Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Days of FOXHOUND
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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Last Days of FOXHOUND
No sources provided despite a template being up for a month. Does not appear notable. Fagstein 07:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NN. Michael 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB for lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles, no verifiability, appears to be original research. Notability also not shown, or implied, Alexa rating of 366,812. Only 166 unique Google hits, a lot of web directories. Tychocat 11:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow time for further editing. Voici 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I allowed a month with a template requesting even one source. How much time do we need? Fagstein 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I respect that you have, and perhaps I should have sought out this article sooner to begin editing, there is only one statement in the article that I can see that needs a citation, and it could be deleted without effecting the article. As for not being not notable enough - as of 07/08/06 it is rated above El Goonish Shive and Alien Loves Predator holding the place of 61st in the buzzComix top 100 webcomics, as well as being 41st in TopWebComics vote. I feel this is suffient evidence that it is a notable webcomic. Voici 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- That it is ranked 61st out of an arbitrary list of a small fraction of webcomics is not much of an achievement. -- Dragonfiend 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even when ranked above webcomics that have articles? Voici 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Since such rankings are rather meaningless and trivial, yes. Presumably those webcomics which have articles that are coincidentlly ranked lower than this one on arbitrary lists of small fractions of webcomics either have articles based on verifiable information from reliable sources or they ought to be deleted as well. We are not building an unreliable encyclopedia, since one would be useless. -- Dragonfiend 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even when ranked above webcomics that have articles? Voici 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- That it is ranked 61st out of an arbitrary list of a small fraction of webcomics is not much of an achievement. -- Dragonfiend 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I respect that you have, and perhaps I should have sought out this article sooner to begin editing, there is only one statement in the article that I can see that needs a citation, and it could be deleted without effecting the article. As for not being not notable enough - as of 07/08/06 it is rated above El Goonish Shive and Alien Loves Predator holding the place of 61st in the buzzComix top 100 webcomics, as well as being 41st in TopWebComics vote. I feel this is suffient evidence that it is a notable webcomic. Voici 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I allowed a month with a template requesting even one source. How much time do we need? Fagstein 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet our official policies starting with WP:V and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Dragonfiend 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I understand how the article might go agaisnt WP:NOT, I do not understand how it goes agaisnt WP:V as it contains only information presented in the comic. Voici 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: From WP:V: "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." Information presented in the comic is not a reliable third party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.-- Dragonfiend 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I understand how the article might go agaisnt WP:NOT, I do not understand how it goes agaisnt WP:V as it contains only information presented in the comic. Voici 16:49, 8 August 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.
