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 keep. The consensus in this discussion is to keep, and the specific provisions of WP:WEB apply. It is fair to say that this article's only showing of notability for purposes of inclusion is the award, but that award has been affirmed as notable in an recent AFD discussion that addressed the derivative notability argument raised here. So, while editors are free to seek a changed consensus, the consensus to keep here is firmly within policy as in currently stands. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (webcomic)[edit]

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

All of the sources are either primary or unreliable. Among the few secondary sources are:

An article on Comixtalk, which has been deemed not to be a RS in the past.
A directory listing for a webcomic award of questionable notability.
Someone else's webcomic.
Someone else's webcomic.
A listing of an RPG based on the webcomic.
A "404 not found" from Crush Yiff Destroy, which is a niche anti-furry website and definitely not a RS.
This review hosted on a personal website.
Another directory listing from a non-notable awards website.

Furthermore, there is very little to save this one. Not one of the secondary sources meets the criterion of non-trivial, third-party coverage, and I was unable to find anything in a search. Simply being published in book form does not translate into notability for a webcomic, nor does winning a webcomic award of dubious notability itself. tl;dr: There is absolutely no way that this meets the general notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing the author's article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. If any reliable sources can be found (I tried, but couldn't find any), then merge the two into a single article. If no reliable sources can be found, then delete both, until sources are written. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete both. No reliable sources, no major awards, nothing. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jack, merge David Hopkins. I think deleting this would be a mistake. If you read the article, it's a good summary of its topic - a comic which has been around for nine years, was nominated for awards ten times (once winning), and has continuing popularity. The primary sources are used to back up factual statements about the comic and its characters. I would love for there to be more and better secondary sources (I would cut down the quote from CYD - if nothing else, it's excessively long). Still, their use in the article is restricted to the "Reception" section, and they do not mislead the reader. GreenReaper (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how it meets WP:N? Simply being around a long time ≠ notability. The alexa ratings mean nothing, neither does winning an award of tenuous notability itself. Primary sources are not enough to carry a whole article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards count. Not only has this comic won once (beating out Fans!, It's Walky! and Megatokyo), it was nominated for the award in several categories over a four-year period. Its author was the guest of honor for Conifur Northwest 2005 (one of the larger furry cons of its time) thanks to this work. It was recently nominated - again - for an Ursa Major Award. GreenReaper (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Greenreaper. Winning a WCCA satisfies criteria two of WP:WEB (this has been established previously), so the comic is notable. Dragoneer (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an award winning and controversal webcomic of some considerable note. ISD (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to tell me that it wins just because it got some cheapo award that's apparently doled out like free samples at Costco; it otherwise fails WP:N but let's keep it JUST FOR THE AWARD?!?! Get real. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N (web) is specific: meeting only one criteria is necessary, and "[winning] a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization (or "being nominated for such an award in multiple years") is one of these. Jack has met this standard for both the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and the Ursa Major Awards. You are welcome to argue the well-knownness or independence of the awards concerned, but dismissing them with hyperbole is not a convincing argument. GreenReaper (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a long-time webcomic and furry fan, I can say these awards are not even well known to the small subcultures of hardcore fandom who might potentially be interested in them. I never hear anyone talk about these supposedly "well known" awards, outside of a few people on Wikipedia talking about how we should keep some unreliably-sourced article based on how very important they imagine these awards are. If winning one of these were such a huge achievement, then we'd have some significant coverage in reliable sources. But we don't. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under another name, perhaps? You don't seem to have accounts at any of the popular furry sites . . . GreenReaper (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not exactly sure which way to go on this one. On the one hand it is pretty clear that the subject has not received significant coverage by reliable sources - the editors who believe the article should be kept do not even try to argue that such sources exist. Arguments based on popularity or page views are generally not highly valued and in any case articles on comics with traffic which is many times that of this comic have deleted or removed when no reliable sources exist (examples: 1, 2, 3). Several source which can not really be considered reliable are currently used in the article and information based on them should be removed, this would lead to most - if not all - of the reception section being excised. The discussion then essentially comes down to whether the award (and nominations) are enough to form the viable basis of an encyclopaedia article. It is clear that the award won is notable, after an initial deletion was overturned the article on them has been kept at three successive AfDs, one recent. As mentioned above WP:WEB states that notability is established if "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". It used to be taken that this standard incorporated any notable awards. More recently this view seems to be changing, at this discussion a consensus was found to delete despite the award in question here being won - the debate included "delete" comments from at least one individual who thought the article on the awards should be kept at the recent Afd. Of course consensus can change and there are no binding precedents on Wikipedia so all this might be moot. I generally view comics which have received awards (or in this case nominations) over a period of years as more likely to be notable than those which have a one off - flash in the pan - good year. The lack of reliable sources though is a real issue, above someone describes the comic as controversial but none of that controversy should be discussed in the article without sources to back it up. On balance I think it is questionable whether there is enough verifiable information available to create something which is a true encyclopaedia article rather than a simple description of "the nature, appearance... [and] services a website offers". Guest9999 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 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.