Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Gender (2nd 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. Ultimately, the subject of this article lacks notability that is demonstrable throuh reliable sources. The state of the article, and the amount of cleanup warranted, were not raised as reasons for its proposed deletion, and are not compelling reasons to prevent deletion. With that said, arguments that solicitation for votes in web comic polls is proof of the comic's lack of notability are also not convincing, as comics such as Inverloch boost their rankings by asking for votes (which is one of the reasons Inverloch is #1 at topwebcomics.com). If the comic wins an award or gets significant press coverage, or the site qualifies under WP:WEB, (yet) another go at this can be had. For now, however, Abstract Gender is not sufficiently notable. JDoorj a m Talk 04:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Gender[edit]

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Gender. The article contains no assertion of notability, and no third party references or sources from reliable outlets. The site has an Alexa rank of 125,000. We have one guideline for web material WP:WEB, we should start applying it with the same standard and integrity to webcomics as we do other websites. - Hahnch e n 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a repost. Tagged as such. MER-C 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've removed the tag. The original deleted article was created as webspam a few months after the launch of the comic. Although I'm not one of the pedantic, "content must be the same for g4" people, I think taking this through AFD would generate a clearer consensus. - Hahnch e n 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Maybe it's Yet Another Webcomic, but the article has potential. --Dennisthe2 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources or verification as to popularity. --MCB 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. HGANBAdmins 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What improvements do you suggest? -- Dragonfiend 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and continue to improve, of course). It has potential, and also, non-induvidualy-notable KeenSpot comics seem to be afforded an article because they're with KeenSpot. AG's close ties with The Wotch and a number of others should give them the same benifit, no? (Actualy, existing should, but I'm not going to press that. Today, anyway.) --Kinkoblast 14:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd like to point out that KeenSpot comics are a different matter, since they seem to meet the third criteria of WP:WEB, which is "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Pleather 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: By that criteria, any of the crap on Geocities is notable, and, more directly, less-popular comics hosted on comicgenisis are more notable in the wikipedia sense than self-hosted pages? --Kinkoblast 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of the votes above just show the farcical gulf between the application of WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:RS to general websites and webcomics. We delete other websites with no assertion of notability such as Pokemon-Safari, Final Fantasy Shrine, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, each of them a hell of a lot more popular than Abstract Gender. How are you going to "improve" an encyclopedia article on an unencyclopedic nn subject, that reasoning is just a reiteration of "Keep - I like it". - Hahnch e n 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hahnchen should be commended for presenting the issues at hand in a fair, well-reasoned manner. The discussion of other webcomic's current presence on WP is extraneous. The bottom line is that this needs to meet WP:WEB. And unless I'm missing something, it doesn't. Pleather 23:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with the understood caveat that the article needs improvement.Johnbrownsbody 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How is improving the content of the article going to change the notability of the website itself? This is a quantitative issue, not a qualitative one. It would probably be helpful, all around, to stay focused on addressing the issues raised by the AfD nominator.Pleather 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What improvements do you, Pleather, suggest? -- Dragonfiend 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This webcomic is minor- there are also no reliable sources to [[WP:|verify it]]. How can you tell it's minor? For starters, on its home page, it has a big "DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR US!" at the top, which should be a dead giveaway. It has an unremarkable Alexa ranking , and only 29 unique sites link to it, all of which are blogs, forums, or submission webcomic directories. Keeping under "the article needs improvement" is not a valid argument- it doesn't address the question of whether the article should even exist.

--Wafulz 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As thewebcomiclist.com has been cited before in other articles and debates... (an example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exterminatus_Now "The comic is rather popular, listed 65th in The Webcomic List"), Abstract Gender is listed as #50, which is -- I might say, rather high in the list, with the other comics near it mostly listed on Wikipedia.
Delete per nom and Wafulz. The forum doesn't seem to have many members either. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only 1620 members... seems like a lot to me.
  - Comment - This is absolutely misleading. 1620 members isn't a lot for a start, but the reason for this number is that the forums are hosted by another webcomic, which is a lot more popular. - Hahnch e n 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete; clearly fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Subject already deleted by previous AfD. ergot 15:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hahnchen and Ergot. This article is Unverifiable through third-party reputable reliable sources, and WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ergot and Hahnchen, usual failures of WP:V and WP:RS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and like-minded above. "Improve" is meaningless - the article is fine, it's the subject which is just not notable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone can explain why Exterminatus Now deserves to be kept when this one does not? Exterminatus Now is no more notable than this comic (arguably less if you go by its only source, thewebcomiclist.com). At the very least it should meet the same fate as this one, whatever that is. AG has apparently, looking at its archives, improved both in readership and quality since the last AFD a year ago, unlike many webcomics that die off quickly. Diagonalfish 02:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You may also be interested in nominating such gems such as DoomDaze, Lowroad75 and Tween (webcomic). There are many other nn-comics on WP, like Later That Day..., Rogue Robot and Fishtanked, but it's more important to nominate the first 3 as they are linked from the list of webcomics advertising portal. - Hahnch e n 17:01, 28 September 2006 (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.