Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (3rd nomination)

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. As per If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. from WP:V, and all three criteria of WP:WEB. Sancho 18:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a bit more to my decision that can be discerned from the simple explanation above... see the talk page for a more extensive discussion. Sancho 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The noob

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The noob
Articles for deletion/The noob (2nd nomination)
 Articles for deletion/The noob (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/The noob (Second nomination)
The noob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Recreation of deleted article, that somehow wasn't speedied. Same as before, no non-trivial sources from which an article can be written. Being nominated for some award (but not winning it) didn't save it last time, neither did the trivial coverage it receives. A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V One Night In Hackney303 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

version at time of AFD nomination --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: The nominators argument about notabilty websites is invalid, as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular culture and fiction. This article clearly falls within that group of Pop Culture and Fiction, and is expected to have sources considered "weak" by academic standards. The comment "A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia" is inflamatory and misleading in this context.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It appears this is actually the third nomination. shoy (words words) 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominators argument about notabilty websites is invalid, as per the very article on reliable sources he quotes - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular culture and fiction. This article clearly falls within that group of Pop Culture and Fiction, and is expected to have sources considered "weak" by academic standards, and the comment "A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia" is inflamatory and misleading.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My argument is wholly valid, as the link you have provided demonstrates. "it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources" (emphasis added). Those sources can only be used once notability has been established, not to establish notability. Also where's the evidence that the site is "respected". On one hand you ae suggesting that it's an unreliable source but we use it as there's not much more available, and on the other hand you're saying it's a "respected" site. You can't have it both ways, and I'd like to see evidence of "respected" and not just your personal conjecture please. One Night In Hackney303 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Once again, I agree to disagree. The comic is notable because of it's a) worldwide audience, as seen by links in french, Norwegian and American websites, while being written by a british author (that's four countries if you need a count), b) it is notable for having been nominated for the WCCA, which is considered a notable institution by wikipedia standards, and therefore gains notariety by reflection, and c) it is notable based on longevity, which is rare in the webcomic field. That's three reasons, therefore I assert notability. Timmccloud 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Once again, the facts disagree. Anything on the internet has a worldwide audience, and both the French and Norwegian links are 404. Got working links? It is not notable for having been nominated for an award, see WP:WEB. It would be notable if it had won an award, not just nominated. At present you're not presenting any new arguments or sources that weren't at the last AfD, which was a resounding delete. Notability isn't the only problem with this article anyway, it also fails WP:V which isn't negotiable. One Night In Hackney303 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please check your facts again. Many of us concluded the AFD was a resounding Keep, and took it to an DRV, followed by an administrative review because of the bias on the AFD. And the link to the norwegian site works fine, it pulls up the PDF like it's supposed to - possibly your ISP is blocking it for some reason. So you can stop asserting that the link is broken, it works fine. Timmccloud 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My facts are perfectly straight, perhaps you'd like to see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? The AfD was a clear delete, which was endorsed at deletion review. You can scream "ZOMG admin abuse" as much as you like, but your whinging about an admin doesn't hold water. The link is working fine now, strange you didn't try and blame other people's technical incompetence much earlier when it was most definitely 404. Still, your poor attempt at point scoring doesn't change the fact that this comic isn't notable and fails WP:V. The magazine was brought up at the last AfD where the consensus was to delete, a decision endorsed at DRV despite whinging from certain quarters. One Night In Hackney303 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Independently reviewed and noted by reliable sources (see reviews section). On the recreation argument, see WP:CCC. On the sources argument, consensus exists that plot summaries generally do not require footnotes when the summary's purpose is to provide context and background for a notable topic. The fact that this is currently not well done is a surmountable problem and no ground for deletion, but a reason for improvement. User:Krator (t c) 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment Consensus can change, but the guidelines and policies haven't and the article still fails them by a country mile as there are no sources. Taking the reviews in turn: blog - not a reliable source, and doesn't establish notability. Gaming website, hardly a reliable source and trivial coverage. Page does not exist, speaks for itself. Magazine (currently 404), strangely the one that was mentioned at the last AfD where the article was deleted. There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, contrary to your claim. One Night In Hackney303 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment Just because a link is missing a year later, does not suggest the coverage was "non-notable". You also chose to ignore that the comic is one of the flagship comics on MMORPG.COM, which is a major gaming website with influence throught the MMORPG community. Also, notability can be found in the fact that of the 4 sites you mentioned, there is worldwide coverage in multiple languages, so notability can be asserted simply by the number of references.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please provide a working link for your claim then. I see no evidence to back up your claim that it is a "flagship" comic. Notability cannot be asserted by the number of references, as they are blogs, 404 or trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney303 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Flagship" as in the sense that the noob was the first comic to be shown on MMORPG.COM, now there is about seven shown on that site. And I apologize for the anonymous editor who put the link in to MMORPG.COM two years ago, that they didn't put a "retrieved on yada yada" notation for your pleasure, but that's water under the bridge. Regardless, MMORPG.COM has over 1/2 a million MEMBERS, and has an alexia ranking in the low 4000's. That is a substantial amount of traffic, and that The Noob is one of only 7 webcomics in the world being highlighted there is notable in itself. Timmccloud 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So nothing except conjecture then? You're still not bringing anything new to the table, perhaps you'd like to do it now? Verifiability trumps notability, so you're pissing in the wind with your current argument. One Night In Hackney303 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: The primary reason for AFD last time was around the notablitly of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, which was nominated for AFD as well. The AFD on The noob was completed before the WCCA - and the WCCA was upheld as notable, and by extension that assigns notability to this comic. This comic WAS put up for a speedy, and after protest the speedy was removed, allowing for a full AFD review. Please note also that the last time it went far beyond a simple AFD - the reviewing administrator was brought to a administrative review for ignoring what was clearly a consensus to keep. On the question of notability, this article shows reviews and worldwide coverage which is notable, the source material is still being published, showing continuty and persistance beyond normal "fly by night" webcomics which is notable, being nominated for international awards (WCCA) is notable, and the article itself has been trimmed of "fancruft" to fit encyclopedic content. You only need ONE catagory of notability, and this article meets the critera multiple times. Notability is asserted and established. Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Which criteria do you think it meets? Bringing up the WCCA is irrelevant, as WP:WEB states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" - it did not win an award. The closing administrator rightfully disregarded a off-Wiki canvassing campaign and vast amounts of WP:ILIKEIT single purpose accounts. Your timeline of events is false, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 shows deletion was endorsed as the consensus was to delete. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7 shows it was endorsed yet again. So we're back here again, relying on the same trivial coverage on blogs, this comic is not notable. It wasn't notable at the last AfD, it wasn't notable at the first DRV and it wasn't notable at the second DRV, and there's no new information now is there? One Night In Hackney303 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I beg to disagree, I was involved in all of the AFD's and one of the AFD's came up as no consensus, so please get your facts straight. This is a notable comic with a worldwide audience, and I disagree with your opinions, as the facts are there, you just choose to intrepet them with a deletion mindset. I find it FASCINATING that this article has been around since the beginning of August, and three days after someone changes the name of the article, you jump on deleting the article. Where were you the last three months, if you are so worried about this article? I suspect you have a personal bias, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I admit bias, not because of WP:ILIKEIT, but because my opinion of the facts finds this a notable comic. Timmccloud 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How are my facts not straight? I said "It wasn't notable at the last AfD" - straight fact. Since my initial nomination for deletion I have seen a copy of the last deleted version, hence my knowing this article is also a GFDL violation, and know this article contains nothing in the way of sources that wasn't present in the last AfD, which was a consensus to delete endorsed at deletion review. Where was I the last three months? As you point out, someone moved the article and as soon as that happened I became aware the article had been recreated. One Night In Hackney303 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Still unsourcable without resorting to prohibited original research. I'd speedy under WP:CSD#G4 except that I see Splash has declined that already. This is an obvious recreation, and the closing admin needs to either restore the history needed for GFDL (if this comes to the wrong conclusion) or delete (if this comes to the correct conclusion). (The March deletion review was withdrawn; the February did endorse.) GRBerry 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please elucidate your objection on a GFDL basis, I have emails from the author giving permission for the article to exist under the GFDL. Timmccloud 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you even take the time to read the articles you nominate? Just in case you missed it, we are talking about The noob, and two of the first 9 words of the article is the name of the author of the Noob, Gianna Masetti. I have correspondance from Gianna to create the article and if you would like to see a sample of that permission, you can open the first image in the article and go to the image page [1] to see a sample of that permission. So once again, would you please state your GFDL concerns a little more clearly? Other than just making a blanket assertion that it doesn't meet GFDL? 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you'll find Gianna has nothing to do with the GFDL problems for this article. Perhaps you'd like to read GFDL and WP:GFDL? In case you need a quick summary, all edits to Wikipedia articles must be attributed to their original authors, and this copy-and-paste recreation is a GFDL violation. To paraphrase you, do you even take the time to read things you talk about? One Night In Hackney303 02:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for finally being specific. If that is your problem, the rest of the history is at User:Timmccloud/The_noob. If you could find an appropriate administrator, then I'm sure the article history can be recovered from the copy in my userspace. Please note in the current article history that I am NOT the one who recreated It. If you have issues with the cut and paste of the article back into wiki space, please discuss it with User:Jonathan Allew, but please remember WP:BITE - don't bite the noobs when you give your constructive criticisim. Timmccloud 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not the full article history, that's yet another GFDL violation. Any article being worked on in userspace should be restored with the full article history intact. One Night In Hackney303 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah, well then you need to take that issue up with the administrator Nearly Headless Nick {C} who did the restore in the first place. Good luck with that, he's the one we called to task in an administrative review. So, we can drop the GFDL issue then, since the history is available to administrators and it can be restored to repair the mistakes by a new editor and the failure to do a proper job by the deleting administrator. So now we can move back to discusiing the merits of the article, which I have already enumerated elsewhere, and stand by. Pity you weren't around the last time so you could have corrected the GFDL issue when it occured, instead of derailing this AFD with what turns out to be a repairable issue caused by mistakes. If the GFDL was an issue, why didn't you bring it up in the discussion page, so it could be fixed, instead of running full speed into an AFD? Is there some WP:IDONTLIKEIT about webcomics that has you all flustered? Timmccloud 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Have you read the timeline of events? It's on this very page. I discovered it was a GFDL violation after I nominated it for deletion, not before. I've nothing against webcomics, I simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT having the same arguments presented about an article about a non-notable webcomic that's full of unverifiable original research, when we've already had this discussion and you're bringing nothing new to the table. There are no new sources, there is no new information, this AfD is a prime example of process wankery that serves no useful purpose. Your article was deleted before, it's going to be deleted again, accept it and move on. One Night In Hackney303 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not only failign to fix the previous problems, but also a GFDL-violating copy-paste. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please elucidate your assertion of GFDL violation. As I personally have emails from the author which clearly state the existance and permission for this article to exist, I would like you to expand upon your assertion. Timmccloud 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice that you are neither GRBerry or Jzg, whom both of these questions were addressed to, and that you simply copied and pasted the same comment twice. Interestingly enough, I acutally read both the articles and the commentary, so redundancy isn't necessary for me, but apparently I have to reiterate my points for you since you aren't getting them. My apologies. The authors name is Gianna Masetti, in case you missed it from the first sentance of the article we are discussing. Timmccloud 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see what has changed since the last AfD. Still no reliable sources or real assertion of notability. Per User:GRBerry above, this is an obvious recreation - indeed, it's actually got fewer sources than the previous version - and I don't see why it doesn't qualify under CSD G4. ELIMINATORJR 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, one of the criticisims of the previous article was that it had too much "fancruft" - which was removed. Therefore the article is smaller, as requested. Timmccloud 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It may have been trimmed, but it still doesn't address the main problem - notability and reliable 3rd party sources. ELIMINATORJR 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is pretty much the same as the previously deleted versions, but with less content and sources. The only sources that look like they might be reliable: Yahoo! Actualités and Pegasus Magazine (January 2007 page 4 ISSN 1890-0704) don't seem to exist anymore. It is still an excess of plot summary and character info, with little about why it is notable or real-world significance. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please check your web browser and/or install of adobe acrobat reader - the pegasus magazine link opens a pdf - the article is on page 4 like the link says, and it opens up fine for me. You need to look in the middle of the page, it says "THE NOOB" in about 32 point font, it's hard to miss. I'm sorry that the editor who added the link to the french yahoo didn't note it as "retrieved on such and such date", nevertheless the link was active at one time, and The Noob was reviewed in the French Yahoo Portal. Timmccloud 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any verifiability problems in the article. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Where's the reliable sources for the entire article then? One Night In Hackney303 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All of the sources appear sufficiently reliable for the claims they are making. Which claims do you find suspect? -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pretty much all of them. There's hardly anything that's reliably sources, due to the lack of third party reliable sources. Without them, the notability argument isn't relevant. One Night In Hackney303 21:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This crusade against webcomics is an embarrasment to Wikipedia that has gotten it significant negative press coverage. -- Jtrainor (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you Jtrainor, for recognizing this crusade against webcomics for what it is. ONIH obviously has certain comics on his watchlist so he can AFD them and keep Wikipedia in his ideal image, even though we don't share it. Apparently he has never read WP:CCC, as shown by his repeated insistance that nothing has changed. Timmccloud (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Shame on us for having policies and notability guidelines then! One Night In Hackney303 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The fact that you feel the need to reply to every single keep entry with a snarky comment puts serious doubt on the good faith of this nomination. -- Jtrainor (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Shame on me for re-nominating a recreated article that's been deleted by process and endorsed by deletion review, shame on me! One Night In Hackney303 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's wonderful One Night In Hackney! Since you admit being ashamed of your self, are you ready to recuse yourself from this discussion and leave it up to the process you tout so effectively to decide the fate of the article, or do you need to see your name on ever line with a sarcastic comment about the process? I'll make you a deal - I'll stop posting on this thread if you recuse yourself from the process, and I will do likewise. :D Timmccloud (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on previous experience you're unlikely to stop posting in this thread, and you're also likely to carry on long after the horse and stick are worn out. Your repeated defence of a policy failing article about a comic that fails notability guidelines shows your judgement on this issue to be somewhat suspect. One Night In Hackney303 02:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I made the offer, you not only chose to ignore it, you instigated an edit dispute on the article to boot, the latter in a sign of bad faith, in my opinion. But we move on - allow me to introduce you to a concept One Night In Hackney303, it's called Championing, and I am not embarrassed in the fact that I'm an advocate of this article, nor that I have spent time improving it from the original edit, nor am I unashamed of my opinions about the article. In all of the references above that you chose to include in this debate (thank you for looking them up by the way), I did not intstigate the debate, but I am entitled to my opinions, and believe that wikipeda should be inclusionary, and not exclusionary. The offer still stands by the way - recuse yourself, and I will too - unfortunately I doubt you have the ability. Timmccloud (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote: "Honorable Mentions:The following webcomics deserve an Honourable Mention for being the runners-up in this year's WCCA nomination process. These are comics that many voters clearly felt were deserving of top accolades. As a result, the WCCA wants to honour them accordingly. Some are familiar names, but many are underdogs or lesser-known to mainstream webcomic readers. No matter how popular or undiscovered, though, all are deserving of the Honourable Mention:... The n00b (Gaming)..." http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note User:One Night In Hackney is now edit warring on the article, apparently in order to keep original research out. While he is obviously entitled to his edits and opinions, I feel the need to notify editors here that the version of the article they are reading may be tailored into a particular direction to influence their decisions. Note that I am not asserting a specific direction of the asserted bias, as some might argue it is/was written to influence editors to !vote keep (by including alleged OR), and others may argue it is/was the other way around (by removing alleged OR). User:Krator (t c) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Whilst edit-warring is never good, in what way is keeping OR out of an article a problem? ELIMINATORJR 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's great, but neither of the things Hackney is removing seem to me original research. Or, at least, one is cited to the official Blizzard website mentioning the comic. Both could use some cleanup in the statement in question (the second thing he's removing more accurately shows that people have named their characters after the strip, not that the author has encountered said characters, and the first thing doesn't support the prominence for games other than WoW, but in all cases the sourcing seems good. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • By all means feel free to repair the article and restore the content, you would be the third person to try and restore the content that ONIH has repeatedly deleted. He seems to be taking a real interest in an article that he want's deleted. Timmccloud (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have fully explained how neither of the statements were supported by the references provided. Please provide citations that actually support the text, rather than this and this allegedly sourcing "The noob is very well known among the players of various online games like World of Warcraft, RuneScape, and other MMORPGs" and this allegedly supporting "The author of The noob commented at one point that she had encountered characters in World of Warcraft named after characters from the comic, evidencing the size of its sphere of influence". That's original research at its worst sorry. One Night In Hackney303 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • They were trivial to fix without deletion, and it was lazy and irresponsible of you to do otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed Phil, ONIH is out to destroy this article, easier to delete than fix. Timmccloud (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm, no. I'm trying to stop you making false claims and adding original research. How about the fact you've just sourced "Notably, it criticizes MMORPG staff for incompetence and also shows the perceived image of MMORPG players as inclined to act antagonistically with regard to seemingly minor infractions and situations in the virtual worlds in which they interact" with [2] and [3]? One Night In Hackney303 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did. Did it ever occur to you in your tirades that you might actually have a point every 15th time or so, and that someone may try to address them? Please explain the problem with the reference - I think it provides a clear link to two places in the comic where the MMORPG staff acts antagonisticly against the players for a seemingly minor infraction in the virtual world in which they interact. I added that reference because YOU put a citation warning there. Here is how it works - an editor tags the article, another editor trys to address the problem, and removes the tag. If you don't like the reference, you can a) correct it (like you did for the movie references - well done), b) bring the issue up on the discussion page for community consensus, c) politely contact the editor in question to work out a better way of doing it.
This is not original research as your NEW tags suggest, this is a webcomic; if there is a point you wish to make in the article, you give a link to a representation of the point. It is becoming painfully obvious ONIH that you haven't read many webcomic articles on wikipedia; normally I would suggest you do so, but there is the risk you would have a anurisim when you read the other articles, based on your opinion how "verifiabily" and "original resource" work, and I wouldn't want you to take that risk. Nor would I like to see you put warnings on the entire webcomic community here, as you are doing exceptionally well in marking up this article in specific. Believe it or not, I believe that your citation warnings are actually improving the article - which is how you should have approached the article in the first place, instead of jumping in with both feet to an AFD. Care to withdraw your AFD nomination for a two week period while you and I work on improving the article together? Contentiousness aside, in the article, you are pointing out some very relavant flaws, and some of us are trying to address them, all the while improving the article. Some times it take a true critic to bring out the best in all of us. Timmccloud (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It is original research, it's the most blatant original research you could ever possibly see. This and this do not source "Notably, it criticizes MMORPG staff for incompetence and also shows the perceived image of MMORPG players as inclined to act antagonistically with regard to seemingly minor infractions and situations in the virtual worlds in which they interact". You are interpreting a primary source and drawing your own conclusions. Please read the "This page in a nutshell" section right at the top of policy Wikipedia:No original research, it shows exactly that it's original research. If, as you say, there are more articles failing policies in such a blatant manner then someone needs to take a flamethrower to them. Please bring your contributions into line with non-negotiable policies. One Night In Hackney303 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per timmccloud and jtraino. Mathmo Talk 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to the closing admin: Please note on-wiki canvassing for keep comments by Timmccloud. See here. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As I understand, the main issues the nominator has are verifiability and notability. Notability is more than enough established by the 4 links provided. Even the nominator agreed to that in the comments above and put emphasis on verifability. However, the no-verifiability claim is eliminated by the comic being an actually published work. Any claim made in the article can be checked by perusing the actual page from an actual book from lulu publishers. WP:V's reluctancy to accept self-published sources only extends to claims about the subject. When Harry Potter article says Ron Weasley's hair is red, you don't need an academic work explicitly stating that, when you can quote the actual page it was written on. All information about Gianna Masetti herself cannot be backed by her own works, but information about the world and characters she created can, and should. • Maurog • 09:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not established per WP:Notability or WP:WEB, I did not agree the comic is notable please do not spread falsehoods. I qote from WP:Verifiability - "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", so the verifiability is very much not met. Lulu publishers is a vanity publisher, and are not third-party. One Night In Hackney303 10:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You are discussing the comic itself again. What does it need to verify beyond its own existence, which is established by the four notability links? The nominations for awards, launch date, mentions, format, color, everything is verified. The claims in the body of the article about characters can be verified by the published book itself. So what does it need to verify further? • Maurog • 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Which four links are you talking about? The only links I can see source very little. One Night In Hackney303 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per there being no valid reason to delete. Verifiability does indeed trump notability, but what's to verify? It's a webcomic; it's right there on the Internet for all to see; it plainly exists so verifying its existence is not a problem. As for notability, I am sufficiently convinced of its notability by the foregoing keep comments. Rogue 9 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and page protect, no notability or importance verified by reputable third party sources. Lacks the multiple non-trivial independent sources necessary for verifiable, NPOV encyclopedia writing. My library searches have turned up no reputable sources, and we have no new information since the last AFD, Deletion review, etc. Delete it, protect the page from recreation, and stop wasting our time and our readers' time with this. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I haven't seen a good argument as to why the current sources are not sufficiently notable to warrant notability for a web comic - certainly mention of honours for a comic award that is also verifiable (link supplied in this discussion) gives good cause for the comic to be notable and for the verifiability of the notability. Topazg (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been reviewed in Pegasus magazine, which qualifies as a secondary source, satisfying notability requirements. It's also published at an independent site. Buspar (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It actually hasn't been reviewed by that zine. I know, the article says that it has. --Dragonfiend (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Buspar. Furthermore notability doesn't have to be established, or have we elevated it to policy above all others? Once again the struggle between those who would clean up and those who would throw away rears its head. One day we will work out a better way to co-exist. What is the ultimate flaw with this article? And can people stop quoting that daft line from WP:V which some numbskull added regarding if no third party sources exist. That was never meant as a clear blue line, there was always intended a grey area, hence the use of the phrase "Wikipedia should not" rather than "Wikipedia must not". Should means it applies in general, must means it always applies. Some of us take care when we frame policy, knowing that WP:IAR applies. Could the people advocating deletion please explain how deletion of this article improves Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Because there seems to be some confusion above, let's make clear that this comic did not win and was not nominated for one of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Checking the source, you can see that there are 29 comics listed with "WINNER!" after their titles. Those are winners. In each category you will see about five comics listed besides the ones with the "WINNER!" label. Those 90+ other listings represent nominees. The 29 "Honorable Mentions" are those that were runners-up for nominations, not runners-up for awards. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I quoted the "honorable mention" text in full above, minus the list of other comics. I don't see confusion here...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Here is the text, in full:
Honorable Mentions
The following webcomics deserve an Honourable Mention for being the runners-up in this year's WCCA nomination process. These 
are comics that many voters clearly felt were deserving of top accolades. As a result, the WCCA wants to honour them 
accordingly. Some are familiar names, but many are underdogs or lesser-known to mainstream webcomic readers. No matter how 
popular or undiscovered, though, all are deserving of the Honourable Mention:

Alpha Shade (Colour), Beaver & Steve (Outstanding Comic), Butternut Squash (Environment Design), Checkerboard Nightmare 
(Comedic), Copper (Short Form), Count Your Sheep (Short Form), Flick (Sci-Fi), Gossamer Commons (Newcomer), Inverloch 
(Character Art), Megatokyo (Environment Design), Nine Planets without Intelligent Life (Sci-Fi), No Rest for the Wicked 
(Fantasy), Order of the Stick (Gaming, Writer), Perry Bible Fellowship (Colour), PVP (Outstanding Comic), Questionable Content 
(Reality, Writer), Reman Mythology (BW Art), Rob & Elliot (Newcomer), Scary Go Round (Colour), Sinfest (Short Form), Smile (BW 
Art), Something Positive (Outstanding Comic, Writer), Wapsi Square (Outstanding Comic),      The n00b (Gaming)     , The Saga
of Earthsong (Fantasy), Two Kinds (Fantasy), Venus Envy (Reality), VG Cats (Character Art, Artist), Zebra Girl (BW Art)
I added the spacing to highlight that the n00b was a recipiant of Honorable Mention. Timmccloud (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that should help prevent anyone from mistakenly thinking this comic was one of the final nominees, and will hopefully help the closing admin understand that "runners-up" in this case doesn't mean second place, but instead that this comic came in fifth or sixth or something in a single one of the many categories and did not actually recieve one of the 120+ nominations that year. So, we have an award which is not well-known, that this webcomic didn't win, that this webcomic wasn't second-place for, and that this webcomic wasn't even one of the final nominees for. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the sourcing guidelines , like all guidelines, are intended to be flexible, and they are so intended in order to accommodate articles like this. I am glad consensus has changed to the extent that this has become recognized. WP will probably become an outmoded medium eventually, as media do tend to fossiliise, but we should try to keep it alive and responsive a few decades longer. DGG (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are very, many webcomics so we need some criteria to distinguish those that merit inclusion from those that don't. This has has not won any awards and lacks the necessary reliable secondary sources to stand up notability. BlueValour (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (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.