Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeveL (webcomic)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete from Wikipedia with a strong recommendation that it be offered to Comixpedia. Not being a sister project under WikiMedia, we can not perform a straight transwiki.

I see that Comixpedia is also licensed under GFDL so a transfer is allowable. However, not being a member of their site and being completely unfamiliar with their codes, formats, styles, etc., I am unwilling to attempt to add the article there myself. If anyone wants to carry out the transfer, please contact me (or any admin) and we can recover the article in order to submit it to Comixpedia. Please remember to also have the Talk page transferred at the same time because it documents the author's release of certain content to GFDL. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LeveL (webcomic)[edit]

Non notable obscure webcomic, found here, it's 40 member forum can be found here. Looking through one of their sparse forum threads, I know plenty of effort has been put into this, but I just don't think that the website is notable enough for wikipedia. Can I introduce you guys to comixPedia? Where every webcomic under the sun can get their article there? - Hahnchen 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Saberwyn 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw delete vote. This is NOT the webcomic I thought it was. Saberwyn 04:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nifboy 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia, the place for most of these unknown webcomics jnothman talk 02:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the archive appears reasonably extensive [1] and I see no evidence presented above by the delete votes. When you say an article fails such and such a guideline, please explain how to verify this assertion. Bryan 04:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa rank of 2 million (very bad), and longevity criteria are being left out of the new guidelines being drafted. The best I could find on Google was the artists' LJ and a link on Ponju. Nifboy 05:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Alexa rank really isn't the best measure of notability. Consider:
        • Pete Ashdown's US Senate campaign site has an Alexa rank of 2,530,023. Steve Urquhart's rank is 2,910,251. Nobody's suggesting deleting them -- especially if one of them actually manages to beat Orrin Hatch in next year's election (please, please, please). Orrin's site, BTW, ranks 1,490,351.
          • Those people are known for their political activity outside the internet. webcomics only have their internet presence to show. If that can't be verified through Google, Alexa or any other means, that means it doesn't have that presence. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I would add that Pete Ashdown and Orrin Hatch's websites don't have their own wikipedia article...--Isotope23 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a more webcomic-related note, it appears that all Keenspace comics get a single ranking of 5,395. That means that a comic like [Saturnalia], that never had a very large reader base and that hasn't updated in a year and a half, ranks more than twice as high as Megatokyo (13,920) or User Friendly (12,251). (Nothing against Saturnalia, BTW: Space Coyote is a great artist and the story was good, too. After this long, though, it's pretty well dead.)
        • Also on webcomics, even Penny Arcade, one of the originals, only ranks 404,199.
        • Alexa does list a few other sites that link to leveL. The best I found there was Megatokyo.--12.160.33.128 15:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, only four pages link there. MegaTokyo was in the list of sites visitors of LeveL also visit. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - The forum has 40 members. Longevity does not equal notability. There has been no press reviews/commentary. - Hahnchen 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Well, can also be transwikied; I have no objection to that at all, but my primary thought is that I'd like to remove this from Wikipedia.) Doesn't appear to be notable; frankly, any webcomic where a Google search for "<webcomic's name> <creator's name>" returns ~50 hits is non-notable in the grand scale of things, and possibly also in the webcomics scale of things. That said, I'm sure they'd find a very comfy home at Comixpedia. -- Captain Disdain 07:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia per Jnothman and Captain Disdain. WP:NOT a place to list every Web comic ever created. FCYTravis 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Dragonfiend 02:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See aforementioned arguments for dubiousness of Alexa. Site has roughly 600 visitors a day [2]. Notability aside from immediate popularity should also be considered. -Flare- 18:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Flare made a post on this webcomic's official forums asking the forum members to create a Wikipedia article about it. [3] Ashibaka (tock) 02:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bryan and Flare. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bryan and Flare. ♠PMC♠ 20:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nominationt was closed here. It was then discussed here and here.

To date, there are three clean deletes + nominator + one withdrawn, two transwikis, three clean keep + two with very low contributions (-Flare- (talk · contribs), 12.160.33.128 (talk · contribs)). As this is far from a clear consensus, and not even a clear "no consesus", per discussions with the closer it is being re-listed extended for another five days to draw wider community input. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain, but counsel editors to consult discussions at proposed guideline WP:WEB. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as suggested. This fails WP:WEB proposed guidelines for a webcomic as far as I can tell. 600 visits a day really isn't much.. and about consistant with the Alexa rank. Millions of sites get 600 visits a day. 40 posters to the forum... I just don't see what makes this webcomic notable. --W.marsh 23:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki I like to keep webcomic articles, I really do, but this is far from notable. Ashibaka (tock) 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to correct the earlier assertion that the Penny Arcade webcomic has an Alexa ranking of 404,199; it's ranking is in fact 4,520[4]. Further comparing the Alexa ranking of webcomics (which are by definition read primarily on the web) to those of Senators (who relay their information through mainstream news media coverage, talk shows, etc.) is a bit of apples to oranges. My vote (above) remains delete because there is no evidence that this comic is even notable inside the webcomics community, let alone outside of it. Dragonfiend 00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend's persuasive comment. Ifnord 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pintele Yid 06:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is intended to be a discussion, so it's helpful if you provide some reasoning. For instance, are you contending that notability is not an issue, or that this webcomic is notable? Thanks. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Uhm, three points: 1. Don't bite the newbies. 2. No one has to give an reason on why they vote. 3. In fact, Wikipedia is inherently inclusionist, so you should be more likely to ask for a reason for DELETING an article rather than keeping it. -- Grev -- Talk 07:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If that came across as a bite, I apologise, that wasn't my intent.
  2. It says at Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Discussion "Always explain your reasoning," because it's not a vote.
  3. I dont see how WP:AGF applys. Don't you assume good faith when someone wants to delete?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Captain Disdain's arguments. - Andre Engels 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Web comics lists several possible criteria for webcomic notablility. This doesn't meet any of them. I'd also point out that User:12.160.33.128's understanding of the Alexa ranking system is limited. For example, Penny arcade ranks in at 4500, not 400,000. This comic ranks at 2 million, which even taking into account Alexa's margin for error, is pretty bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.34.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral, long-running and extensive archive, I just can't find its audience. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. - Dalbury (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Bryan and Flare in the first run of this. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't understand this "Bryan and Flare" thing. What point did Bryan make that you agree with? Was it (1) that the article was extensive and all long articles are notable or (2) that you don't understand why people are voting Delete? What argument of Flare are you agreeing with? Do you agree that (3) any website with 600 visitors/day is notable or (4) notability may be asserted in ways that do not need to be described? I await your comments. Ashibaka (tock) 02:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The point of me mentioning the visits a day was to show that it is obviously known aside from the 40 people in the forum, since some of the voters for deletion used 'forum has 40 members, noone reads this thing' as an argument. It's not like this site DOESN'T generate tens of thousands of visitors a month. I was also referencing the guy that brought up points against Alexa rating, but he didn't have a user name, so it was probably easier to refer back to me. As for the ways that need not be described, it's obvious I'm a reader of the comic and thus have a bias, which is why mentioning any points about the actual quality of the comic over the quantity of activity around it would be putting myself on display to be torn apart. When I looked at WP:WEB before suggesting the article, it still had the alternate proposal that included longevity, a certain number of existant strips/pages and some other things that I can't remember right now but that were all met. Now that it's pretty much popularity only, any such argument has become void- I can't argue against the fact that it doesn't have an audience of millions. -Flare- 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am probably going to hate myself for saying this, but I'm all for frankness: This is still only a proposed guideline. It's referred to as a pointer for what the current suggested direction for this guideline is according to those who have taken part, but that is it. Don't let it deter you from making a pitch for its inclusion based upon longevity or something else. And anyone who's wavering in ther recomendation, don't be swayed by the pseudo-official nature of WP:WEB which I've had lots to do with shaping. Feel free to make your own decision, but please be ready to state your reasoning clearly. Thanks.
          brenneman(t)(c) 13:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails every guideline we've ever had for "notability," and the fervor of its fans in voting is not any argument against that. For those who wish a "reason why" it shouldn't be here, even though there is no reason why it should be here, I'll simply say that encyclopedias cover that which is referred to in alien context and which needs explanation and contextualizing. This forum/comic/game is known by its fans and referred to by none else. Those who wish to know, know. Those who do not know, will not hear of it and need to know. Since Wikipedia is not a place to satisfy the fan's obsession nor a place for people to advertise, the article should be deleted. Geogre 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre. It's old, but unremarkably so. People read it, but not very many. It is, in short, an utterly and completely average webcomic, and Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the utterly and completely average. (Of course, if Comixpedia wants it, they can have it) Lord Bob 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre--Isotope23 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. nn, webcomic. Dottore So 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; try advertising the comic more in places that accept advertising, and then come back to WP when you have the readers you deserve. — Haeleth Talk 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, can we be a little more [[WP:CIV}civil]], please? I know that sometimes it's easy to let our frustrations out, but we should assume thatthis article wasn't made for that reason. - brenneman(t)(c) 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the original nominator, so please don't count my vote twice. I wasn't too happy with the no-consensus of the first vote. I did not have a chance to reply to the erronomous and misleading comments above. Dragonfiend has already established that a popular webcomic like Penny Arcade has a respectable Alexa rank. The comparisons to Orrin Hatch and Pete Ashdown are totally irrelevent, these are people who have had major press attention, something which this comic lacks, even in the webcomic community. I would however, either redirect an article on Orrin Hatch's website to Orrin Hatch, or even move to delete. Just because a site links to it, does not mean it is notable. Heck, some blogs even link to my wikipedia page. This comic has no assertion of notability, a low readership and almost empty forums. Other arguments above, saying that "keep - long archive", I just don't agree with. One of my main points against the no defunct original WP:COMIC was the, longevity = notability" clause. Would you keep an article for a person who's only claim to notability was living up to retirement age? - Hahnchen 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just in case previous votes aren't being re-counted (I voted before). Why is this being re-listed? If the result wasn't a consensus, then it was "no consensus". Bryan 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that it's not actually been "re-listed", I mispoke before and have corrected it. It has been extended as is common for AfD discussions that do not reach a clear consensus. For example, a 50/50 split with strong arguments presented by each side is a "no consensus" and thus no action is taken. In this example, neither the numbers nor the arguments clearly indicated the "will of the people", and extendind the discussion appears to have made things clear. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is a comic with no evidence of popularity, significance, or impact beyond its small fanbase. (Of course, this should be transwiked over to Comixpedia, but you can do that with anything that meets their goals.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the discussion, I am reinstating my delete vote. Even though it is not the webcomic I originally thought it was, this webcomic appears to miserably fail the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Also, to those who try to justify keeping articles based on the argument "Article X is on Wikipedia. This article is in this way better to Article X, so therefore it should be on Wikipedia too", please don't. Each article should be kept or deleted on it's own merits, and it's own merits alone (as the various article policies allow). I will support a transwiki to Comixpedia, but will shed no tears of this does not happen. Saberwyn 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black. Xoloz 16:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this article. Moreover it was subject to a perfectly valid no consensus close, an re-opened as part of an evident campaign of deletion. --Tony Sidawayt 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three deletes, two transwiki, and one non-sock close is a clear delete close. (A transwiki ends with a delete.) The decision made to extend this AFD erred (rightly) on the side of inclusion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per jnothman and others. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia. *drew 22:23, 15 November 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LeveL_(webcomic)&oldid=1110685122"