322:. Assuming that there's been a precedent set that the WCCA is not notable enough in itself to warrant an automatic keep, there's just not enough reliable sources out there to show that this webcomic is notable. I've looked, but other than a bunch of non-notable fan pages, non-reliable blog reviews, and forum chat, there's just nothing out there that Knowledge (XXG) would consider reliable. It was popular, but popularity does not give notability per Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. It just makes it more likely that you'll find sources. If anyone can dig anything up or if they can prove that the awards are notable, I'm open to changing my opinion.
675:. I've managed to look in the book mentioned above and 1/0 is mentioned quite frequently in it. As far as the publisher goes, it's a publisher where its works are peer reviewed, which is something that I'd consider reliable. But is this source along with the Comix Talk interview and two awards enough? I'm not entirely certain about that, but this is enough to make me strike the delete vote for now. I might unstrike it, but I'm going to try to dig a little deeper. Maybe I'll find something the second go round?
425:. Yet again, you've repeatedly nominated a webcomic article for deletion, this time for the third time in a row. Regardless of what we determine for this article, I can't help but think that if this article were truly worthy of deletion that someone else would have cared enough to do so by now. Also, I fixed your links so readers can determine if the "precedent" set is actually acceptable, unlike your idea that third-party interviews are actually primary sources.
857:- The argument here seems to be hinging on whether or not winning the WCCA is enough to establish notability. But as far as I can see, it didn't win the award. It was merely nominated in several categories for two years, but never actually won. That is what the article states, at least, and the sources provided seem to confirm that it was just a nomination. Am I missing something here, where it actually
304:. I'll see what I can find. Of the links on the article, I want to note that (minus the two that mentioned the award) one was a completely dead link, one only mentioned the webcomic briefly in a list of other comics (did not even talk about the comic itself), and the other did not appear to be what Knowledge (XXG) would consider to be a reliable source, if anyone was wondering why I removed them.
934:
Yes, based on the arguments at the above mentioned discussion, I'm going to have to side with those saying that winning the WCCA, let alone just being nominated, does not confer notability to this particular webcomic. That really leaves very few soures, and only one that could be seen potentially as
240:
that the Web
Cartoonist's Choice Award is not a notable enough award to confer notability per WP:WEB. The only other sources in the article are three reviews from websites which do not appear to be reputable reviewers: one is credited to screen names and therefore inherently unreliable; one is a dead
715:
You make it sound like they only mentioned the comic to degrade its artwork. Looking at the snippets available on Google Books, they're clearly talking about more than just the art, especially when the book mentions it for the sole reason of pointing out that this artistic mediocrity actually makes
692:
We have only one source, who after 550 pages on metareferential art finally went to TV Tropes and looked at their list of webcomics with "No Fourth Wall." They describe this comic as "poorly drawn" "utterly incompetent" "inferior skill display" "scanty craftsmanship" "primitive and clunky" "these
995:
per
Rangoondispenser. The only thing even remotely near a reliable source seems to be just mentioning this as an example of how amateurish and subpar webcomics tend to be. They could easily have chosen any of thousands of others. As far as I can tell, nominator TPH and several others in this
775:
Some AFDs it was determined fine, others not because they weren't sure about it. You just flipping a coin there, doing some cherry picking. The award is fine. Put it into Google news archive search and see how many times they mention it or someone winning it.
479:
I see Google Books shows complete pages and the fact that the book also mentions 1/0 on additional pages: 556, 557, and a snippet-only views of pages 553 and 554. I searched the book for these patterns: "1/0", "tailsteak" and "Mason
Williams".
716:
it EASIER to break the fourth wall. Besides, I'm pretty sure that anyone willing to spend 4 pages in a textbook going on about a single comic's metareferencing is doing more than just bringing the comic up to tear it a new one.
241:
link; and one is openly admitted to be the personal website of a non-notable reviewer. I have looked for more sources but found absolutely nothing, so I have every reason to believe that this is a continuation of the precedent.
915:
You've nailed it
Rorshacma. This "award" is not the sort of "well known and independent award" that might be considered a sign of notability, and this webcomic has never even won that. There is strong consensus on this, at
514:
If only it was able for a Kindle Rental, I'd look for myself... anyway, that's one source, now find one more! A quick Google
Scholar check isn't showing much, but if it's cited in one textbook it's bound to be in another...
190:
466:
ISBN-10: 9042033703, published June 2011: pages 557, 558, 563, 568 and 593. Amazon only lets me see snippets so I cannot determine the depth of coverage here, but the book looks like a serious academic publication.
962:
The marginally-notable award alone can't be enough. The reason why we require coverage in reliable sources is to ensure that we have a basis on which to write a verifiable article. Award wins are nothing but an
90:
85:
229:
225:
830:
when something is actually notable the amount of sources is normally enough to prove it. IMHO arguing over two debatable sources endlessly is doing a good job of demonstrating that this fails the GNG.
237:
618:
That makes no sense at all. The award is notable, and those that win a notable award are notable. No matter how many times you say otherwise won't bend reality and change that.
184:
398:
145:
80:
378:
is not enough to warrant a keep". This would imply that WCCA in conjunction with other reliable sources would be reasonable, not that a WCCA award doesn't count at all.
263:
So far, the notability hinges entirely on the Web
Cartoonist's Choice Award, which has been determined insufficient. We can verify that it won the award, but there are
150:
282:
861:
win at some point? Because if its already debatable if winning is enough to count for notability, I can't see any way that just being a nominee would be enough.
887:. As I have said, it meets WP:WEB, which clearly states "Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability."
233:
555:
You can find AFDs in years past where the award was considered notable and ones where it was not. No reason to be cherrypicking. The award is notable.
697:. It's debatable whether multiple sources describing this as an utterly incompetent webcomic with a niche audience would meet our notability standards.
1031:
and
Rangoondispenser. I don't see the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it appears that this did not even win the award.
559:
It gets coverage, even once in the New York Times column on webcomics. As mentioned the first time this nominator sent it to AFD, it meets
21:
737:, pending an official ruling that says WCCA is in fact notable (and I'm pretty sure it is). That plus the textbook source should satisfy
118:
113:
60:
917:
340:
Striking vote in light of new sources being found. Haven't entirely made up my mind yet, but I no longer feel that it's a solid delete
122:
17:
205:
1040:
1019:
987:
948:
929:
910:
870:
839:
821:
799:
766:
750:
725:
706:
684:
659:
641:
609:
589:
545:
524:
509:
489:
450:
434:
414:
387:
365:
349:
313:
293:
274:
63:
172:
105:
693:
strips look cheap" "lack of talent" "only appeals to a niche audience." Just one reliable source means this definitely misses
556:
57:
1059:
166:
44:
925:
702:
162:
1036:
759:
The ruling has been several times now that WCCA is not enough to keep an article. Look at the AFDs I linked.
212:
655:
257:
245:
109:
1032:
253:
1055:
921:
698:
680:
345:
328:
309:
288:
252:, a !vote that didn't actually address the notability issue at all; a solid "delete" based in policy; a
40:
812:, not WCCA alone. I would think WCCA is at least good enough to count as a source towards notability.
565:
Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability.
101:
69:
876:
944:
866:
358:
As I said in the first AFD, there is indeed a precedent that WCCA is not enough to warrant a keep.
198:
178:
443:
The first AFD was closed as "no consensus", which seems like a valid enough reason to renominate.
835:
651:
541:
402:
33:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1054:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
888:
777:
676:
619:
567:
485:
472:
341:
324:
305:
1028:
884:
880:
738:
694:
560:
249:
817:
746:
721:
650:"The award is notable, and those that win a notable award are notable." That is not true.
520:
430:
383:
602:
award, but winning it does not transfer to notability, as has been proven several times.
221:
My opinion has not changed since the last AFD over a year ago, so I'll just re-state it:
1001:
978:
940:
862:
972:
831:
563:, having won a notable award, and having been nominated for that award three times.
537:
536:
there has been ample time for someone to display some level of notability for this.
464:
The
Metareferential Turn in Contemporary Arts and Media. (Studies in Intermediality)
139:
481:
468:
813:
742:
717:
516:
426:
379:
234:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award
502:
might be worth something, but I'm still finding literally nothing else.
918:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability/Noticeboard#Web_Cartoonists.27_Choice_Awards
1000:
for a non-notable award, but didn't actually win unless I'm mistaken.
971:
exist, but here they apparently do not, so we have a clear failure of
281:
Note: This debate has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
226:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination)
230:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry
Adventures
238:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Lackadaisy_(3rd_nomination)
1048:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
879:
enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article, it has to meet the
135:
131:
127:
197:
91:
Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic) (3rd nomination)
86:
Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic) (2nd nomination)
211:
935:signifigant coverage. Thus, I'm leaning towards
47:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1062:). No further edits should be made to this page.
399:list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions
256:from someone who should know better; another
8:
883:or the subject specific guidelines, such as
462:. An amazon search finds a few mentions in
397:Note: This debate has been included in the
267:other reliable sources on the comic itself.
244:The last AFD had a mixed bag of !Votes: an
396:
280:
283:list of content for rescue consideration
224:There is a long-standing precedent per
78:
260:and another "delete" based in policy.
81:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
76:
28:
557:Web Cartoonists' Choice Award
1:
996:discussion are wrong: it was
374:Funny, I read that as "WCCA
475:) 16:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
1079:
808:Besides, I said the WCCA
1051:Please do not modify it.
1041:23:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
1020:22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
988:08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
949:16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
930:14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
911:22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
871:22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
840:19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
822:19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
810:plus the textbook source
800:18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
767:18:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
751:16:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
726:16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
707:14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
685:13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
660:08:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
642:18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
610:18:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
590:11:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
546:04:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
525:02:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
510:18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
490:17:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
451:18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
435:14:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
415:09:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
388:15:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
366:11:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
350:13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
314:08:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
294:21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
275:03:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
64:08:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
75:AfDs for this article:
875:For something to be
967:that such sources
986:
417:
296:
292:
1070:
1053:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1008:
985:
983:
976:
922:Rangoondispenser
907:
904:
901:
898:
895:
892:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
781:
764:
762:Ten Pound Hammer
699:Rangoondispenser
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
607:
605:Ten Pound Hammer
586:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
507:
505:Ten Pound Hammer
448:
446:Ten Pound Hammer
411:
408:
405:
363:
361:Ten Pound Hammer
291:
289:Northamerica1000
286:
272:
270:Ten Pound Hammer
216:
215:
201:
153:
143:
125:
52:The result was
38:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1060:deletion review
1049:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1006:
979:
977:
973:WP:V#Notability
905:
902:
899:
896:
893:
890:
794:
791:
788:
785:
782:
779:
760:
636:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
603:
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
503:
444:
409:
406:
403:
359:
287:
268:
158:
149:
116:
102:1/0 (web comic)
100:
97:
95:
73:
70:1/0 (web comic)
45:deletion review
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1076:
1074:
1065:
1064:
1044:
1043:
1033:Logical Cowboy
1022:
1002:Andrew Lenahan
990:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
825:
824:
803:
802:
770:
769:
754:
753:
731:
730:
729:
728:
710:
709:
687:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
645:
644:
613:
612:
593:
592:
549:
548:
530:
529:
528:
527:
512:
493:
492:
456:
455:
454:
453:
438:
437:
419:
418:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
369:
368:
355:
354:
353:
352:
333:
332:
316:
298:
297:
219:
218:
155:
96:
94:
93:
88:
83:
77:
74:
72:
67:
50:
49:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1075:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1018:
1003:
999:
994:
991:
989:
984:
982:
974:
970:
966:
961:
958:
950:
946:
942:
938:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
920:for example.
919:
914:
913:
912:
909:
908:
886:
882:
878:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
853:
852:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
826:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
804:
801:
798:
797:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
763:
758:
757:
756:
755:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
733:
732:
727:
723:
719:
714:
713:
712:
711:
708:
704:
700:
696:
691:
688:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
670:
661:
657:
653:
652:duffbeerforme
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
640:
639:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
606:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
588:
587:
566:
562:
558:
554:
551:
550:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
526:
522:
518:
513:
511:
506:
501:
497:
496:
495:
494:
491:
487:
483:
478:
474:
470:
465:
461:
458:
457:
452:
447:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
420:
416:
412:
400:
395:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
362:
357:
356:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
299:
295:
290:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
271:
266:
261:
259:
258:WP:ITSNOTABLE
255:
251:
247:
246:WP:ITSNOTABLE
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
222:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:Find sources:
156:
152:
147:
141:
137:
133:
129:
124:
120:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
59:
55:
48:
46:
42:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
1050:
1047:
1024:
1005:
997:
992:
980:
968:
964:
959:
936:
889:
858:
854:
809:
778:
761:
734:
689:
672:
620:
604:
599:
598:It may be a
568:
564:
552:
533:
504:
499:
476:
463:
459:
445:
422:
375:
360:
319:
318:
301:
269:
264:
262:
254:WP:JUSTAVOTE
243:
223:
220:
208:
202:
194:
187:
181:
175:
169:
159:
53:
51:
35:
32:
677:Tokyogirl79
342:Tokyogirl79
325:Tokyogirl79
306:Tokyogirl79
185:free images
981:Sandstein
965:indication
877:WP:NOTABLE
1056:talk page
998:nominated
941:Rorshacma
863:Rorshacma
58:Fut.Perf.
41:talk page
1058:or in a
832:Ridernyc
538:Ridernyc
146:View log
43:or in a
20: |
960:Delete.
855:Comment
673:Comment
600:notable
460:Comment
423:Comment
302:Comment
191:WP refs
179:scholar
119:protect
114:history
1029:WP:GNG
1025:Delete
993:Delete
937:Delete
885:WP:WEB
881:WP:GNG
739:WP:GNG
695:WP:GNG
690:Delete
561:WP:WEB
534:Delete
498:Okay,
482:84user
477:Update
469:84user
410:JAMMMY
320:Delete
250:WP:JNN
163:Google
123:delete
54:delete
969:might
906:Focus
814:Veled
795:Focus
743:Veled
718:Veled
637:Focus
585:Focus
517:Veled
427:Veled
401:. ★☆
380:Veled
376:alone
206:JSTOR
167:books
151:Stats
140:views
132:watch
128:links
16:<
1037:talk
1027:per
945:talk
926:talk
867:talk
836:talk
818:talk
747:talk
735:Keep
722:talk
703:talk
681:talk
656:talk
553:Keep
542:talk
521:talk
500:that
486:talk
473:talk
431:talk
404:DUCK
384:talk
346:talk
329:talk
310:talk
248:, a
236:and
199:FENS
173:news
136:logs
110:talk
106:edit
1013:bli
939:.
859:did
765:•
608:•
508:•
449:•
413:☆★
364:•
273:•
213:TWL
148:•
144:– (
1039:)
1016:nd
1010:ar
1007:St
1004:-
975:.
947:)
928:)
869:)
838:)
820:)
749:)
741:.
724:)
705:)
683:)
658:)
544:)
523:)
488:)
433:)
407:IS
386:)
348:)
312:)
285:.
265:no
232:,
228:,
193:)
138:|
134:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
56:.
1035:(
943:(
924:(
903:m
900:a
897:e
894:r
891:D
865:(
834:(
816:(
792:m
789:a
786:e
783:r
780:D
745:(
720:(
701:(
679:(
654:(
634:m
631:a
628:e
625:r
622:D
582:m
579:a
576:e
573:r
570:D
540:(
519:(
484:(
480:-
471:(
467:-
429:(
382:(
344:(
331:)
327:(
308:(
217:)
209:·
203:·
195:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
165:(
157:(
154:)
142:)
104:(
61:☼
22:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.