Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endtown

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. I have discounted the argument that nomination for the Ursa Minor Award confers notability. Even if it is accepted that the award is notable, no sources discussing the nomination are presented. This leaves only a single review to establish notability. WP:WEB requires that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Multiple means more than one. Spinning Spark 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endtown[edit]

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

All sources are primary or unreliable; no secondary sourcing found anywhere. Prod removed without comment by first-time editor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification please. Since this article is about a comic strip, what other relevant source of information on it could there be besides the comic strip itself? Mediatech492 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One or more persons with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy who have written about the comic, of course. We call these reliable sources. In contrast, pseudonymous Wikipedia editors performing their own analyses directly into Wikipedia (without, obviously, any fact checking or peer review, since Wikipedia has no such mechanisms) where such analyses have not already been published outwith Wikipedia, is original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a "newbie" I don't wish to be overly blunt, but it appears at first glance that the primary motivation behind this pending deletion is a desire to brand articles about webcomics as "unsuitable" for inclusion in Wikipedia. If this is indeed the case, a simple statement of that intent would be infinitely preferrable to the high sounding doubletalk about the sourcing of the information presented. The information provided is easily verified by simply consulting the comic archives. As one who has read the entire collection I can attest to the accuracy of the descriptions contained in the article. I am unsure what weight my endorsement carries in this forum, but I present it for whatever impact it may have.Mengle01 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check xkcd or Penny Arcade (webcomic) for examples of how to write a better article on a web comic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcomics shows that we are not running a vendetta against webcomics: many webcomics have detailed articles with lots of references. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of webcomics and therefore it must have criteria to say which comics it should have articles on, and WP:N contains our criteria, which is coverage in multiple independent sources. The same requirements apply to books, movies, songs, video games, and other cultural products. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it upon my self to edit the page to get rid of some of the intricate detail and tighten up the format a bit. I have also included links to reviews and the fact that Endtown has been nominated for the Ursa Minor award for 2012 in it's category. I do hope these changes help to bring the Endtown entry into compliance with Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanawolf (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) :*[reply]

Sorry, that's not how the awards work. The Recommended Anthropomorphics List includes the following note: "Recommendation of items to this list does not constitute nomination for the awards, nor is it a requirement for nomination! Nomination may not be done until the end of 2012". It would take more than a single nomination to qualify for notability anyway, but right now it doesn't even have that. Veled (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous entry is in error. Endtown has been nominated for the 2011 Ursa Major award, not 2012. Mengle01 Mengle01 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get picky over a simple typo and look at the fact instead. Endtown HAS been nominated for an Ursa Major award during this current year. Yes, it is the 2011 award but it has not yet been awarded.
Question. Endtown is published on GoComics, which implies there is some editorial oversight to include the comic on the website. Is this enough to provide notability in and of itself? Veled (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited. See WP:INHERITED. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endtown has been in the top 50 on the TopWebComics voting site for 3 consecutive months. Quite an achievment for a story without graphic sex or voting incentives. This alone should show a signifigant audience and the potential for a wide Wikipedia audience. The entry should stay. 24.96.72.13 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)jlbickley[reply]
Delete - Endtown fan here. Putting on my Wikipedian shoes, the comic doesn't appear notable to me — a quick Google search reveals that it's referenced mostly by primary sources, plus webcomic directories and such. Accelerometer ^T / _C 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is nominated for an award of questionable notability, as one of 17 nominees in the category. Maybe this comic will become notable in the future, so I would not rule out a future article when the coverage is there. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Logical Cowboy. Being nominated for an unnotable award does not help confer notability, and the only other source is one review. Multiple reliable sources are required to satisfy the GNG, and I'm not finding any others. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 29 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)} 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. The Blogcritics review republished by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online newspaper is at best the only coverage in a reliable source, but encyclopedia articles require multiple reliable sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. One citation clearly contributing to notability, one award nomination of indeterminate weight; I'm willing to say it'll probably garner more commentary sooner or later and we may as well leave it, mostly per WP:NOTPAPER. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep stuff in hopes that it might be notable later. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am drawing a distinction between "hope" and "reasonable presumption". A needless deletion contributes nothing to the encyclopedia but meaningless busywork. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either the work becomes notable or it doesn't. Tell me where the "busywork" is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting and recreating it, of course. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing should ever be deleted, because it'd just be such a hassle to re-create it if it does become notable. That's what WP:REFUND is for, and I've found it to be very fast and hassle-free. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, and that's just a silly straw man. I think you're mistaking me for Dream Focus. :) I wouldn't argue this if the article weren't hovering on the threshold. And sure, WP:REFUND works fine. I didn't say it was a lot of meaningless busywork. And, well, it's not like I registered anything beyond a weak keep, or as if there's any clear or present danger of my argument prevailing. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 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.