Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire (3rd 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 delete. After multiple relistings, I think the consensus is pretty clear. (I have no personal opinion.) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails WP:GNG. The only sources that look decent are from a blog (Broken Frontier) which may or may not be reputable. In the last AFD, 84user dug up sources from the Hartford Courant, but further analysis showed them only to be trivial mentions. Any other arguments for keeping were only WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. Further searching on Google News only found one-sentence name-drops that say nothing about the comic, just that it exists. No one of good repute has reviewed it. It is not published on a notable site or in a notable work.

Both the first and second AFDs were closed as "no consensus". Can we finally get a consensus this time? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a consensus on whether or not someone should be able to nominate the same article twice, as you just did again. Sure, its been awhile since your first nomination, but someone else nominated earlier this year. Dream Focus 05:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, No Consensus closes are a bit of a mulligan - and the closing admin specifically noted that an early re-nomination would be expected if more sources were not brought forward. But YMMV. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus or no consensus, I can't help but feel that nominating an article for deletion repeatedly is a sign of some unfair amount of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here...Veled (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^Agreed with the above. I sense some serious bias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again. For the same reasons I mentioned last time. Reliable sources do cover it. Click on [1] or [2]. Dream Focus 05:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes either of those reliable third party coverage? The former is an interview (therefore, a primary source), and the latter maybe. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A third party is covering them, by giving an interview because of this series. Ample mention of the series in them. And the confusion some have about interviews being a primary source has come up time and again on that talk page, please read through the discussions instead of starting it all up again. Notability is determined by coverage, and interviews count towards that, obviously. The primary sources rule involves the content of the article, not its notability. Dream Focus 12:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep weakly, but it appears to meet both WP:GNG and WP:WEB.Cavarrone (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The concern from the previous AFD about a lack of sources is a valid one - for such a long-running work, surely there's more referencing out there? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a simple google search pulls up lots of media attention.

Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not good enough for Last Res0rt's current AfD, I don't see those sources flying very far here. After all, in TPH's words, apparently "any derp with at least one good drawing hand can get a booth at a con..." Veled (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do nothing but name-drop it. They say nothing about the strip except that it exists. Tell me how you expect to hinge a whole article on something that says "I read webcomics, such as Dominic Deegan, etc. etc.". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:GNG. CyanGardevoir 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any reliable sources here, with the possible exception of Broken Frontier, but even the coverage in that isn't sufficient to convince me that this comic is notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought sources already found were enough, but here are some extra bits from the highbeam account. [3] [4] [5] It mentions the guy who is best known for this webcomic, he getting plenty of his words repeated in the article about the webcomic conferences being his livelihood, etc. He is only there and getting coverage because of this webcomic of his. They mention one of the fans of this webcomic paying 200 dollars just to see the guy who made it. Dream Focus 19:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:GNG. We should have no trouble finding significant coverage in multiple (more than two) reliable secondary sources for a ten year old webcomic if it were notable. None of the suggested sources here provide significant coverage in a reliable source. For example: Broken Frontier [6] is a brief post on a comics site, the site says "Come write for BF!" and "Post your own news directly to the top of our Headlines section." The Portland Press Herald article[7] that at least two editors have pointed to gives less than a single sentence on this topic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:04, 28 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.