Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lackadaisy (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. Arguments to keep are mostly self identified as weak. Arguments to delete are detailed and specific. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lackadaisy[edit]

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

Only sources are primary except for an interview and a trivial mention in Italian. Precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award is that Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is insufficient for notability. Kept in last AFD almost entirely due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments; first !voter argued that the Escapist and Dot Net coverage was sufficient, but both articles are merely interviews with the cartoonist and thus do not meet the criterion for non-trivial independent coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I apologize in advance for any missteps I might make here; I'm new to this kind of discussion.) Speaking to notability, Lackadaisy has articles on other high-profile wikis, including Russian Wikipedia and WikiFur. With regards to secondary source coverage, Lackadaisy has been reviewed extensively (Archive Crawl, The Webcomic Overlook, Webcomics You Should Be Reading on ComicM!x), including four separate reviews on Comic Fencing, a source considered mainstream enough to be cited extensively on the page for the popular comic Gunnerkrigg Court. Lackadaisy has a sizeable and devoted fan base, with its own budding wiki and an fan audio adaptation by professional voiceover artists. The precedent you cited seems ambiguous and outdated to me; no discussion really took place, and it mentions the deletion of the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards page, which has since been reinstated. I personally created this article several years ago, and did not contest its deletion on notability grounds shortly thereafter. Since, though, Lackadaisy has received multiple WCCAs and has received physical publishing, and, between the previous sources, the Comic Fencing coverage, and status on Russian Wikipedia, I don't understand what notability guideline it fails to meet. —Zero (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presence on other wikis, particularly WikiFur, means nothing. The "reviews" you cited are not from reliable reviewers, particularly not Comic Fencins which seems to be user submitted. Having a fan wiki and a vocal adaptation mean nothing toward WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Neither does being published in print. You are clearly ignoring every single criterion of WP:WEB, and your argument basically boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITEXISTS. Where are the reliable secondary sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm amazed previous discussion "keep" voters pointed to sources like this Escapist interview[1] that devotes only a single sentence to this topic. Interviews are primary sources, a single sentence is not significant coverage, and we need significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to write an encyclopedia article per WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or weak Merge and redirect, but delete would lose information that is verifiable for this article. Accordingly I have added {{Merge}} templates to Lackadaisy and 2007 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. For completeness, here are the third party sources used by the article:
The Escapist (magazine) Keave, Vincent (2008-09-02). "The Perspectives of Tracy J. Butler". The Escapist. Retrieved 2008-09-05.

netmag.co.uk interview "Interview: The brains behind Lackadaisy". No. 186. .Net magazine. March 2, 2009. Retrieved August 21, 2009.

ryanestrada.com WCCA 2007 page "Outstanding Newcomer". Web Cartoonists' Choice Award. 2007. Retrieved 1 February 2011.

ryanestrada.com WCCA 2007 page "Outstanding Artist by Derrick Fish". Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Retrieved 1 February 2011.

ursamajorawards.org "Ursa Major Awards - 2007 winners". Ursa Major Awards. Retrieved 2008-09-08.

ccawards.com WCCA 2008 page "2008 Winners List". Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. 2008-03-08. Retrieved 2008-03-11.

lackadaisy.foxprints.com Antonini, Maria Chiara (March 2008). "Fumetti". Top Girl (in Italian). p. 62. Retrieved September 19, 2010.

4th Dimension Entertainment "4th Dimension Entertainment". Retrieved September 19, 2010.

Joe England news at keenspot England, Joe (April 8, 2007). "Joe England news". keenspot.com. Retrieved September 19, 2010.

Girl Genius Online comic with "Lackadaisy" in the panel Foglio, Phil (March 21, 2007). "Girl Genius Online Comics". Girl Genius. Retrieved September 19, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

-84user (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of all these things you've listed do you believe show this topic meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Among the many problems with these sources: The Escapist is a single sentence on this topic so not significant coverage. .Net is an interview, and interviews are primary sources, not secondary. ryanestrada.com pages each spend less than a sentence on this topic which isn't significant coverage. ursamajor is a list which doesn't even write a complete sentence on this topic so that's not significant coverage. ccawards is another list which doesn't even have a single sentence about this topic so that's not significant coverage. "fumetti" is an interview which is not a secondary source. 4th dimension entertainment is two sentences and promotional and not independent of the subject. "Joe England News" is a single sentence which is not significant coverage. Girl Genius Online comic is two words which is not significant coverage. Not a single "source" in this article or pointed to here shows significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject that we would need to begin writing an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. all the sources arent great..but the few that are shows notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of all those not great sources do you believe show this meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any objections to me just merging the article as I suggested? After three deletion nominations, the wikipedia community needs to make a final decision, otherwise a keep will merely result in another nomination. Editors have better things to do than this I think. For what it is worth I only listed all the references to show readers all the references, with no judgement as to their fitness. So, keep, merge, or delete outright? Which do the people want? -84user (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this type of poorly sourced material should be merged into other articles, and I don't think any further information on this topic should be included in the list you have suggested as a merge target, as that would give this topic undue weight. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sneaks above the notability radar, just. I think there will be a fourth nomination though, its marginal. Szzuk (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a requirement for third-party sourcing. Second choice merge/redirect. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, anyone who's said "keep" has not given any sort of proof as to how the sources shown above are reliable, third party coverage. As Starblueheather points out above, almost every source is an interview or tangential mention, which is clearly insufficient — I think the "keep" !voters are ignorign that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:57, 16 February 2011 (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.