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 no consensus. DreamFocus and Tokyogirl's comments make weight. Although I'm personally not in the know of Suvudu and Broken Frontier, I see the sources not being re-questioned by the commentators here. Rangoondispenser perhaps makes a comment I'll be personally more keen to support, which is that there should have been more sources available than just two reliable ones for a webcomic existing for such a long time. Taking into account all the comments, I believe there're good arguments both ways. Closing this as no consensus with no prejudice to an early reopening in case more reliable sources aren't added. Thanks Wifione ^Message 15:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable webcomic. Tagged for notability since December 2009. Simply not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:WEB. This page was previously AfD'ed in 2009 which was closed no consensus on the basis that being published on Keenspot might satisfy WP:WEB Criteria ¶3.

Dominic Deegan is now being "published" via ZeStuff, which appears to simply be a web hosting company. While notability is not revocable (AFAIK) I believe the fact that DD is no longer with Keenspot and other notability has not been shown weakens the claim that this comic is notable because of WEB¶3.

If this webcomic is notable, where are the sources? Looking through the history of this page shows few to no independent, reliable, sources being included. Checks of GNews and several pages of Google results show nothing in the way of reliable sources. The article does not satisfy WP:V and it is my contention that is does not satisfy WP:WEB. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Initially I was going to say delete and be done with it, but I am finding a few sources that might say otherwise so I'll hold off until then. This webcomic isn't one of my favorites, but it does look like it's gotten some buzz, such as these two articles: [1], [2], [3] (not sure if the third one counts or not), [4].Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Comment: I do have to ask a question, though. One of the things that originally kept the comic was that it was being published online at Keenspot and it was being published in book format. Now that the webcomic is hosted (presumably) by Deegan's creator on ZeStuff, if the books that were put out by Keenspot are out of print and the current printings are self-published, would that still qualify it for WP:WEB since it's being published in book format? Does self-publishing qualify under the book format?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Reply if it qualified before it would still qualify now, but I'm not convinced that Keenspot previously qualified it for notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Going through some of the links that have been added to the article: Comicpedia & TVTropes - Wikis, shouldn't really be linked, ComicVine - appears to he a personal blog. ComicTalk - might be an RS but says "ComixTalk is not responsible for comments, blog and forum posts." at the bottom which makes me question if this link is a reliable source? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Suvudu [5] and Broken Frontier [6] are both reliable sources, and both give significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment clicking on the find sources link gave: a 2006 Hartford Courant article, 2008 Boston Globe article (snippet: best known for his Web comic "Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire."), and a 2010 Press Herald article (snippet: known for “Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire”), and a single mention by [7]. No comment on notability, I'm just listing these for readers to check. -84user (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Those all look to be minor, off-hand references to me, not coverage about the webcomic itself. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. I managed to find some good sources for this and I think that they help this webcomic just barely and I mean barely squeaks by GNG by having 3 different reliable and secondary sources write articles about it. (One of them is semi-dubious.) There's also the Keenspot thing and that they published some of this webcomic in book format, although I agree with Osborn in that I'm not sure exactly how notable all that really is. Keenspot has published a lot of webcomics, some of which I'm sure have faded into obscurity with rarely a mention about them. In any case, this seems to barely meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete. Only sources are either minor off-hand references, unreliable, and/or not independent. Being published on a website like Keenspot does not equal notability. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I won't deny that there isn't much out there, Broken Frontier and Suvudu have both written in-depth articles about the webcomic and are independent of the comic itself. Some of the other sources on the article can be debated, but it was the links from BF and Suvudu that make me think that this just manages to get by the notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Keep. This is one of the best-known webcomics; the equiviliant of NCIS to cop shows or Mother Goose and Grimm to print comics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The notability you describe has got to be verifiable however and so far the sources that have been uncovered during this AFD are underwhelming.--RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. We should have no trouble finding significant coverage in multiple (more than two) reliable secondary sources for a ten year old webcomic if it were notable. As WP:GNG says, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." As others have said above, the best and only sources here are Broken Frontier and Suvudu. Neither of these provide depth, nor quality. (Example: Broken Frontier [8] is a brief post on a comics site, the site says "Come write for BF!" and "Post your own news directly to the top of our Headlines section.") Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (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.