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, provided that this webcomic is indeed being carried by The Onion. Sandstein 23:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wondermark[edit]

Wondermark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested WP:PROD, original reason was "no assertion of notability". I don't know what exactly makes a webcomic notable, so I abstain. Kusma (討論) 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it is notable because of its coverage in other media, it needs sources and citations though. this needs cleanup, not deletion. remember... it is recommend to send things to cleanup for a while before nominating for afd. also, this passes notability because it also has published volumes with adequate sales to pass notability. --Buridan 14:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of citations that would indicate notability. I could be convinced otherwise with some editing. Endless blue 15:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:WEB has 3 possible criteria to establish notability: independant news coverage, notable awards, or publication by a notable third party. While it's only a guideline, I don't believe this comic passes any of those three criteria. In the article's defense, the comic has been published, although it would seem to be self-published as far as I can gather from the website. It does happen to have about 10k google hits, which makes me think I was probably wrong in my initial prod of the article. Can we find any support for notability? If so, I'd be more than willing to support a keep. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources at all, my library search for non-trivial reputable third-party sources discussing topic's importance turns up only a newspaper's wedding notice for the webcomic's creator. -- Dragonfiend 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If it matters, Wondermark runs each week in The Onion's printed edition, which has a circulation of around 500,000 copies across eight markets nationwide. Is that "notable"? -- David Malki ! 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is? If so, that's definately notable. I'll go take a look right now. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to find this picture, but nothing verifiable. However, I think that this is enough to meet WP:WEB, yeah? I'll change my vote to conditional keep given we can verify this. --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Onion distribution, still needs a better source than image BradBeattie linked but that's an issue for editing not AfD. --Dragonfiend 06:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not sure if RSS feeds count for notability criterion #3, but nearly six hundred people read Wondermark whenever it's updated [through Livejournal alone.] --Hapax 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Has exactly one quantum of notability. WMMartin 17:11, 8 December 2006 (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.