Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnuff (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnuff[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I can't find any sources that establish notability of this comic book series. The character Gnuff might have some degree of notability, since it appears in multiple works, but I can't find anything resembling multiple independent reliable sources to verify anything. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an internationally published comic by a famous Danish comic artist. See previous AfD, I think there are good comments there. (And since when did dragons have fur?) JIP | Talk 07:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per above. Given that, it could certainly do with more sources, and the lack of expansion since last AfD is disappointing. I"ve added the rescue tag accordingly. Artw (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searched in Danish proprietary media database and found four exlusive reviews in major Danish newspapers and tabloids, the first in 1986. Will add them to article. The artist is a clear, clear pass for notabilty, major birthday events covered in many media. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, is sourced and verifiable. Hiding T 15:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, those are irrelevant. The reason for my nomination is that I believe it fails WP:N. You have not addressed this reason nor refusted it in any way. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the policies are incredibly relevant, and I'm not sure I understand how anyone would assert otherwise. Given that I stated the article is sourced, I think that quite clearly refutes the idea that this article "fails" WP:N, although I think you'd have to show how WP:N operates as something which has to be "passed or failed", rather than as a guideline which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Hiding T 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many WP:N nominations are based on negative evidence, and sometimes on quite sloppy searches. Lack of Google footprint should be interpreted cautiously. In Denmark, due to commercial reasons, news archives are not fully searchable, only content which has appeared in Web-versions of newspapers is searchable. But printed media, as a general rules, are not. It's accessible on Infomedia, subscription required. I recently learned that the same situation exists in Mexico, I simply had no Google hits in Mexican media for a person I would expect to be prima-facie notable there. Another editor informed me, that Mexican media no-index their sites to keep Google out - it's a pecuniary issue, not one of coverage. New York Times is fully searchable back to the 1860s, for free, subscription requiered to actually read articles. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. This example demonstrates that throwing out non-English content which passess WP:V based on WP:N concerns, should be done carefully. I'm also of the opinion that it would also have been prudent to consider a merge to the comic artist, consistent with WP:PRESERVE, which is policy, if WP:N was the concern, instead of deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not appear to meet our deletion policy. I can't find anything resembling discussion of the points raised upon the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 21 November 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.