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, and probably this should be run again soon. This admin's opinion is that WP:WEB is not really adequate on the subject of webcomics, and citing it (particularly with no other justifications!) is not a great argument. Furthermore, independent sources should be provided to determine notability. If they are not (and depending on any consensus that emerges about webcomics in the future), then more evidence of notability should be provided the next time this goes up for deletion, and that should be relatively soon. Chick Bowen 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburban Jungle[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

The Suburban Jungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

A speedy deletion of this webcomic was overturned at deletion review and is now here for full discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The comic spectacularly passes WP:WEB: ithas nontrivial hosting (KeenSpot), it is published by Plan 9 Publishing and as well as the awards brought up in the deletion review. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deleted within a minute of four other articles with no chance to discuss. The comic has a non-trivial print run via an independent publisher. --Kizor 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, I see no sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. God forbid Wikipedia should be of any help to those seeking information on this subject. Obscure topics such as this should remain difficult to research. Who are we to change the status quo? 66.108.168.149 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't anyone to change the status quo. We need sources, or we can't have a verifiable article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. That's why unconfirmable trivia such as this must be deleted. That it's verifiable by any reasonable standard, given the material, is of no consequence; we here at Wikipedia abhor reason, at least, as far as I can tell. 66.108.168.149 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (BTW, two more articles that should be expunged according to this criterion are RuneScape gods and RuneScape locations—neither are reliably sourced. I'm too lazy to nominate them for deletion, though. Can someone else do it? 66.108.168.149 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment "Minutiae should be difficult to research" is not a valid deletion rationale. JuJube 04:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above anon posts are simply an attempt by a disgruntled user to disrupt a number of AfD notes in protest of the AfD process. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 4 published books on it. Where is the debate? --Xiahou 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not books on it, those are books containing it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB #3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Published books containing the website are what #3 is all about! --Nekura 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per CyberSkull - meets WP:WEB. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plan 9 Publishing appears well know and publishes a number of webcomics notable enough for articles on Wikipedia. As WP:WEB stands only one of its 3 criteria need be met. This is "distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators... through... an online publisher" and therefore meets WP:WEB. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no decent third-party sources about this topic, let alone any suggesting the website has any noted achievements, impact or historical significance. Being distributed by two minor, little-known publishers does not meet WP:WEB, nor would meeting a notability guideline mean that this article meets our content policies. Without decent sources, all we're left with is original research and wikipedia editor's points of view. Note that several of the comments above misinterpret WP:WEB. Plan 9 Publishing is not a "well known and independent .... online publisher;" it is a little known book publisher whose own unreferenced article appears to fall short of WP:CORP. "Nontrivial hosting" is not part of WP:WEB, though "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" is, which this article does not meet. Claims of a "non-trivial print run" do not appear to be backed up here or in the article; do we have any sources for the print runs of these books? Any reviews of these books by reputable publications? Or have four supposedly "notable" books been published, yet no decent sources have bothered to note them? If a webcomic falls in the forest ... -- Dragonfiend 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Plan 9's wiki article have to do with it's validity as a publisher? And "well known" relative to what? WP:WEB #3 has no qualification that the books have to be "significant" or "notable," nor does it have any requirement about "non-trivial print run" (What is non-trivial? 10,000, 100,000 copies?). Just because a book isn't a NYT best seller, doesn't mean it's not significant to a large number of people. --Nekura 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Nekura. Plan 9's wiki article has to do with its validity as a publisher in the same way that all questionable claims on wikipedia must be backed up with third-party reliable sources and as yet we have none on this publisher (unless for some strange reason they are in some other article). You're right that "WP:WEB #3 has no qualification that the books have to be 'significant' or 'notable.'" In fact, WP:WEB #3 has absolutely nothing to with books, it has to do with online distributors, which I pointed out earlier. I have no idea what exactly a non-trivial print run is; you might want to ask User:Kizor which reliable source he's using for that claim since he's the one who is claiming these books exhibit such a thing. Myself, I'd expect four notable books from a notable publisher containing notable comics to attract some decent book reviews we could use as sources. Are there any? -- Dragonfiend 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • BBC article about webcomics, including a section on Plan 9 [1] --Nekura 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) -And for the record, it also talks about Keenspot. -Nekura[reply]
        • The "BBC article about webcomics" doesn't mention this webcomic. It's also not a BBC article -- note the "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC" at the bottom and the "Write an Entry" link on the left. --Dragonfiend 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am persuaded by the arguments of Dragonfiend. I think I was rather misled by the fact that Plan 9 Publishing has an article. Should it? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dragonfiend. bogdan 09:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dragonfiend. I was tempted to keep it at first (publication of a webcomic in book collections of ten is an indicator of notability), but when you notice that e.g. the collection "Tough Breaks" gets 8 distinct Google hits[2], including the homepage of the comic, the publisher and KeenSpot, then you get the impression that this (web)comic has failed to make any imporession and lacks all WP:V sources about it. Fram 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dragonfiend. Addhoc 12:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think Keenspot is well known enough in the webcomic world to count as a well known and independent medium, satisfying WP:WEB #3. JCO312 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what WP:WEB #3 is looking for are things which are "well known" in a general sense, not "well known" within a subculture. That is, "well known" enough that we can expect there to be multiple trivial reliable sources. Comics hosted on sites like Keenspot, Modern Tales, Girlamatic, etc. do not meet this as the vast majority of them do not attract attention from multiple, non-trivial reliable third-party sources. . -- Dragonfiend 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you're saying is, "mainstream," is that it? --Nekura 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mainstream reference to Keenspot: BBC article on webcomics, specifically mentioning Keenspot and Modern Tales. I would hope BBC counts as a reliable source. --Nekura 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the man "BBC" websiite, that's simply h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia and the article is not written by a BBC journalist, but by some guy... bogdan 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:WEB. Keenspot easily satisfies WP:WEB's requirements for a well known and independent medium. Lithorien 15:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:WEB #3. Plan 9 publishing is a independent publisher. It's no Amazon, but it is a major publisher among the webcomic industry, including publishing some large comics, such as Kevin and Kell. Additionally, the comic itself has been going almost constantly for the last eight years, has been nominated for some noteable awards, such as "The Ursa Major Awards" [3], and the creator is a regular panelist at many conventions from the popularity of the comic. This makes it a very notable webcomic. This comic is very popular among the fandom, and is significantly more then just a start-up webcomic. Just because it's not huge in the "mainstream," or hasn't been reviewed in the New York Times, does not mean it is insignificant, or not-notable, or can be deleted out of hand. Things need to be added to the article, yes, but it does not deserve to be deleted! --Nekura 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going Keep here. It's not because I like the online comic and keep it on my online rotation, it's not because it's on Keenspot, it's not for any of that. It's for one reason: four published compilations from Plan 9, who managed to carve themselves into the comics industry. --Dennisthe2 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because Dragonfiend doesn't consider Plan 9 to be a significant publisher doesn't mean that it isn't. Plan 9 is the publishing branch of Steve Jackson Games, a major force and influence in the gaming community. It has nationwide connections, and its product is available in retail outlets, not just on the internet. Therefore, the Suburban Jungle meets criteria. Thenodrin 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for everyone wanting to keep it because Plan 9 is a major niche publisher: why is it that there are so few online sources (and shops) for a new publisher in a medium where you would expect lots of Googlehits?[4]
  • It might have something to do with the fact that you're using a non english search engine for english sources. [5] --Nekura 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, thanks for trying, but the location of the Google version has nothing to do with the results[6]. Fram 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me, then, to point out WP:ILIKEIT and particularly WP:GOOGLE. And dare I ask, why use google.ca when google.com suffices? --Dennisthe2 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, 1: No one is arguing ILIKEIT, it is all about the validity of whether Keenspot, or Plan 9 is a credible source to satisfy #3 in WP:WEB. 2: Good point, as shown, different ways of presenting the results can have differing interpretations of the same search. 3: google.com autoredirects to the users home country, Canada for me, which is probably why the unsigned user above got google.be - but results posted to the english wiki should still be from an english google. --Nekura 07:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want o have the results from an "English" google, you take whatever Google you want (be it.com, .ca, .be, ...) and restrict the search to English language only (you can only get less' results that way, not more). Every Google search, no matter what .XX it is, gives the same result (perhaps with the exception of China?), so the results I posted are perfectly acceptable for tyhe English wiki, and are identical to thos you would get by searching via .com.
      • Fine, different views of the same data. But, you're trying to argue Plan 9's validity on it's own, so you shouldn't be adding the "suburban jungle" part, [7] resulting in 11,400 raw hits and 118 dissimilar hits, many of which are reviews and commentary, including a BBC article[8]. --Nekura 07:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That BBC article is from their own whimsical version of Wikipedia, h2g2. It's not a reliable source.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm trying to argue the value of Keenspot and Plan9 wrt this comic, and it seems that no one is reviewing it, no one is carrying (selling) it, no one is really bothered about this comic. While it may fulfill the notability guideline literally, it does not meet it in the spirit: there are no verifiable third party sources (i.e. not the author, the online publisher or the paper publisher) asserting any notability for this comic. If I get a weekly column in the New York Times and no one outside the NYTimes ever comments on it, then I (or the column) don't deserve an article, even though it is published by a very well known medium. We are a tertiary source, we need secondary sources, and I can't find the necessary independent secondary sources to establish the notability of this comic in either form. Fram 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At risk of invading the process here, it seems to me that you are arguing, essentially, the formal existence of Plan 9 as a publisher. It can be asserted that they do exist and that they are publishing Suburban Jungle books; I myself have all four books sitting beside me at this moment and use them regularly as an archival reference when discussing the strip. The problem is the establishment of "notability" for the comic, not the publisher. As an historian, I would like to reccomend that you look at this a different way. The SJ article was painstakingly written and reviewed by several fans of the work, using the books as published to represent a primary source on the comic strip. If you're going to declare notability as being published, then perhaps you need to accept that any work published in book form-- by any publisher-- is an acceptable primary source for itself and therefore establishes its own notability. If the standard of notability you are using to eliminate Plan 9 were to be used by historians, our history would be a mere shadow of what it is now. Instead, we value first primary source material from reliable sources. I reccomend that Wikipedia include a notability category, it could be called WP:PriSrc, that non-printed media may self-cite once it is published by any house, major or minor, so long as that published work is cited as a primary source material for the topic of the article. 67.185.101.54 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Guest comment from Tora Kiyoshi 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While your comments are thought out, they do not match with Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one: we report what other secondary sources (see WP:V and WP:RS for the correct and complete policies and guidelines) have said about a subject. Furthermore, it is consensus on Wikipedia that not all published sources are notable: self-published sources are no indication of notability (although in exceptional cases like Bone, they can nevertheless be notable), and publication by a minor publisher is not a strong indication of notability either. But as I have argued above, even a publication by a major publisher can be still non notable for Wikipedia, if we have little or no WP:V sources about the subject, which is the case here. It doesn't matter if Keenspot and Plan 9 are notable and important: those are points in favour of the comic, and should encourage us to look harder and think twice, but ultimately, when we don't find the necessary sources, we have to follow policy and delete it. Now, since no such sources have been shown by anyone in this AfD or in the article, it should be deleted. (about the sources and claims to fame in the DRV: the Ursa Major nomination was a mention in a list as one of 39 furry comics for that year, and the nomination for a Shortbread Award was an award by some website which again got very, very little attention (not only for this comic, but in general). There is nothing WP:V in either the article, the AfD or the DRV to suggest any notability as recognized by independent sources for this comic, and that is all that should concern us. Fram 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be anal, it's a disservice to say that the Shortbread Award comes from 'some website': Eric Burns, the man behind those, is a prominent expert in his field, and there's precedent for acknowledging him as such in Wikipedia. --Kizor 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Holy crap. The guy just made his marriage proposal in webcomic panels and got well over a dozen the biggest people in the entire scene aboard. About the only names missing are the makers of Penny Arcade and Ctrl-Alt-Del. He might quite literally be the only person capable of making that happen. See? Prominence. --Kizor 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Strange. The only guy I heard of on that list is Scott Kurtz. And that's ironic, given he makes a webcomic I don't like. JuJube 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Exactly. My point is that, speaking as a professional historian and with no intended disrespect, your policies may be flawed and need themselves to be reviewed. Just because you are a teriary source does not rule out the use of primary sources.67.185.101.54 04:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • While you're free to debate that the policies may need changed, that's irrelevant to the current debate. We can only decide this matter based on current policy, which does not allow primary sources. -- Kesh 04:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The whole shebang is rather a mess. I suppose I should be used to that already, being a human and all... --Kizor 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dragonfiend. /Blaxthos 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:WEB stands. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, what? Stands... how? Please explain. -- Kesh 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He means that the standards are met, although I don't understand how. -Amark moo! 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easily satisfies WP:WEB conditions #3 through Plan 9 publications (a legitimate and respected publisher) and Keenspot. TheRealFennShysa 17:07, 24 January 2007 (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.