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. ff m 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire[edit]

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

No secondary sources beyond one trivial mention. Seems to fail WP:WEB, WP:GNG as a rather deep dig on Google, Google News, etc. turned up nearly nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article creator, but the comic has stopped being good since. However, it was long hosted on Keenspot, an invitation-only website with plenty of oversight. According to own judgement and to my knowledge of our standards on webcomics, Keenspot meets WP:WEB through the criteria that online content must "be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." --Kiz o r 20:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't make it notable if there're no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? WP:WEB says that "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. (...) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." Note that sources are another criteria. That specifically makes it notable. Let's drop notability, it doesn't belong here and the atmosphere at AfD is a lot more plesant when it's not around. --Kiz o r 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable, and it is referenced just by the same page :P --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The Dominic Deegan series is also published in print as well as web, which meets the web requirements. Keenspot is both an online and print publisher and they do not own the comics they publish, making them independent of the creators of the comics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that if I dump something on Keenspot, it'll automatically be notable for a Wikipedia article, even if no reliable source ever writes about my work? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a "no" answer to my second message on the 3rd. Moving on. The level of disdain for Keenspot in your last message suggest that we're not on the same page. Keenspot is the Big Leagues, Prime Time, Your Name In Lights. (It's not, however, Big Rock Candy Mountain, and drawbacks have cost it its claim to being the whole enchilada.) Specifically, no artist just puts their work on Keenspot, and nobody "dumps" anything on Keenspot. The host is quite exclusive, and entry is by invitation only. You might be confusing it with Keenspace, an open host which is run by the same company. --Kiz o r 12:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kizor is quite correct. Keenspace, now known as ComicGenesis, is Keenspot's free comic hosting site. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I found this review! Unless I completely misremember my dealings with our webcomics coverage, Comixtalk has an editorial staff and paid contributors, and is considered reliable. I'm going to come out in favor of Keep. --Kiz o r 15:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not meet standards of the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Starblueheather (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does not meet WP:WEB either. Starblueheather (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article seems to meet the criteria at WP:WEB by passing (3) independent distribution. And just on a common sense level it seems to be suitably notable within its own field. Some more third party sources would definitely improve the article though as it seems to come close to original research at times. No reason to delete though. Mah favourite (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Petepetepetepete (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG states that a topic is (presumed to) merit an article if it meets its own criteria or those of an applicable subject-specific notability rule. This is a Very Good Thing: even if us Wikipedians weren't much better at making articles than making rules, I can't see how we could create an arbitrary cut-off point (which is what N is, whether one thinks it's a good thing or not) that worked for all subjects everywhere. Here the applicable one is WP:WEB, and how Dominic Deegan meets it has been discussed above. It did leave Keenspot, but stayed there for a long while in the heyday of both, and more importantly notability is not temporary - the battles over what meets such a subjective criteria, the need to rank and classify all types of references, and large swatches of the encyclopedia being made unmaintainable by the knowledge that they'd be deleted once their sources "timed out" would make N completely unusable. --Kiz o r 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an avid reader of webcomics for many years, I can say with certainty that Keenspot unfortunately does not meet the standard of a "medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." It is much closer to the "trivial distribution" end of the spectrum. This is the widely accepted view on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the huge list of red links at the Keenspot article, many of which lead to deleted articles on Keenspot hosted comics such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy in Love (comic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Mode, etc. Starblueheather (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At last, we're talking! :) As a similar avid reader of webcomics for many years, I say the opposite with certainty. Odd. Why do you think it isn't? Being invited to join Keenspot has generally been a cause for celebration, it's a big high-profile site, and it's certainly independent of Dominic Deegan's author. "Trivial distribution" is far, far away from Keenspot: WP:WEB uses Newgrounds, Keenspace and other sites with no entry barriers whatsoever and thousands upon thousands of half-done, one-afternoon works as examples of "trivial distribution."
Your statement about the redlinks is more troubling, so I went through the lot and discovered that the situation isn't nearly as bad as that. Of the 30 redlinks to currently active Keenspot comics, 18 lead to articles that have never been started. This is not evidence of the view on Wikipedia. It might be evidence that the readership of those comics is sane enough to keep away from our project, or mindful of our reputation on webcomics. One article was deleted as a copyright violation. Six were PRODded or just deleted outright, and frankly I'm not comfortable with that. We don't have a track record of reason and accuracy with either process, and their users are other drive-by editors from outside the field. There was at least a case to be made, so the fact that they were not contested is more indicative of a lack of manpower, willingness or wiki know-how to contest a prod, never mind an admin's summary deletion. Plus they only indicate one person's opinion. Only five of the thirty were AfD'd with the decision to delete. Of these, in one it was said and not contested that Keenspot does not confer notability. In two it was contested and the articles were deleted for other reasons, in one (God Mode, which you linked) it was found that prong #3 of WP:WEB didn't apply since it requires independence and the author was an employee, and one didn't mention Keenspot. (It was only mentioned in passing in the article. Admin powers are fun!) These proportions are much the same across the board. Of the fifteen comics to leave Keenspot (counting Dominic Deegan), twelve have articles, two have never had articles, and one was PRODded.
In total, 68 Keenspot comics have articles, and 47 have never had articles. 25 have lost them. 15 of these were prods or summary deletions (which, again, trouble me - one had a rationale of "."), and one became a Keenspot comic later on. Of the 10 that were AfD'd with a deletion result, five are mentioned above. One was a flash cartoon instead of a webcomic, and it was found that Keenspot has "some professional flair" with webcomics but not in this other field. One became a member of Keenspot later on. The other three were nominations of comics that are sporadic or on hiatus, and each of them was highly low-profile, barely enough to avoid a relisting (if they had that in 2007. Did they?). This last argument is a bit weak, I know. Still, it seems clear that the redlinks are not proof of a collective view, much less a widely-accepted one. Whew!
Support for Keenspot is definitely there but more difficult to prove, what with the articles still being there. :P Cyberskull, can you chip in if you see this since you're more experienced than me? You gave links, Heather, so there's at least the EGS AfD... but I do note that this high-profile AfD, admin BradBeattie states "there's an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability." In your link for God Mode, Nifboy states "Curiously, back when WP:WEB was being (re)written (back before webcomics dropped off the page), its "independent distributor" clause was there more or less for the express purpose of keeping Keenspot strips." --Kiz o r 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through your lengthy comments several times and cannot disagree with you strongly enough. If there were a case for the notability of this comic strip then you could make that case far more succinctly (and with far fewer derogatory remarks directed at your fellow editors). My case is simple, and you have confirmed it: Wikipedia articles on Keenspot published comics are deleted frequently. Being published on Keenspot is not a free pass to a Wikipedia article. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tell me what my motives are, especially that I'm being deceptive or have hidden aims. I've been getting that on another wiki this week and it's tiresome. I have made a case for the notability of this comic strip, I have done nothing else. I'm about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the crotch. You said that the redlinks proved something, so I replied with the amount of statistical investigation and analysis that is necessary to make any sense of the redlinks. But could you point out what these degoratory remarks are, so that I can see if there are things to avoid saying from now on? --Kiz o r 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comments about your motives. Your derogatory remarks about other editors have included calling editors you disagree with "drive-by editors from outside the field," questioning those editors ability to reason and their sanity, etc. I don't think it's necessary to disparage other contributors when we're here to talk about encyclopedia content (nor is it necessary to talk about hitting people in the crotch with sledgehammers while we discuss encyclopedia sourcing standards). Since we can all agree that Wikipedia articles on Keenspot published comics are deleted quite frequently, then hopefully we can move on and do as Novil Ariandis suggests: Write a well-sourced encyclopedia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the little bit of sourced information with current publisher ZeStuff. This article is far too long for what little to no reliable secondary sources it has. What little bit is sourced can easily be merged elsewhere if desired. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being hosted on Keenspot does not establish notability since it shouldn't be treated as an independent publisher and has lost much of his status in recent years. However, the readership of Dominic Deegan is massive and I think it should therefore be possible to come up with some reliable sources for it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you here. A couple of things about Keenspot: First, it has been having a tailwind, but is it really that bad? My impression was that some of the change is from Keenspot moving back, but a lot of it is everyone else moving forward. That would still leave Keenspot a comfortable distance within the third criterion of WP:WEB. In fact, that criterion's hard to un-qualify for. Two, I don't get why Keenspot shouldn't fit the definition of independent publisher when the clause involved was - per Nifboy above - more or less specifically tailored for it. Fortunately, Keenspot has a twofold claim to publishing Dominic Deegan through Keenswag. Third, what's happened to Keenspot since is pretty much irrelevant to Dominic Deegan anyway: their association was in the heyday of both and notability is not temporary since if we change that rule, this place will promptly tear itself apart. :)
Reliable sources are the pressing matter. We have this one. Comixtalk (formerly Comixpedia) is considered an online magazine. We also have this article, and if can establish the site's relationship to its newspaper, we'll most likely squeak past the requirements. It won't be pretty but it'll work. More is always better, though, so I'll go bug the wikiproject sometime after I wake up. --Kiz o r 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mah favourite MKFI (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (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.