Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ménage à 3 (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 speedy delete. under G4... again. Additionally, I'm salting the page due to how many times it has been created. The new article does nothing to address the concerns of the previous nomination, and until that can be done the article will not be retained. Any desire to recreate this page can be brought up at WP:DRV. The argument placed here for overturning the earlier decision is wholly unconvincing to me and must be met with consensus. AFC may be a good way to establish that consensus. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ménage à 3[edit]

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

The page was put up for a deletion discussion, the result of which was to delete said article. It was recreated and then speedily deleted (per G4). A search could only find the comic site and nothing else, so I believe it does not meet the notability rules, as there is no third party content. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD not sure why it was brought here. Ridernyc (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to explain my case: I began working on this article a few hours ago. The comic is a featured comic in the Keenspot network (a leading comic hosting site), has its very own page on TV Tropes, and has been shortlisted to two awards. I neglected to put sources in at that point, because I put a notice at the top of the page that the page was being actively worked on. A Wikipedia article needs a few days to become something worthwhile, and I intended to fully back up my research and establish notability today. A request for deletion, however, was lodged while the article was still a microstub, and the article was deleted within an hour, even as it was actively worked on. I sort of figured this might happen, so I backed it up, fleshed it out, and re-uploaded it. Administrator Anowlin requested a speedy as per WP:CSD#G3, which was turned down, and an under construction notice was added. He again requested a speedy as per WP:CSD#A7, which he later removed, but the page was deleted anyway. Several times, I wrote bona fide information about the comic which was reverted by a few Wikipedians (well-intentioned, I'm sure). I took it up with them, they apologised, and now this page has been recommended for deletion, which I don't mind, just please don't make it yet another speedy, I'm sick of them! --Nmatavka (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I can tell you have done nothing to establish notability in the slightest. Instead of typing long keep arguments and trying to defend your position just add independent sourcing that establishes notability. 03:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not another speedy delete. The aim of this is to reach a consensus on whether or not the page should be deleted, kept, userfied etc. I would suggest that, instead of spending time here arguing, you should work on the article and try and establish notability. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (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.