170:- Yes, it was a long time before it was completed, I was busy with other nominations and other non-wikipedia stuff. But you checked my contribs, so you should have known that I knew about the afd process. To be honest, I wasn't that bothered about someone creating the page, but was bothered over what you had to say about it. ie speedily remove the tage, and to evict me from the wikipedia house. Normally, if you find a broken afd listing, it's better complete the nomination, and then to put your argument rather than just posting some rash statements. -
535:. I'm against the any membership to a syndicate = notability guideline as suggested. It would be the same as saying any signed band to the most minor of record labels would get an article. OK, GraphicSmash as an entity may be notable, but how notable are the individual comics? I reckon that most people would refer to the syndicate over a specific comic, on the lines of "I'm reading graphicSmash", over the specific comic. -
232:- One of the main reasons for nominating it for deletion was the fact that I DID check the external links in the "awards" section. They're not awards, they're forum posts on webcomic toplists. Every webcomic ever has that. I'm also against the, "once appeared on some network = notability" stance. It's like giving every band who has ever been signed by the most minor of labels an article. -
463:, fine, but it seems absurd to declare that notability issues that haven't been settled there are somehow invalid to discuss here - the article is up for deletion now. Do you propose to table the discussion until we have inclusion guidelines? As for Modern Tales, they are selected based on their merits by the editor of the particular site - in the case of Graphic Smash, that's
220:. He asks for notability without even checking the links in the article under the heading Awards. The reason Google does not show up much is that the web comics has moved home several times and also been a subscription comics in the past, thus less coverage. This is not impressive. Moreover I cannot see being unregistered is a disqualification anywhere. Can you?
70:. Is there any sort of notability? Apart from some comments on webcomic toplists linked from the article, I can find none. I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure. Google search seems to throw up a lot of random webcomic crosslinking places, and nothing else. -
553:
Maybe that was a bad example phrase. But the point I am trying to make, is that graphic smash is way more notable than the individual comics that make it up, unlike say a record label. I doubt people would pay just to see 1 particular comic, but look at graphicsmash and say, "now, hey! There's a
476:
Your point is well taken. So why did this comic move? It seems to have moved from a hosting service that might very well have made it notable, to one that doesn't (unless it's in the top 25). Where we should consider it as being from depends on why it moved, how long it had been there, etc.--so
445:
is. Regarding expertise and deletion, if someone was deleting a physics article, I would put up a couple of links to places the concept was discussed in peer-reviewed journals. I realize that Modern Tales may be nearly the closest thing that exists to a peer-reviewed journal in webcomics, but I
430:
And I would not pretend that my say-so should be taken as a valid source for content addition - but deletion debates are a different matter - subject experts ought be taken seriously when asserting notability of a subject, I would think. And yes, Modern Tales is a professional site - it is Joey
486:
I'm not sure yet - it's something I'm looking into. But I'd like to err on the side of caution here. My guess, though I'm not certain, is that erratic updating made it unsuitable for a professional operation like
Graphic Smash. I don't know of any other cases of strips going down from notable
415:
Is Modern Tales really 100% professional? I see it has some free comics and some subscription comics, so it's hard to tell. That's why I think we should spell such things out in the guidelines--but we have to agree on them to use them. We shouldn't have to be experts to see that a comic is
496:
While most comics on Modern Tales are notable, I don't think the least read comic on Modern Tales is automatically notable. Same goes for a comic that may have experienced 15 seconds of fame with a brief association with the
Graphic Smash site. Is every failed sitcom pilot notable? Is a band
440:
The site as a whole may be professional, but I would still want more information about the particular artist. It also depends on how many comics are on the site, and what its criteria are for inclusion. I don't know that within an AfD is the appropriate place to discuss such questions in
420:
for
Knowledge (XXG) policy on what expertise counts for; the answer is not a whole lot, unless reputable sources are cited. This is sometimes time-consuming (something I've experienced plenty on physics articles), but it makes the encyclopedia better. --
365:
Duly noted. My vote remains unchanged and I still believe
Hahnchen made a mistake on this one. I'm not fond of the deletionist attention webcomics have received lately, but this one strikes me as an error as opposed to a philosophical difference.
521:
I think my vote will have to remain as is, at least if you're right about the unsuitability due to updating irregularities; that would undermine the whole reason that Modern Tales would be a standard of notability in the first place. --
622:. An important webcomic, and one which we should have useful information about. I've known of Life on Forbez since well before it joined Graphic Smash, and would consider it notable even if it had not been associated with the site.
355:
would be notable, and others wouldn't. Without consensus-approved guidelines designed to address such things without half an hour of research for each AfD, I don't think we can take its presence there as evidence. --
634:. Webcomics are a small field. Thus, it is possible for a webcomic to be notable within the webcomic field, and yet be unverifiable notability-wise outside. This comic fulfils the guidelines on
342:
This comic is sufficiently established. Though the author moved it to his own site fairly recently, it was on Modern Tales. I agree
Hahnchen was overzealous on this particular nomination. –
592:, but I've been introduced to many other good comics through it. When you make claims like the one above, it makes it look as though you don't really know much about Graphic Smash.
554:
collection of not too bad comics that I wouldn't mind reading." Which is why I think that just because a comic has appeared on xxx syndicate, doesn't mean that it's notable. -
330:
per above. NN web-comic. It's a shame these getted added as they're obviously close to people's hearts and it often offends when we have to delete.
563:
In my experience it is generally one or two comics that get people to make the purchase, and then they stumble upon more from that - for me it was
580:
I have known people who've paid because of one comic, and found out about others that way. I started subscribing to
Graphic Smash mainly for
431:
Manley's business. A given MT artist may have other jobs, but MT in general is a professional operation, the contents of which are notable.
143:- I recommend, some patience. As in waiting for me to finish the nomination, before asking for me to be speedily evicted from wikipedia. -
158:
Tag was added at 16:23, 22 October 2005, and I opened this page myself at 18:28, 22 October 2005. That is a period of more than 2 hours.
635:
245:
17:
417:
406:, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate.
402:- comics associated with Modern Tales and other professional webcomics syndicates are notable. The closing admin should also see
544:
You reckon completely and 100% wrong. I have never in my life heard of anyone refer to reading "Keenspot" or "Graphic Smash."
506:
I would think few would object to an article on every television series to have aired on network television, considering that
101:
208:
How has he complied? He even fails to note that this article was initially created by following the existing edit link on
695:
36:
316:
when trying to show that this is something more than just another webcomic with limited readership and influence. --
667:
403:
694:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
678:
646:
626:
596:
575:
558:
548:
539:
526:
514:
501:
491:
481:
471:
454:
435:
425:
410:
394:
370:
360:
346:
334:
322:
304:
292:
262:
236:
224:
201:
192:
174:
162:
147:
135:
74:
54:
497:
automatically notable if they sign to a major label but then their album tanks? My vote remains "delete."
589:
257:
387:
221:
159:
132:
585:
572:
545:
511:
488:
468:
432:
407:
122:
253:
531:
I'd just like to say that my feelings on webcomic syndication and notability are already covered in
60:
217:
209:
52:
655:
532:
464:
460:
442:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
498:
301:
507:
386:
assertion of notability consistent with usual
Knowledge (XXG) standards for websites. See
623:
593:
249:
198:
189:
447:
313:
277:
555:
536:
416:
notable; this should be spelled out in the article. Incidentally, you might look at
367:
343:
331:
233:
171:
144:
115:
90:
71:
49:
244:: Some people may be inclined to discredit an unregistered user in an AfD vote. See
188:
per nom. Hahnchen has complied now I think, and the critic was also unregistered. --
352:
214:
I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure
675:
523:
478:
451:
422:
391:
357:
318:
312:. A handful of comments on two different web-based forums hardly qualifies as
643:
383:
510:
explicitly advocates articles on every individual episode of some of them.
662:
guidelines. And isn't "notable within the webcomic field" different than
639:
568:
216:
shows he has not even bothered to read the
Knowledge (XXG) article on
581:
564:
638:
and its inclusion in wikipedia in no way harms wikipedia itself.
487:
syndicate to
Keenspace offhand, which is itself kind of notable.
688:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
666:...? What this harms is our internal consistency, and possibly
418:
Knowledge (XXG):No original research#The role of expert editors
67:
121:
Note that format for article is closely based on that of
96:
86:
Deletionist did not even bother to open this discussion
48:(6d, 4k), with one keep vote discounted (anon vote).--
89:
Deletionist did not even state identity here, it was
95:
Deletionist is a known mass submitter for deletions
246:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
698:). No further edits should be made to this page.
450:in the same way under Knowledge (XXG) rules. --
664:notable for inclusion in a general enyclopedia
100:Deletionist failed to follow Knowledge (XXG)
8:
197:Why do you wish to delete this article?
459:If you want to have the discussion on
636:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Webcomics
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
441:detail—rather, the ongoing work at
351:It looks to me like some comics on
107:All in all I propse the following:
66:Non notable keenspace comic, found
24:
670:, if you're claiming it doesn't
446:don't think it qualifies as a
1:
83:No reason for deletion stated
44:The result of the debate was
679:02:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
647:01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
627:23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
597:23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
576:21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
559:20:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
549:17:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
540:17:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
527:00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
515:23:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
502:23:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
492:23:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
482:23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
472:23:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
455:23:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
436:23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
426:22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
411:22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
395:22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
371:18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
361:22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
347:16:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
335:09:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
323:20:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
305:19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
293:19:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
263:20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
237:13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
225:19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
202:23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
193:19:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
175:13:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
163:19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
148:18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
136:18:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
111:Speedily remove deletion tag
75:18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
55:18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
46:no consensus (default keep)
715:
404:User:Snowspinner/Webcomics
640:If in doubt, don't delete
382:. Not encyclopedaic; no
691:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
79:Well, where to begin?
674:to be verifiable. --
567:on Graphic Smash and
477:what's the story? --
390:for more on this. --
388:User:SCZenz/Webcomics
590:Fans (the webcomic)
571:on Modern Tales.
278:Andrew Lenahan -
102:Guide to Deletion
706:
693:
668:WP:Verifiability
658:is still just a
586:Killroy and Tina
314:reliable sources
290:
287:
284:
281:
260:
123:Count Your Sheep
114:Speedily remove
34:
714:
713:
709:
708:
707:
705:
704:
703:
702:
696:deletion review
689:
448:reliable source
288:
285:
282:
279:
258:
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
712:
710:
701:
700:
684:
683:
682:
681:
629:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
578:
551:
529:
519:
518:
517:
397:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
337:
325:
307:
295:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
205:
204:
195:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
153:
152:
151:
150:
119:
118:
112:
105:
104:
98:
93:
87:
84:
63:
61:Life on Forbez
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
711:
699:
697:
692:
686:
685:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
649:
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
628:
625:
621:
618:
598:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
577:
574:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
557:
552:
550:
547:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
528:
525:
520:
516:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
500:
495:
494:
493:
490:
485:
484:
483:
480:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
453:
449:
444:
439:
438:
437:
434:
429:
428:
427:
424:
419:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
398:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
372:
369:
364:
363:
362:
359:
354:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
338:
336:
333:
329:
326:
324:
321:
320:
315:
311:
308:
306:
303:
299:
296:
294:
291:
275:
272:
271:
264:
261:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
228:
227:
226:
223:
222:85.164.86.246
219:
218:Graphic Smash
215:
211:
210:Graphic Smash
207:
206:
203:
200:
196:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:
164:
161:
160:85.164.86.246
157:
156:
155:
154:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:
137:
134:
133:85.164.86.246
131:
128:
127:
126:
124:
117:
116:User:Hahnchen
113:
110:
109:
108:
103:
99:
97:
94:
92:
91:User:Hahnchen
88:
85:
82:
81:
80:
77:
76:
73:
69:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
690:
687:
671:
663:
659:
651:
631:
619:
399:
379:
368:Abe Dashiell
353:Modern Tales
344:Abe Dashiell
339:
327:
317:
309:
297:
273:
241:
229:
213:
185:
167:
140:
129:
125:. Thus:
120:
106:
78:
65:
45:
43:
31:
28:
573:Snowspinner
546:Snowspinner
512:Snowspinner
499:Dragonfiend
489:Snowspinner
469:Snowspinner
433:Snowspinner
408:Snowspinner
302:Dragonfiend
130:STRONG KEEP
624:Factitious
594:Factitious
465:T Campbell
384:verifiable
250:Rune Welsh
212:. Stating
199:Factitious
190:MacRusgail
300:per nom.
276:per nom.
259:Esperanza
660:proposed
656:WP:COMIC
569:Narbonic
556:Hahnchen
537:Hahnchen
533:WP:COMIC
461:WP:COMIC
443:WP:COMIC
332:Marskell
234:Hahnchen
172:Hahnchen
145:Hahnchen
72:Hahnchen
50:Scimitar
652:Comment
242:Comment
141:Comment
676:SCZenz
588:, and
582:Digger
565:Digger
524:SCZenz
508:WP:NOT
479:SCZenz
452:SCZenz
423:SCZenz
392:SCZenz
380:Delete
358:SCZenz
328:Delete
319:Allen3
310:Delete
298:Delete
274:Delete
186:Delete
644:Fangz
248:. --
230:Reply
168:Reply
16:<
672:have
632:Keep
620:Keep
400:Keep
340:Keep
254:ταλκ
68:here
642:!--
286:bli
654:.
584:,
467:.
289:nd
283:ar
280:St
256:|
252:|
366:–
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.