Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 November 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. On contributions from *cough* very new members of the community, they were all suprisingly coherent and some even centered on wikipedia policies or guidelines. Refreshing. However, this debate was still only loosely structured, and the main argument appears to be regarding the strip's satisif-ication of the web material guideline. This hinges on the Web Cartoonist's Choice awards, and the consensus (as demostrated here) amoung the more established editors is that it does not count as a a notable independent award. This is quite arbitrary, and I've raised a section on the talk page of the guideline regarding this: Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 08#Web Cartoonist's Choice award
brenneman 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has achieved notability for having won the Web Cartoonists Choice awards, a standard which has been used in previous AFDs. Also, having been written continuously for six years (longer than many print comics), its longevity should be considered, even if it isn't officially part of the guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.243.116.222 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per above. It's a shame that many of the webcomics can't be featured on Wikipedia because of the current Web notability. My opinion is that if a webcomic has lasted more than a year, it can have an article. More than 5 years, it should have an article. My rant is done Madd the sane 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, Well, "wikipedia's" requirements of "notability" basically exclude any and all web references including reviews and notables such as an Awards nomination, etc... a bit elitist... but slightly understandable because of the intent of which Wikipedia opperates... Sadly it's highly restrictive. In any case, I think Wikifur does not have this rigidness of "notability". Is there a Wiki for Webcomics (not comixpedia)? If not, there should be, without this "notability" rigidness... there needs to be a version of Wiki the is more inclusive of various Internet popularity. --Fesworks 05:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comixpedia sounds perfect for this type of article. Comixpedia has an article on this comic [1] that was originally based on this Wikipedia article. You could proabably merge this article into Comixpedia's. -- Dragonfiend 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comixpedia doesn't use Wiki technology, it's HTML I believe. Also I agree comepletely that "Notability is not the same as verifiability." which does seem to be the case with Wikipedia... It seems Wikipedia just wants to be an limited encyclopedia, excluding whatever doesn't seem to be in print or a favorite of the higher Wiki Editors. It seems very selective. Not just talking about this article, but numerous others. Some articles chosen for deletion make my head spin for the "lack of notability", even though a few simple click will prove you wrong because there it is, readily available on the net. Perhaps I'll print out a version and mail it in to you guys. But whatever. There are other reference sites less anal that I choose to use instead now. --Fesworks 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[2][reply]
    - Comixpedia seemed wiki enough. Might not be a complete and usable wiki… Madd the sane 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not the same as verifiability. The two concepts are often confused as indicated [[3]] and [[4]]. Reading between the lines, Francis Tyers sounds like he's arguing based upon the fame/lack of fame of the comic in question - but this is not a wikipedia criteria. Though it may be a technicality, a large amount of material exists in the site's forum, which though hosted locally was produced by multiple sources that are independent of the site itself. WP:NOT and DMFA is obviously not WP:NFT. I see no reason for deletion. ANTIcarrot 07:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity's sake, the forum is not hosted on the same server as the comic. In fact, neither was the old forum, nor the backup copy thereof kept for reference purposes. And all three were managed by independant people - although I'll admit the new forum is run by the author's relative. (since I host the backup, I must admit a touch of bias, and hence abstain from voting.) -- Llearch 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Notability rules and their application have been questioned often enough, and it's clear that they're hostile to webbased publications. Slapping well-known webcomics with semantics is a disgrace, and I don't believe that this is the aim of Wikipedia. DMFA has been nominated for an award and reviewed online multiple times. The comic is notable enough to be able to generate a healthy amount of monthly donations and has a dedicated forum with 450+ members. It's definitely notable enough for this single entry, and removing it would do more damage than good. --Sid 3050 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has 3 edits, 1 from from this AfD. - Francis Tyers · 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis that it doesn't violate WP:NOT — "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." All the information presented can be verified, either through the comic itself, or through the statements of the author. —modelincard 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User has 2 edits, 1 from this AfD. - Francis Tyers · 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this article would lessen Wikipedia, just as Francis' other AfD for T.H.E. FOX would. 740 strips, issued on a tri-weekly basis for the last few years, 8 years history in total. It even has its own audio version. People look to Wikipedia for information about such topics, and they should find it, not be shuffled off to Comixpedia or WikiFur. GreenReaper 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has 2600 edits, 1 from this AfD - GreenReaper 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacking reliable sources. bogdan 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you consider a reliable source? Most of the information is from the comic itself, or from the statements of the author. -Modelincard 23:28, 28 January 2007 (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.