Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VG Cats (2nd nomination)

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 snow, non admin keep. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG Cats

VG Cats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Horrible article, almost entirely self-sourced, was absolutely laden with merchandising and spam, still reads as advertorial, includes unfree image gallery. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but major cleanup - Can't disagree that the writing and the rest mentioned is bad and desperately needs improvement, but that's exactly a reason not to delete, particularly as no one has placed any tags on this page requesting cleanup/improvements in the recent history. --MASEM 13:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup Clearly needs improvement ({{Primary sources}}?), but the fact that it's won two Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards seems to indicate notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Cleanup has already started, I am confident that it will continue and help the article meet Wikipedia's standards. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable article for awards, just needs cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesn84 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible keep. One of the most notable webcomics in existence, has won numerous awards and the focus of multiple reviews and other coverage. Apart from the article needing cleanup (which AfD is not a mechanism for, since the problems are resolvable by non-deletion methods; I suggest nominator review BEFORE and deletion policy), nominator doesn't bring forth any reasons that the article is somehow unsalvagable; in short, no reason to delete is provided. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep it wasn't deleted in 2006, and its a better article then it was then--Pewwer42  Talk  23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I normally agree with JzG in things like this, but not this time. This is certainly a notable webcomic and it certainly needs a hell of a lot of cleanup. Deletion? No. JuJube (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple award winning comic. Article has been significantly cleaned up, can use more, but is not so bad as to require deletion Wouh (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability isn't the be-all and end-all of Verifiability. Just because this article is poorly sourced doesn't mean it's not notable. Certain aspects of this article cannot be sourced extrenally, nor is it required, as far as I understand how original fiction is presented in Wikipedia. Notability is too often being used as a sword, where a pen would be mightier. 217.132.20.106 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. While I completely sympathize with the nominators concerns regarding the article's overall quality, there is ample notability for inclusion and there is (unfortunately?) nothing within deletion policy which allows an article to be deleted just because it sucks. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (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.