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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Rest for the Wicked (webcomic)[edit]

No Rest for the Wicked (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Lacks any reliable third-party sources, so fails WP:NOR and WP:V (the comic itself is not a permissible primary source for most of the content). Due to lack of multiple coverage in reliable sources - and because it did not actually win any award - it also fails WP:WEB. Sandstein 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the Grimms are very notable, but the author of this comic is rather less so. The artistic merits of the comic are irrelevant for the purposes of its inclusion in Wikipedia. You mention reliable external sources citing it; what are they? Sandstein 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, you seem to have missed my point, so I'll clarify. I did not claim that Andrea Peterson is more notable than the Grimm brothers, nor did I claim that her story was "art". Rather, I argued that her story was better known and, hence, more notable than many analogous stories that would reasonably be considered notable, such as Der Gevatter Tod. Two external sites that reference her work are here and here. She has been interviewed several times, which were published externally, such as here, and here. The story has been favorably reviewed by several external sites as well, such as here and here. These external sites are independent and therefore cannot be considered as "advertising". Hoping that this clarifies your question, Willow 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for providing the sources. It's not unusual for a webcomic to be well covered online, but the sources you cite do not appear to be reliable - i.e., sources with a reputation for fact-checking and serious research. Although Sequential Tart, which looks to be fairly professional, might qualify, the others appear to be blogs, forums and other enthusiast-run projects. Sandstein 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. From what I've learned in the recent flurry of AfDs, Comixpedia is an online magazine. The site readily agrees, and has such things as monthly articles, issue archives and cover art, with the more modern blog, forum and wiki elements on top of that base. (Sure, it looks rather ugly, but so do I and the site at least works.) Apparently it actually pays writers, and while the amounts are symbolic that sets it well apart from the usual enthusiast work. I think it should count. --Kizor 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but at any rate its coverage is trivial, which does not count under WP:WEB - the webcomic is mentioned once, in passing. Sandstein 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not appear to be true. It's not mentioned on the results page. According to that page, the fantasy webcomic winner is Sorcery 101. Sandstein 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're reading it wrong, sorry. :-) Click on the link, and you'll see that the "ceremony" is hosted by Sorcery 101, where it awards No Rest For The Wicked. --Kizor 06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one børked award. On the results page, it says "Scroll down for the winner!", but I don't see who the winner is. The space below is empty, at least in my browser. Sandstein 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd, works fine on my Firefox. There was some kind of problem a moment ago, you could try again. In any case, there's this. --Kizor 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now that I actually read what my mind, assuming it to be an advertising banner at the bottom of an empty page, was filtering out... yes, I see. Lousy layout, this. Anyway, while I'd not have nominated this article under these circumstances, I'm not withdrawing the nomination, because I'm not convinced of all this underground-flavoured notability. Marginal coverage by subculture publications and receiving a marginally notable subculture award (itself still up for AfD) is less than impressive in my view – and I am a regular reader of webcomics! – but I'm aware that many other editors may feel differently. Sandstein 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a spoiler warning and the spatial equivalent of opening the envelope. Still looks unwieldy, though. --Kizor 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Truth be told, I asked you to consider it in large part because of weariness. I'm here to make contributions, this recent flurry of webcomic deletions that had just been abating has been increasingly grinding. Oh well. Too late for that. Also, the WCCA vote ended with keep consensus. -Kizor 21:51, 21 February 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.
More