Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triquetra Cats

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 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triquetra Cats

Not notable webcomic, seen here on a free web host. Manages 80 unique links, all of them worthless. See Talk:Triquetra Cats also, for a possible message from the webcomic writer. - Hahnchen 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 02:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I found this a bit awkward. The article was created today, and the creator of the manga noticed it in the same day, and the AfD is listed in the same day. Anyways, the comic is obviously not notable enough to be listed here. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete--and protect from re-creation until the title has been featured in a MSM article if ever. I'm the writer of the comic, and even I understand we haven't paid the dues necessary to be here Chrysicat 06:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Simply non-notable. The content of the article would be best served on the comic's website, not here. EVula 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Chrysicat, and by WP:SPEEDY. Article doesn't claim notability. CSD A7 is met. Also: Comic authorship doesn't assert notability. Who are we to argue with the comic's own authorship about its notability? WP:NN AubreyEllenShomo 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - We argue with authors all the time over their works notability. Mostly they're wrong and misguided. - Hahnchen 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply - All the more reason not to argue with this one. AubreyEllenShomo 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification - Per Elmer Clark, below, I want to clarify my position. I am applying WP:SPEEDY only, specifically CSD A7. I am not suggesting the author be given undue weight in the AfD process, which would be a violation of policy and process. I'm not even suggesting that the author be given undue weight in THIS AfD. I'm merely pointing out that 1) The article doesn't claim notability. 1a) The article's author didn't claim notability. 2) The article has been reviewed by numerous editors and none have added claims of notability. 3)The deletion appears non-contentious. 4) The subject has had a chance to review the article, and did not add a claim of notability. That the author doesn't think it's notable is only a plus, not a central reason. It shows even clearer consensus. (On a side note, per AQu01rius, it is interesting that the subject, or rather the subject's author, noticed it the same day it was created and asked for an AfD.) I believe in process, but I believe the AfD process is unnecessary here. It's the wrong process. There is consensus on deletion. WP:SPEEDY is met. There is no reasonable chance of there being dissent through the rest of the AfD period. The only discussion is wether to speedy delete or just normal delete. Anyway, I think I've clarified where I am comming from. It doesn't really matter at this point, I suppose. AubreyEllenShomo 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability, although I agree that the author's input should be no stronger than anyone else's, even if he is voting for deletion. -Elmer Clark 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 19:52, 20 October 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.