talk 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to Super strong keep to avoid hurting people's feelings. JIP | Talk 15:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --AaronS 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. ProhibitOnions 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN Mirasmus 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notableNewyorktimescrossword 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• No Delete You sick little kiddies are honestly worse than the blammers on newgrounds. I also adore how you dress up your needs to destroy things in fancy little words to make it look like you have some level of intelligence. The person who put this up for "Blamming" as I'm now going to call it, showed the communicational capabilities of a bad artifical intelligence. That's not an insult either, that's genuinely how he talked. Do you know how frustrating it is to talk to a machine?

Honestly, what is it with immature, brazen children(despite often being in their 20s) and power on the internet? People love to ban, to delete, to destroy. I'm quite tired of it.

I very much doubt there's a flood of webcomics to the site, and there were multiple reasons, which, of course, you destruction-happy crowd completely ignored.

You're sad, and you need a better hobby.

Note that it's not even my comic, just one I read and made a couple of guest comics for once, but that's nothing to do with it as many other people did, it is not "Vanity" though I'm sure you'd like to think so, I have my own webcomic I haven't added. The reason I added this comic is because a network of boards know as the Sonic Hacking Community practically revered this comic as it's style of humour. Taking a look at old posts(archives) on Sonic the Hedgehog Area51, Sonic Cult, Sonic Classic. Those are very major websites. Looking for the posts of "dust hill guy" "dust hill resident" or "QVY" will find you them faster. It's true it didn't have many hits even then, but the humour from it itself spread rapidly to forum posts and to other users.

The author is clearly stated as being "Patrick May", and my name is "Kittie Rose", a female name! What the fuck? HOW can you be vain for other people? This just proves that most people here haven't even READ the article.

I wouldn't have submitted it if it was not in some way notable, which I believe it is. I think the rules are too strict here and should take into account these kind of scenarios. I'm also fascinated as to how the links can be almost all from dmoz directories, due to the comics previous popularity and that fact that much of the URLs come from it being posted on forums, and I have myself checked the webstats after it being posted most times. In the couple of years it's been around, it's gotten 7 thousand hits actually, not a lot but the comic was reposted a lot on forums.

But I won't let actual reason get in the way of the perverse human need to destroy.

If I was to ever give you any advice, stay away from Wikipedia, and stay away from Newgrounds. I considerred Wikipedia a prestigous resource, but now that I see some of the algae behind it(here and on the "Obesity" article) I am forced to rethink.

User talk:Kittie Rose]

Please no personal attacks. --Cymsdale 18:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It needed to be said, I don't care. The no personal attacks rule shouldn't protect questionable behaviour from being pointed out in in general. If someone can provide a valid reason why people are so obsessive about deleting and destroying, then by all means they should. Otherwise, you're hiding behind the rule and don't have an argument. If people had at least taken the liberty to read the article, maybe i'd be a little less angry. Also, I consider "vanity" to be a personal attack since it's not my comic, I only did a couple of guest issues and that has nothing to do with me submitting it! Stupid accusation, regardless.

I think all people who have taken part in this discussion have read the article. You talk of a "perverse will to destroy", apparently only because the majority of people here want this article to be deleted. I don't think that's enough evidence of a "perverse will to destroy". Quite often, an accusation like this means the accuser's feelings are hurt by his/her own precious little article being nominated for deletion. I, myself, have written articles about my former company (60 people employed, still active) and a web forum I participate in (330 members, still active). Both were nominated for deletion. I voted "keep" on both, and both were deleted. I accept the fact that they are simply not notable enough. JIP | Talk 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That rule we are hiding behind is WP:WEB, and I don't think it's fair to say we don't have an argument for it. These guidelines do not come out of thin air, they evolve through community consensus over time. You've made a case for the article not being vanity, so I'll remove that item from my recommendation. However, I still am going to recommend delete on the basis of non-notability. --Cymsdale 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If people read the article, why do they think I wrote it? And rules change over time. Just because they're there doesn't make them right. Gay Marriage being a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.100.8 (talk • contribs)

You are correct that wikipedia rules are subject to change. You can join the discussion at either of the following two links and attempt to build a consensus to change the notability standards regarding acceptance of articles on webcomics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28websites%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics --Xyzzyplugh 14:17, 14 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.