Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards

Non-notable award it seems. Almost all the sources are interviews, blog posts or primary sources, with no non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several hits from Gbooks. [1] Edward321 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several in this instance means four, since the rest are based on excerpts from Wikipedia. And I've missed the part where you've edited the article to reflect the new coverage you've found. Sorry to sound like an arse, but I've been here before. [2]. I'm tired of doing the work. People want articles kept, then do the work involved in maintaining them. Hiding T 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article does not have a deadline. Vodello (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's very zen. And also utterly meaningless. It's like saying, hey we don't have to do anything ever! great statement, but no actual substance or bearing on reality. The article does have a deadline, just like every article. That deadline is set by consensus. You want to see the article kept, improve it. I've already done that, I'm not doing it again. I simply want people to stop listing sources they have no intention of using to improve the article. The article hasn't altered since it was nominated, yet there's sources listed here to help improve it. Look at all the people commenting below, not one wants to do the work. Shame on you all. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - He's actually right. There is no deadline. A topic is either notable or not, its not dependent on the current state of the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're actually wrong, the current state of an article is a dependent factor on everything. I say that as the person who wrote the half of the deadline essay currently being referenced. And you're also wrong that a topic is either notable or not. If that were truly the case, there'd be no arguments over notability. Hiding T 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually no. The page could have no sources whatsoever, but in the AfD it could be shown that there actually are sources that demonstrate notability. The topic would meet the guidelines even if the article didn't reflect that. Granted, WP:N also leaves inclusion ultimately to consensus and not just a checkbox. In this case, we only have one reliable article and no indication that there might be other coverage, so it doesn't matter. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        However in this case, they've kind of worn out the "there may be usable content" argument. If there was potentially useful content in those articles, it would have already been put into the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually no. An article can cite a million sources and still not pass WP:N if consensus determines otherwise. Like I say, content is decided through consensus, not rules. We don;t apply rules for the sake of applying rules, since consensus can change. Hiding T 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My last statement said exactly what you just said. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a semantic disagreement; the two of you agree with each other near as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that seems to be the case >.> Sorry for letting it go on like that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article was previously nominated (with a different spelling) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (delete), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 11 (overturn and relist]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination) (keep). Fram (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior AfDs to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have no bearing as consensus can change. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior AfDs to keep. _Plus there doesn't seem to be any new reason to delete this, as it was already permitted to exist, and the information is either the same, or even had more. Deletion is both illogical and uncalled for. It's like having an appeal for someone ruled innocent, to try and find them guilty again... it doesn't work that way. Sorry. --Fesworks (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, was there any mainstream coverage that turned up throughout those afds? 'Cause I sure as heck didn't see it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous debates have no bearing as consensus can change. You know how you're not reading the same books at school that your grandad read, that's what it is like. It's not like a person,. because this article isn;t a person, and it's not like a criminal procedure, because this isn't a legal process. But thanks for the thoughts. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not again -- Strong Keep per previous AFDs. This is a gateway AFD that's attempting to lead to the removal of many webcomic aricles that have won awards from the WCCA and have had their articles kept on AFDs partially for winning these awards. Hopefully this will not be another battle of admins (and vets that are best buddies with admins) and regular users, which usually seems to be the case with the mission to purge Wikipedia of all webcomics. Vodello (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really think I have a hidden agenda to purge webcomics pages from Wikipedia?! Ha. Get real. And you're still not addressing the main fact that there don't seem to be any significant third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the astounding bad faith, you just lost a friend. DELETE. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you fail to realize that it was voted to keep, with it's existing (at the time) resources, and additional resources since. Thus, it means that there is nothing LESS from what was acceptable beforehand. So your argument is null unless you provide new and different arguments and/or counter points that go beyond the previous deletion attempts.--Fesworks (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, please read up on Wikipedian policy. We aren't doomed to have to repeat the mistakes of the past if we so choose. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the NEW YORK TIMES already inarguably counts as one credible 3rd party resource, thus making the WCCAs only need one additional credible, 3rd party resource to be allowed on Wikipedia, as per it's own rules. Oh, and look there, G4's Attack of the Show mentioned them as well according to the references. That's 2, so it's good to keep, per Wikipedia's rules. Also, as far as other 3rd parties references, Comixpedia is one, plus mentions on two different podcasts... but of course, these particular thrid parties may not be seen as "notable" by Wikipedia's standards, but that point is moot since it only needs two... which I just told you.--Fesworks (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We decide things by consensus, not by reference to rules. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covered them in a substantial way, or mentioned them offhand? WP:GNG exists so that we have reliable sources with which to write an article, not a ticky-box we have to fill in before faffing on for five paragraphs based on blog posts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you continue to omit the New York Times in hopes that users will vote without reading the article in question and trusting you based on your username alone, it is difficult to take this nomination seriously. Vodello (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the NYT report? It's a very trivial mention. I should know, I used it to strengthen the article as a compromise bid last time out. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep very notable (a lot of people would have heard of this) and Fesworks, you can't just make something notable if it's in the wiki-support paper New York Times. All I can now say is: Not again. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have heard of a lot of things. That means nothing. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how speedy keep applies here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sticking with my previous opinion [3] - the awards are the spine for the NYT article (the analogue being it is like an article on the Oscars or BAFTAs). However, I would merge the years back into the main article. (Emperor (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The chief difference between the Oscars/BAFTAs and these being that those film awards are prestigious and widely-reported awards whose recipients are chosen by notable figures in their field and that these awards aren't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notable sources reference this, most importantly the webcomics themselves. I note a link to a television show mentioning it also. Dream Focus 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single source is a buried mention in this NYT article. If we want to be technical, that's not substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. In a more practical way, there's really no way we can write an article based on a paragraph and a half in a NYT story that's primarily about Scott McCloud. The rest of the "coverage" beyond that a navel-gazing, with a committee-member's blog, blogs interviewing people involved, etc. Strong delete to the directory of winners of these awards, as that's just excessive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~Doesn't meet Wikipedia's general criteria for inclusion~~. My search has only turned up one reliable source that mentions it. I don't see how this could be a viable article given the lack of sourcing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 5 min interview from G4TV that was mentioned in previous AfD's [here] it seems to me like non-trivial coverage from another independent source. I'm changing my vote to Keep, however I will be incredibly disappointed if the article doesn't progress when and if this survives AfD. These reliable sources need to go into the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would we do with it? It's the panel chairman (not really a notable figure in his own right) giving promotional answers to softball questions. I think that's the main reason it's not been included in the article.

We could take the tickybox approach to WP:GNG and slap in a couple of maybe-substantial-maybe-not or maybe-reliable-maybe-not references while building the article chiefly around reference junk food, or we could actually respect the intent of the guideline, and see if there are references sufficient for building an actual article. For something entirely on the internet and not very old, if the references don't exist on the internet they likely do not exist anywhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you're right. If after 2-3 AfD's nothing usable has been done with these sources; this really can't be substantial coverage. Call me a flip-flopper, but I'm going to go back to my previous stance of Delete, because the two reliable sources do not deal primarily with the topic, but with webcomics in general. The spirit of the guideline is to provide meaningful content to an article for a general audience, and I think this article is just an excuse to keep lists of award winners. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AMIB, you're saying, that WP:N means to use the GNG when it gives reasonable results. That means, in effect, to use the GNG when it shows notability or non-notability for what you consider based on some unstated criterion to be notable or non-notable, and don't use it when it gives a result you do not want. But sources must be in line with the type of subject, and webcomic topics will almost always have not have conventional sources--so if they do at all, then the topic is notable. . DGG (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that the idea of WP:N is that we only write an article on a subject when there's sufficient commentary in reliable sources to support an article on the subject. We can wikilawyer about whether the NYT article's coverage is "significant" enough or the interview in AOTS is "reliable," or we can examine them and determine what factual claims can be derived from them and whether this is an article's worth of factual claims.

Can this article be rewritten to be anything but a permastub based on these sources? I believe not. The NYT article notes only that the awards exist, and are modeled after and somewhat like other peer-chosen rewards. The AOTS "interview" is, like most AOTS segments, an opportunity for the panel head to come on the show and evangelize the awards and webcomics in general, with scarcely more insight than a press release.

I refuse to accept that webcomic articles must use "unconventional sources" consisting of press releases and blogs of people directly involved in the subject. (The "junk food" sources I referred to above.) "This is important, so we should relax WP:RS to write articles on it" is the reverse of WP:N, which is the idea that we follow the reliable sources to topics of importance. If the reliable sources haven't left us enough to write an article, we should not write one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This award is very important within the webcomic community. In addition to the arguments above just have a look how many artists have drawn something for the 2007 ceremony. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I already said, two different, long-running, webcomic-themed Podcasts have discussed the awards independently, as well as having people of the WCCA committee on, over more than one episode. However, It's probably going to be argued that since these podcasts (while 3rd parties and independent), don't have/qualify for wikipedia articles, that they don't count as notable references themselves. Basically, the point of THIS post of mine here is to say that we can prove it... that as far as several portions of the webcomic community, that the WCCAs were notable and important, it technically doesn't count because technically it's not admissible in "court". Also, admittedly there are several portions of the webcomics communities that don't find the WCCAs important.. but again, it's inadmissible proof.

Which is probably why these "delete or keep" discussions end up working in favor of the article. As someone has stated, that is why we have these discussions, when the references surrounding the article come into question. --Fesworks (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get away from the wikilawyering. Which podcasts are you referring to? What claim do they have to any authority? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that 3 different webcomic podcasts have at least covered the awards at least once, which is really no different than any other news source covering other awards shows. At least one episode of Digital Strips (#27), and then several episodes (either in part, or as the main focus) of The Gigcast (#77, #77.5, and others) and The Webcomic Beacon (#5, #11). Of course, I doubt that any one of these are wikitechnically notable enough to count as references, but they are reflections of some webcomic communities. Flawed as the WCCAs may be, they were still covered and talked about by several sources. So, basically, I'm "just saying"... My vote is to keep this article mostly on the previous decisions, and if these podcasts happen to help, cool. Though I kinda doubt it, plus I'm not actually going to argue if they should count as references or not. I'm mostly just presenting information in this case. --Fesworks (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sufficient coverage not present to meet WP:GNG and per AMiB. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:17, 4 May 2009 (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.