Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic) (3rd nomination)

Add links
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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1/0 (web comic)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
1/0 (web comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My opinion has not changed since the last AFD over a year ago, so I'll just re-state it:

There is a long-standing precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lackadaisy_(3rd_nomination) 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 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.

The last AFD had a mixed bag of !Votes: an WP:ITSNOTABLE, a WP:JNN, a !vote that didn't actually address the notability issue at all; a solid "delete" based in policy; a WP:JUSTAVOTE from someone who should know better; another WP:ITSNOTABLE and another "delete" based in policy.

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 no other reliable sources on the comic itself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 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 Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source, if anyone was wondering why I removed them. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 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 Wikipedia would consider reliable. It was popular, but popularity does not give notability per Wikipedia 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.Tokyogirl79 (talk)
  • Funny, I read that as "WCCA alone 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. Veled (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 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. Veled (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An amazon search finds a few mentions in The Metareferential Turn in Contemporary Arts and Media. (Studies in Intermediality) 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. -84user (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Update 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". -84user (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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. Web Cartoonists' Choice Award 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 WP:WEB, having won a notable award, and having been nominated for that award three times. Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. Dream Focus 11:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Dream Focus 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 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?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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 strips look cheap" "lack of talent" "only appeals to a niche audience." Just one reliable source means this definitely misses WP:GNG. It's debatable whether multiple sources describing this as an utterly incompetent webcomic with a niche audience would meet our notability standards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. Veled (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Dream Focus 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, I said the WCCA plus the textbook source, not WCCA alone. I would think WCCA is at least good enough to count as a source towards notability. Veled (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Ridernyc (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 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 did 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. Rorshacma (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For something to be WP:NOTABLE enough for a Wikipedia article, it has to meet the WP:GNG or the subject specific guidelines, such as WP:WEB. 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." Dream Focus 22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Web_Cartoonists.27_Choice_Awards for example. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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 signifigant coverage. Thus, I'm leaning towards Delete. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 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 indication that such sources might exist, but here they apparently do not, so we have a clear failure of WP:V#Notability.  Sandstein  08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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 discussion are wrong: it was nominated for a non-notable award, but didn't actually win unless I'm mistaken. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and Rangoondispenser. I don't see the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it appears that this did not even win the award. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1/0_(web_comic)_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137507647"