Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequart.com

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sequart.com

See also a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Darius. The site doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:WEB and the article cites no references. The lead claims the site to be one that publishes news, editorial columns, interviews, annotations, critical essays about the medium of comics, and the Continuity Pages, a hyperlinked study of families of characters by continuity rather than by title and date. The critical essays aren't peer reviewed and the whole site can be regarded as Julian Darius' personal website, per [1], "Sequart.com began in 1996 in the form of various writings on comics by Julian Darius on his personal website". Neither the site nor Darius have, as of yet, established notability within the comics scholarship field. Contributors to the site mentioned in the article are not notable within the field. The controversies described in the article reads to me as no different to any other internet message board spat. The books the site publishes are published through CafePress.com. At this present time, I don't think the site has established enough notability within its field to warrant an article, since wikipedia is not a web directory. Considering all of the above, I'm proposing deletion with no prejudice against a new article when notability has been established. Hiding talk 08:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No demonstrated notability. Bucketsofg 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm on the fence but would tend towards inclusion. Site does meet WP:WEB. The critical essays certainly are reviewed by site staff, which is no different than other sites. I don't see how the site's ties to its original creator or how it publishes its books are relevant here. I wouldn't call myself an inclusionist, but would tend towards including this one. Twenty or so staff members, a book line, convention presence, strong traffic, some coverage in press -- this qualifies for me. I agree about the controversies part, tho, which should go. 23 March 2006
• The site's T-shirts are through CafePress.com, not the site's books. Esquire also uses CafePress.com. 24 March 2006

• Comment: Please explain how the site mets WP:WEB, as this would influence the discussion. I also apologise, the site's only book is published through Lulu.com. I'm not convinced one book constitutes a book line. Deteails of the press coverage would be a help. Hiding talk 12:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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.