Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Lesson Is Learned but the Damage Is Irreversible

A Lesson Is Learned but the Damage Is Irreversible[edit]

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. after re-listing, not a single editor agreed with nominator . (non-admin closure) Caleb M1 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Defunct webcomic. Zero reliable sourcing found. Current sources in the article are mostly WP:PRIMARY. The only source that isn't primary is a book about comics which only profiled it briefly along with dozens of other comics. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards does assert notability, but the utter lack of sourcing supercedes any possible notability for that award. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The Webcomics Examiner review is pretty great, as is the Attitude interview. I have this book in case people are interested in specifics. There's sadly indeed not much more than these two things and the awards. I do find a few articles that mention this webcomic as Hellman's and Beran's previous work: [1], [2], [3]. I think there's enough here to write an article with; six pages in a book, a review, some minor awards in the field, and finally a bit of Hellman's and Beran's later work. Barely meets WP:GNG, I think. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Webcomics Review qualifies, seeing as they don't seem to have editorial oversight. Interviews are primary sources, and mentioning it passingly in other work that they do is just that, passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner did, indeed, have editorial oversight. I poked around on its archive page a bit and saw that they had distinct editorial staff, an advisory board, and a long list of contributors. Based on the caliber of staff and people they profiled (comics giant Scott McCloud among others), I believe we can count this as a reliable source particularly for webcomics and not WP:JUSTABLOG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid I don't have capacity right now to contribute. If we could keep the discussion open an extra week I could give it a proper look. I will note one thing, which is that the Webcomics Work Group (part of Project Comics) maintains a list of sources and their reliability, and The Webcomics Examiner is recorded on that list as reliable. If that assessment is correct then we do have multiple reliable sources with substantial coverage. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources are still not reliable as they're either passing mentions or interviews/PR fluff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The page I referenced before also discusses Attitude and concludes that it is a reliable source. I understand that it is not simply a book of interviews but includes analysis. However, I do not have access to a copy. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a copy and it's pretty good. The analysis not presented in interview form is very short, just a lead paragraph, but an interview published in a book is still considered a strong in-depth reliable source, much moreso than an interview in a blog with no editorial oversight. It's a solid source to pull from. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Rall anthology and the Webcomics Examiner are enough to satisfy GNG, if barely. Doesn't matter if it's defunct. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability appears to be the only grounds I know of to argue removal of this article. The original deletion proposal noted that the comic was defunct, which is true, but notability is not temporary and there are many articles on other webcomics (and other media) which has ended.

There are two sources which could establish notability: a review by Joe Zabel for The Webcomics Examiner, and the section of Attitude 3 on the comic. (All other sources in the current article are either not independent or too brief. The WCCA comes under the latter as the awards offer no description of the comic.)

From what I know of both sources, I do consider them both to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". On "significant coverage", the Zabel article is to me long and thorough, and Maplestrip has above set out the contents of the Attitude 3 write-up. On "reliable", Etzedek24 notes the staff and board structure of the Examiner, and both sources have been discussed before by the Webcomics Work Group and been considered reliable (though if there is a reason to overturn that past advice, we should discuss that). On "independent", it could be argued that Attitude 3 is not independent as much of it is an interview of the creators giving their views, but if we consider the source reliable, then I would consider the information it presents to have come from that reliable source and so be considered independent.

Because of the above, I think that the subject is notable, and with no other reason I know of to remove the article besides notability, I think it should be kept. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (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.