Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spiders

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Spiders

A none notable webcomic, found here. The site hasn't been updated it like 2 years, with the next installment of the comic due to arrive Autumn 2004. The site it is hosted on, has been defunct for a long while and the alexa rank shows this, with a 600k+ figure. None notable part of a none notable website. - Hahnchen 01:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Jkelly 07:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn CLW 11:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This comic has been favorably reviewed in the Webcomics Examiner, the Comics Journal, Comixpedia (not the wiki), artbomb.net, and Sequential Tart. Scott McCloud and Warren Ellis have publicly and repeatedly praised it. Given that it has received extensive coverage online and in print publications, it is clearly notable, even before considering its artistic and technological merits. Why was this nominated? Factitious 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio. Authoring a web comic of dubious notability does not make a person notable in my book.voted for wrong AfD. No opinion on this.--Isotope23 16:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; these insignificant webcomics are forming a pandemic. If Factitious can show post some justification of his remarks, I might change my vote, although it is hard to see how a moribund webcomic can attain notability worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I still think it's insignificant per the nominator, but I appreciate your response. Dottore So 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean you think we shouldn't mention it just because it's over two years old, or is there something I'm not getting? Factitious 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe if the author himself thought it was significant, he would have finished the thing. He's abanadoned it along with Electric Sheep Comix, just because it's been reviewed by webcomic enquirer or what webcomic? or webcomics r us, doesn't make it notable. Technical merits? I thought infinte canvas would be a massive flowing page, but it's just a horizontal slideshow. - Hahnchen 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
As I've already shown, it has been reviewed in publications which are not focused on webcomics. If you're interested in learning more about what makes it technically interesting, I suggest that you read some of the critical reactions, as you should have done before trying to delete this article. Factitious 05:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a merge with Electric Sheep Comix? Gamaliel 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • At best, it would be merged with Patrick Farley, the artist's article. Not his art site, which is up for deletion. - Hahnchen 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Factitious -Abe Dashiell 13:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf melmac 12:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Factitious. Seriously, one read through this thing will convince you it will be marked in the history of webcomics, as an example of the innovative art that happens when political speech is unlinked from monetary neccessity and the constraints of the page. Philip Taron 10:16, 8 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.