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 (non-admin closure) A number of those calling delete changed to keep with the addition of sources. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential Art (webcomic)[edit]

Sequential Art (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB. An article on a webcomic, it contains no assertion of notability. References are limited to a post on a forum, a blog, a foreign language site, and the self-publishing company Lulu.com. Prod was removed by main contributor. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do like good furry art, but unfortunately this fails WP:WEB in every way. The article's length may be a little too much for an A7, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per addition of sources, seems to scrape through notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not one criteria of WP:WEB applies here. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think Sequential Art passes WP:Web if I understand what constitutes non-trivial published works: What I believe can be considered and "online publisher" and an interview with the author by a comics review site. I hope I did this right; I've never edited anything on Wikipedia before but I really like Sequential Art. I'd be willing to update/edit the entry a bit if it is kept.TheMagicalOnionMan (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately, Lulu.com is not an "online publisher", it's a self-publishing print-on-demand company that happens to be online. Online publishing would be if a large multiple-contributor website with editors (say, TIME.com or such) chose to syndicate the comic regularly on their front page. In other words, instead of the creator going out and finding a way to get his work into print, someone else is coming to the creator and offering to publish it. Lulu has an open-door "we'll print anything you can pay for" policy, which makes it NOT a publisher, but a printer, like any commercial print shop in the real world. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think Sequential Art is wonderful webcomic that always lives up to its promise. Though the article has gone through a few uncalled for adjustments yesterday (27/02/08), I feel that I fleshed out the article to satisfactory level today that makes it relevent enough to keep hold of. I hope you see it in yourselves to consider keeping the article so it could be improved in the future.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cenaris (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ILIKEIT, but it does not have reliable sources or established notability (yet). Delete. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, and being "published" by Lulu.com is hardly a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't find anything resembling WP:RS, so if such can't be produced, there is no WP:V, and I have to voice in Delete. MURGH ^disc. 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the silverbullet.com coverage. MURGH ^disc. 13:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally, I would say that the Silver Bullets article would constitute a Reliable Source: it's from a long-running multiple-contributor website with editorial control, covering the field of comic books and comic strips. However, it's also an interview (and nothing BUT an interview), which means that it actually fails to make any third-party statements about the comic or its notability. Further, we have no corroborating sources to satisfy the need for multiple references. Being published by Lulu does not immediately exclude the possibility of being notable, but it also means that the book cannot help fulfill WP:WEB, Criteria 3 (Lulu.com would constitute "trivial distribution" as a self-publishing site with no content discrimination). A few Google searches on my part later, and I can't find any other coverage of this comic outside of blogs. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since an actual review from Silver Bullets was added after I made the above comment, I have to change my stance to Weak Keep. The two reliable sources that I see are Digital Strips and the Silver Bullets "quick fire" review, neither of which is a trivial mention. I don't consider any of the other sites particularly reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, though they could still be used to add context to the article. I would feel stronger with more references, obviously, (or any kind of assertion of why we should care about the comic, other than, "it exists"), but it technically skates just under WP: WEB now. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — The author is a major contributor on the British website B3ta, and has since branched out under his own work. I'd argue that this site is notable through its association with b3ta, combined with its published aspect. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of this article is Sequential Art, not its author. With respect, I cannot agree that a website is notable because its author is a contributor to a website that is. In no way is this supported by WP:WEB. The issue of its "published aspect" - or to be more accurate, self-published aspect - has been addressed several times on this page. Victoriagirl (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can certainly see that side of things, particularly from cruft-fighters such as yourself. I just simply don't agree with it in this case. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The WikiPedia notability clause is sadly outdated given that it's an online enclyclopedia - article might need some tweaking but other than that, I would say it's a keeper. --bannerninja (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article may need tweaking, but I think it's quite good. That said, the issue here has nothing to do with quality and everythng to do with notability. I suggest that the appropriate place to address issues with the "clause" (by which I assume you mean WP:WEB) is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) - fresh voices are always welcome. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HAHAHAHA. Oh, that's a laugh. 'New voices always welcome.' Hoo. Pull the other one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.168.13 (talk • contribs)

comment Yes, there are many people in wikipedia who act maliciously to further their own ends but among the masses of editors they are few and far between. If you have any issue it should be with those individuals constantly appearing in slashdot for some abuse of power or another, not an editor who you disagree with. Superslash (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whoever has the hard-on for webcomics deletion needs to get the stick out of their ass.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.168.13 (talk • contribs)

Comment. It isn't about webcomics at all but aiming at a Wikipedia that is verifiable. When no reliable sources can be found (yet) the subject can't be included. The reprieve for webcomics is that articles can be transwikied to Comixpedia. MURGH ^disc. 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrary to what some think, it is possible to love webcomics and still think that a specific webcomic has failed to achieve any degree of notability. There are at least a dozen webcomic review sites in existence, and none of them have covered Sequential Art at all. Some of us recently defended Applegeeks from deletion, but this is no Applegeeks. Remember also that AfDs are not votes, they are debates; simply saying "Keep" won't affect the outcome unless you can give us supporting reasons that are within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I missed that an actual review from Silver Bullets had been added. Consider my opinion changed, as above, though I stand by the rest of my statement. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I'd also like to point out that the author of the webcomic has mentioned the article on his website. He's not taking a pro or con position, merely mentioning that it exists. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everyone here keeps saying there is no proof of notability but I see no less than SIX reviews and interviews in the external links section. Lets face it, wikipedia's policies are very strongly biased against all online productions and could easily be used against virtually any webcomic or website on wikipedia even up to pinnacles of online productions such as penny arcade, mac hall (now three panel soul), the perry bible fellowship, and ctrl+alt+del. I have been following the webcomic controversy for a long time and I feel that the vast majority of AfD's on webcomics have been made in bad faith and a deliberate attack on webcomics as a whole. Lets face it, wikipedia itself is so heavily biased in favor of deletion right now thant TEN sockpuppets in favor of a fraudulent deletion vote were left as is while one in favor of keeping starslip crisis was left ([[1]] and [2]). Enough is enough, I don't know where this sudden anti-webcomic agenda has come from but it should stop here. No other section on wikipedia would ever stand to have article after article removed so easily and with so little effort. Superslash (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is not the number of sources, but the reliability of those sources. A thousand rubbish sources would not be enough to keep an article in Wikipedia. The Frank Cho link is garbage; a forum post where he says "Hey, check this out"? Not a reliable source at all, and a trivial mention to boot. I can't speak to the Greek language source, since it's in Greek. It might be reliable or not, I can't tell. Underspray.com is a blog, also an unreliable source. The Silver Bullet interview fails to make any third-party statements about the comic; it's essentially a first-party source, coming straight from the author's mouth. However, that leaves us with two sources that ARE reliable, in my estimation: The Silver Bullet review (while short, it is not trivial), and the Digital Strips podcast (a long-running multiple contributor webcomic review site). Since WP:WEB requires "multiple third-party reliable sources", and the minimum number that can be called multiple is two, then I agree that now the article does have just barely enough notability to survive. Someone who spoke Greek may even be able to attest to whether there is already a third such source. Therefore, I'm changing my opinion above. Of course, feel free to continue to lob unfounded accusations of some sort of organized conspiracy against webcomics; I simply must have missed that meeting of the Wikipedia Shadow Government. If one of the illuminati could email me a copy of the minutes, that would be keen. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately overlooking ten sockpuppets and the fraudulent reasoning behind an AfD while going out of your way to bust a sock puppet opposing your point of view sounds pretty much like acting in bad faith to me. While we're speaking of fraudulent reasoning, the main reason behind this AfD is failing WP:WEB which as you yourself stated it does not, since the extra review was added later I'm not calling shenanigans on the AfD but I do think that the argument of failing WP:Web has been entirely undermined and since, as is stated at every AfD, this is not a numeric vote but a discussion the issue is now a non-issue. Also I didn't say there was a shadow government, a large scale deliberate assault on something doesn't require coordination of any kind. Enough people acting with hostility towards the same end will appear as a conspiracy but is really just evidence of a significant and widespread prejudice. Good shot though, took me a minute to realise that I was being setup to appear as though I HAD suggested a cabal was behind the issue. Feel free to lob unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy theory against wikipedia, I'm sure there is no cabal will reward you for your diligence. >P Superslash (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said there was an "anti-webcomic agenda". An agenda implies a degree of organization on the part of those advancing it, so yes, you did suggest that people were working together to delete webcomic articles. As for the "ten sockpuppet" thing you're babbling about, I have no idea. I joined Wikipedia in November, and I'm not an admin. All I know are the policies and guidelines I have read and the facts presented in THIS AfD. Presuming that anyone who supports deletion of an article is some sort of enemy of the webcomic world and is on a deletionist rampage is insulting to those of us who just, you know, READ the policies and guidelines involved with Wikipedia and follow them instead of coming into an AfD on their pet subject matter and crying foul. It's a slap in the face to anyone who actually tries to judge each case on the facts. You don't want webcomics to be treated fairly, you want them to be treated preferentially. --Ig8887 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or agenda could be used to refer to a particular shared opinion, prejudice, or belief. I joined wikipedia 4 years ago, I'm not an admin either, and I think about the policies and guidelines and try to think about them themselves as well as how they apply to a situation. As far as what I'm "babbling" about... I find that to be little more than an excuse to insult me considering I linked to the AfD in question and the explanation of the ruse in that very sentence. Now if you want to continue attempting to insult me please do it on my talk page rather than here. If this weren't an AFD I'd shrink our text so it didn't take up so much pagespace but since it does I'm not going to mess with it, if any admins/mods know of a way to clean this up without disrupting the AfD you're welcome to do so. Superslash (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has no actual bearing on the procedure of this AfD and it was used (twice) as part of a spurious accusation of bad faith against anyone seeking to delete a webcomic article, so yeah, "babbling" sounds about right. However, I've made my points, I have no further need to participate in this discussion. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep By dent of other webcomic wikpedia articles such as Ctrl+Alt+Del, Sinfest, VGCats, Three Panel Soul (3PS) and Filibuster Cartoons which can only be differentiated substantially by readership, which is not and has never been accepted as a criterion for wikipedia inclusion (such as number of search results). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.216.20 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The existence of other articles that may or may not be in unacceptable shape has never been an accepted criterion for what to do with a given article. Sadly, any one of those articles could be nominated for deletion tomorrow if someone who cares about them doesn't get on the ball and add some reliable third-party references. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia is about having an accurate and complete view of everything. Not listing this comic would be a wrong towards the mission that Wikipedia presents. I don't care if you hate furries or not; this shouldn't be removed for the same reason we don't take down the image of Muhammad. Revision is the only thing I can see this page needing. -Matt

• Keep - An excellent webcomic, well worth documenting on wikipedia. -SS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.123.89 (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looking at the external links and references section, there seems to be enough independent coverage there that this comic should pass the notability test, in my opinion. --Micpp (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the recent additions of external links and references, WP:WEB is now met. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2008 (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.