Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Whiteboard (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. I'm not taking Veled's opinion into consideration because it does not address the merits of the actual article, only the merits of the nomination. Among the other contributors, consensus is that the sources are inadequate for retention. Sandstein 06:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Whiteboard[edit]

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

Last AFD was in 2009, and was kept due to mainly one argument: that it's published in Paintball Games International. However, I find no evidence that Paintball Games International is itself notable, so that argument does not hold much water. The sources are Paintball International itself, a Russian source that apparently publishes the comic as well, and two primary sources.

Searches for "The Whiteboard" + "Paintball" and "The Whiteboard" + "Webcomic" on Google News turned up only false positives. While "it's published in a notable magazine" and "it's been put into book form" are assertations of notability, they just don't cut it if no sources can be found and if the works in which the strip are published aren't notable in their own right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Webcomics really need to have their own notability guidline hammered out. "Conventional" notability doesn't cut it in some cases where very widely-known webcomics (such as this and DD:OFH) don't attract attention in the "conventional press", but are still things that Wikipedia readers are very likely to be looking for as they're well-known in the Internet world. I'm not sure how to hammer that out without opening the floodgates, though; therein lies the rub. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Maybe we can start with actually getting some webcomics-related experts (which will most likely include some creators) involved rather than letting a single user like TenPoundHammer dominate the discussion? Veled (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should webcomics get their own special treatment? Why should they get to circumvent WP:GNG? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the WP:GNG fails here. While "Everybody Knows About It" is (or should be) at WP:ATA, the fact that webcomics such as this and Dominic Deegan apparently fail it despite being some of the best-known webcomics on the Internet points out that there is something not working here. They are things that the average Internet user is very likely to come across and come to Wikipedia seeking the answer to "what is this thing I heard about?", and if they don't find information on them here, even if the removal of that information was in complete compliance with the rules, then Wikipedia is not serving its readers. I won't !vote Keep for the simple reason that I can't articulate a policy-based reason to keep, but I cannot in good consience !vote Delete because of how the situation is as mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, webcomics are a bit different from other media as they tend to be self-published and a press source in their own right. Honestly, the fact we've been arguing about this problem for over five years now with no acceptable resolution beyond "We've pissed off almost all the experts in this topic who should be working on this category" should serve as some kind of clue. Veled (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why any medium should get a free pass that says "No reliable source has written about this, but it's notable because… well, everyone's heard of it!" Completely subjective. I don't follow a lot of webcomics, so I outright haven't heard of a lot of them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... Did you just admit that you have no interest, experience, or knowledge in regards to webcomics? Because I'm pretty sure that may be part of the problem. Veled (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you're the one who crawled out of the woodwork after months of inactivity just to fight tooth and nail over Last Res0rt. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is relevant. Veled (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our current notability requirements. The suggestion above that we develop some sort of alternative "unconventional" notability standards for webcomics so that we can keep articles like this could have some merit, but until we do this falls well short of WP:GNG. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3rd AFD and still no sign of being able to pass GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list of appearences suggest some notability but the comic lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Last time TenpoundHammer sent this to AFD it ended in Keep, because coverage was found. Two magazines with high circulations have published this within them. THe article mentions those two magazines. They were also mentioned in the very first AFD, when DocsMachine made a convincing argument: Paintball Games International editor Anthony Jones requested a special full-page TWB, which was then printed in the special annual issue What Paintball Gear? in 2003. The issue had a print run in excess of 150,000 in both the US and England. Five strips were translated and reprinted in Russia's largest-circulation paintball magazine (the name of which I'm unable to reproduce here) in 2004. Images of both magazines and the TWB strips therein can be viewed here. (Clicking the "O" under each photo brings up the full uncompressed 3.5mb photo.) It's my understanding that the combined circulation of the two magazines is in excess of 200,000 per month. DocsMachine 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Dream Focus 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the magazines don't meet GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says sources have to be reliable, independent, etc. It doesn't say anything about the source itself being notable. If we limit ourselves to only covering stuff that manages to make it into, say, the New York Times, we'd have a freaking sparse wiki here.Veled (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 10:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The magazines are reliable sources. The fact that no one bothered to make an article for them on the English Wikipedia is not relevant. Dream Focus 18:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do these piblications provide any independent coverage of the comic? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep. TPH nominated this last time, no new information has come to light, and is re-nominating it even though it ended in a keep? That's not an argument about the notability of the sources, that's second-guessing the admin who closed the last AfD. Remember, looking at an AfD and going WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid grounds for re-nomination. Veled (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (Edit: I misunderstood the concept of Speedy Keep. My bad.) Veled (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempts to belligerently force these articles to be kept out of process is becoming borderline disruptive. The amount of people saying Delete here shows there are clear issues with this article. Ridernyc (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a speedy keep is, or maybe I should've sourced BWilkins' own remarks a little better? I don't see how I'm keeping anything out of process by participating in the process. Veled (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Out of process? What are you talking about? Sources have been found. The only problem with the article is those trying to delete it didn't bother actually reading it, or they would've seen the reliable sources referenced to in it, and know that it clearly meets WP:GNG Dream Focus 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore this failure to assume good faith. I can assure you I have not only read this article, it's sources, it's previous AFD's, the AN/I thread started in an attempt to end run around these debates, and countless other arguments that are attempts to get thess AFD's closed early without proper process. Focus on the articles and the lack of sourcing and not how they ended up here. This will be my last comment on anything beyond sourcing these articles. Ridernyc (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as per Dream Focus in that it has not only seen print publication itself but also has been reprinted in third-party publications and reviewed by third parties e.g. the Howard Tayler link. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1) "Seen print publication" in this case is a series of self-published books that fall far short of Wikipedia:Notability (books). 2) Merely being "reprinted in third-party publications" (two paintball magazines) does not provide any coverage of the subject that would meet WP:GNG, and "two-time contributor to paintball magazines" widely misses the mark of standards like WP:CREATIVE. 3) "reviewed by third parties e.g. the Howard Tayler link" is just two sentences on a blog. "If you're not already reading The Whiteboard as part of your daily trawl, I hope it's not because you think the comic is only funny to paintballers. I've only paintballed once (an experience I found miserable) and the comic is one of my favorites." There is no significant coverage here at all. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reception in reliable independent sources to WP:verify notability. The reception section is the right kind of information, but definitely not a reliable source. Otherwise we could start using testimonials on peoples' websites to verify notability, which would open a floodgate of garbage articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of ever meeting WP:GNG, nor any evidence that the sources offered by Dream Focus and Veled are significant, reliable coverage needed for GNG. 74.233.245.2 (talk) 22:47, 21 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.

and they wonder why people won't donate to wiki.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.247.137 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or mostly quit contributing to adding information to wikipedia... But, on the plus-side, there are wikis out there that will actually help you find cultural information, to fill the much needed gap in wikipedia coverage.

Make it, and they will come :)

Yeah, and the "'don't modify' this discussion", links to something which (AFAIcantell) says, start a new flamewar on this topic. Meh. Just want to comment, I came here looking for some peer-reviewed, factual, sourced information on the comic, but I guess I need to go elsewhere.

~ender 2014-07-05 12:44:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.127.117 (talk)