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. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xombie (flash cartoon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Previously went through AFD and was deleted, was restored through a DRV in which arguments in favor of undeletion were paltry at best. Fails WP:WEB, exists solely as advertisement/promotion, merely placing web content on a DVD does not mean it is truly published in any meaningful sense. Just self-published vanity project that got minor mention in one magazine. Notability requirements demand non-trivial (more than passing mention or press release or short blurb) from two notable and reliable sources. This fails. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Background: This was deleted after this AfD in 2006, and then undeleted after this DRV, which concluded that this article in Fangoria and this article in Rue Morgue were enough for the article to pass WP:WEB.

  Although WP:WEB has changed a lot since 2006, the argument can still be made that those two magazine articles allow "Xombie" to pass criterion #1 of the guideline. I think the Fangoria article counts towards notability, but I'm not so sure about the Rue Morgue article. According to the relevant criterion, "a brief summary of the nature of the content" does not count towards notability. The Rue Morgue article appears to be a survey of various flash cartoons of this ilk, devoting a section to each. The section devoted to "Xombie" amounts to a summary of the nature of the content, although I don't know if it's fair to call it brief; it's supplemented with quotations from the cartoon's creator, James Farr. This is definitely a borderline case in terms of notability, and the article is clearly in need of work. However, I do not support deletion; instead, I'm split between a weak keep or a merge into James Farr, and I would like to hear what others think about the Rue Morgue article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2011 (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.