Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road Waffles (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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road Waffles[edit]

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

Absolutely no notability. No sources found anywhere. Speedy declined due to prior AFD, which was closed as unanimous delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defunct web comic with no real coverage. Gigs (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight, author of the non-defunct Road Waffles, chimes in here on Nov. 19th, 2010; "I don't really understand why a wikimod requests deletion of this article a week after the revival of a long-standing webcomic that still has viewer traffic. I guess this is what happens when somebody links it on somethingawful - the trolls tear your walls down for fun. It should be noted that the only notability the requestor has themselves is a long history of deleting content from wikipedia and various boy scout badges gained for doing it. This article was built by the readers and contains accurate information about the webcomic, sourced by readers reading the comic. Requesting deletion of Ten Pound Hammer for having absolutely no notability. (I've never heard of him, therefore he must not be important at all.)" (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.12.28 (talk)

Delete: Har de har har, while we're talking about trolling. Moving back to a deletion discussion (supposedly) based around Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the article proffers no reliable sources evincing notability. I could find none with a Google search, amidst the blog posts and Wiki mirrors. Ravenswing 15:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight: "It's obvious that the article's fate was sealed once a certain person went around tagging certain comics for deletion. While you're still here priding yourself on removing content from the web rather than being the one generating it, you can feel my burn for the next decade. If the comic wasn't notable and popular enough to be tagged for deletion amongst the group of other comics targetted and seconded enthusiastically during the last few days despite having withstood several years unchallenged as fan-generated wikipedia content, then I'm sure it wouldn't have been on your radar at all. Why don't you all go and create a notable article on yourselves?" Comment is most sarcastically pending deletion.

Eight: "Also, please read a personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. I apologize for not knowing the 'rules' and evidently Wikipedia must be suffering from the twenty or so page hits per month on the Road Waffles wiki article and it is costing them so much bandwidth that anything not recognizable within mainstream media, or has garnered a review from a 'reliable' mainstream media outlet, or won any 'awards', is not a valid constituent in the global internet knowledge archive known formally as Wikipedia. I do not consider my 'self' to be notable, hence there does not exist any article on my pseudonym, but having selflessly contributed my obviously enormous wealth of artistry to the virtual world should constitute my content as valid as an ephemeral molecule in the ocean of human chronology. Since the user-controlled media participants have unanimously agreed to destroy content that they themselves have not thoroughly researched or judged any redeeming value, the wrecking ball looms and a chapter closes. Give yourself a hug."

Comment: Yes, you're absolutely right: a subject not recognized by mainstream media, or which hasn't won any significant awards, or which hasn't otherwise been noticed by the wider world, does not by Wikipedia policies merit an article. You're more than welcome to thoroughly research it and get back to us if you find our own research deficient; the AfD will be open for a few more days. Ravenswing 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight: "As noted, quite aware :) with a smiley. I apologize that I'm not Lady Gaga, however the attached zinger insinuates that she has not actually done anything remarkable during her career yet qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Upon your invitation I can only recall once doing an interview with Xavier Xerexes"An interview with Eight by Xaviar Xerexes". as well as being listed among Notorious Webcartoonists"NC:17, or 17 Notorious Webcartoonists". on COMIXTALK but I'm sure since the 'review media' COMIXTALK doesn't have its own wikipedia article that this automatically dismisses me from being notable by proxy as my sources are less notable on Wikipedia than I am. Cue the bulldozers!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.12.28 (talk)

Reply: The notion that "notability," as defined by Wikipedia policies, means "This subject is important" is probably, IMHO, the greatest fallacy here ... not merely among newcomers, but among a surprising number of erstwhile veterans who should know better. Instead, Wikipedia's fundamental content policy is WP:V, which holds "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That's one of the reasons that Lady Gaga qualifies for a Wikipedia article ... although some might claim that having seven singles crack the Billboard Top Ten might just meet WP:MUSIC's threshold for inclusion. Ravenswing 20:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight: "Motion to investigate FOX News for source reliability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.12.28 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you make some comics making fun of Wikipedia, you'll draw enough coverage to satisfy our WP:Notability guideline. How's that for a dose of surreal? Gigs (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gojoe: Dear Wikipedia Admin,

As a fellow contributor to the Road Waffles wiki article I would like to ask for a couple of days to possibly gather a few sources to cite information in the article and make it as legitimate as possible. The Road Waffles article is a valid article to be placed on Wikipedia in that it was one of the first webcomics to be included on Keenspot, a major online syndicate for online comics. In this way the wiki page is helping to catalog the history of webcomics through the years they has been online. Also it shows how Road Waffles has helped to develop the webcomic mainstream. For us, the fan base of webcomics, and Road Waffles in particular, this is an invaluable source of information.

Another reason would be that as of currently the author for the webcomic, Eight, does not yet have a cast of information page for his comic. Therefore the wiki article is a main source for us, the readers, to gather information on the comic and keep ourselves up to date on cast members, synopsis, current status of the comics update schedule, and website alterations and functions.

Other webcomics have wiki pages used in a similar manner such as Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire.

All I ask is to let us keep our wikipedia page to let us keep our article and in return I, and possible a few other contributors, will cite the article and bring it into the right, Wikipedia, format.

Thank you - Gojoe

Gojoe, we aren't a free web hosting service. There's other wikis out there like Wikia that you can use if you want to host a Wiki about Road Waffles. This AfD will be open for a couple more days, so there's your couple days. Don't delay though, it's not looking good at this point, and they tend to close these things promptly after 7 days. Gigs (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight: "Is it possible to call on WP:IAR this rule under the premise that it is understandable that 'Road Waffles' was never intended to be a 'mainstream' comic and thus has never strived to gain any notability through reviewers or popular media and has not once been submitted to any syndication or publisher, even a local one or a school paper, for review - on the grounds that the author never intended for the content to be suitable for newspapers. However, while self-publishing solely on the internet for the sake of having people read it, it garnered somewhat of a 'cult' following and posted some pretty big readership numbers during the first run, at a time when there were very few webcomics achieving that kind of 'fame'. In fact, there were very few webcomics at that time. Web Archive snapshots of BigPanda.net circa 2000, or internal usage statistics from KeenSpot, unfortunately cannot be used as source material."

It's asking a lot to invoke IAR on our core policy of WP:verifiability and our primary inclusion guideline of WP:notability. We can do it, but the situation would have to be pretty exceptional. On the plus side, if you do draw coverage in the future, the article could possibly be recreated at some point. The coverage would need to be in reliable sources, usually not blogs or things of that sort. Gigs (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." IAR shouldn't be used - and was never intended to be used - to paper over that fundamental requirement. If this webcomic did indeed have a substantial cult following, then some reliable sources saying so would be necessary. Ravenswing 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely non-notable. Commenters above who think this article is an invaluable resource and that the topic is more notable than Lady Gaga are free to take a copy via the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 18:17, 25 November 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.