Alpha Kappa Nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

The article was deleted due to it being thought to have been an attack page and a second Afd deletion was due to lack of strong sources. There were mostly neutral and and weak deletes on the second AFD. Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus. I have located elatively new evidence found and more and stronger sources to detail important organization in history. Looking to undelete this article so that research and a great article on one of the first black greek letter organizations can be made on wikipedia. FrozenApe 09:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found two additional sources Steppin' on the Blues: The Visible Rhythms of African American Dance [6] and Black Haze: Violence, Sacrifice, and Manhood in Black Greek-Letter Fraternities By Ricky L. Jones page 34 [7] FrozenApe 08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Second AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Nu (second nomination) --W.marsh 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse undelete - This article was deleted previously due to the lack of information available. At the current time more verifiable information is available to conduct research 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.122.74 (talk • contribs) ← Duplicate bolded opinion by nominator removed. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted It may be possible to write an article here. I have no opinion on that subject. But the page was created by a user now banned, the old history will not be helpful to writing a good article, and I'd rather see a fresh creation written from reliable sources in accordance with the suggestions at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. The closing admin should be aware that this article has in the past drawn the attention of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets. GRBerry 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The original article was created by an account that is now banned. That shouldn't take away from it's importance in history. I have provided numerous new citations which are reliable in this Deletion Review. The article has drawn SPA attention in the past, but hasn't drawn in in this deletion review. The past history is beneficial only for some writing style. The amnesia test is a guideline, not an official policy. It won't apply since it's only being used for writing style and format. There will be newer citations. thanks for the reply. FrozenApe 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the amnesia test is an essay, not even a guideline. But, if you write an article using those standards and without looking at the old content, I believe that you'll be able to write an article that will survive. I don't have the confidence that a new article will survive if the old content is used. The risk of repeating the same problems is too high. Since the title is not protected, we don't need to do anything to let you write a new article, and I think you are better off with the old content remaining deleted, so I endorse the old deletion. GRBerry 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. The article that I redo will be almost a complete revision. I would though like the picture that was available as well as the opportunity to review the material. You can though expect a 99% brand new article. I want to be able to read and review. I just don't want to go thru the trouble of making an article and having it speedy deleted b/c it was deleted already or go thru an AFD. FrozenApe 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was Image:Trgates.jpg. It is currently deleted as orphaned fair use. Prior to deletion, it was also in ((fair use disputed)) status as one that would be easy to replace (by someone at the IU). If you have an article to put it in, and a decent fair use claim, including an answer to the fair use dispute. I am far from an expert on image policy, so I don't offer an opinion on what will happen with a deletion review of the image. You also could look for an editor that self identifies as being at IU and ask them to create and upload a freely usable image. If they succeed, we have an image with better rights and are better off, and if they try and fail, you have a better case in the fair use dispute. GRBerry 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 09:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation -- IF - the article can be recreated using established sources and avoids reverting to the kind of attacks that was at issue in the previous instance. Eusebeus 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you restore the history? I'd like to have access to it. FrozenApe 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• please restore history The 2 previous AfDs on this are so confusing that I think it is necessary to see the original and the rewritten articles.DGG 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The Kimbrough source seems substantial enough to discuss this subject in context, but the context is Kappa Alpha Psi. Unless there are more substantive sources (especially sources that are independent of each other and don't draw on the same primary material), an encyclopedic discussion in a stand-alone article does not seem possible. ~ trialsanderrors 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Duplicate response removed, discussion continues on my talk page). ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn, regardless of minor things people use as excuses for AfD, this is undoubtly a notable article. JackSparrow Ninja 08:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This truly is a long wait.. FrozenApe 08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore)

Man, I really hate to bring this up again, but I have to. This category has been speedy deleted four times and restored once this year. It is currently salted. I am of the opinion that the ignore all rules deletions for this particular page were invalid. Our past discussions on this sort of stuff haven't left us much precedent (besides "ignore all rules and delete if it is a bad idea"). I believe that these types of categories should be kept if they solely contain users who are 13 years of age and older (thus following the spirit of COPPA). I do not believe that a user who is 14/15 years old can be classified as a child, and therefore the deletion of this category in order to protect the privacy of children is invalid. --- RockMFR 17:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages possibly relevant to the discussion:

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 1
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians
• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2006#Category:Wikipedians born in 1993
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6#Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992
• Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy
• Category:Wikipedians born in 1990
• Category:Wikipedians born in 1991
• Category:Wikipedians born in 1993
• Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s
• Category:Teenage Wikipedians

• Overturn. It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to believe that this is equivalent to a child Wikipedian category, so regardless of any merits of the deletion, it should not have been speedied. -Amarkov moo! 17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Not a valid speedy, especially given the existance of Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 which survived CfD. BryanG^(talk) 18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further review, I'm just going to withdraw my !vote. I'm not very happy with the lack of a CfD still, but there have been enough valid points raised to change my mind on this one. BryanG^(talk) 06:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted (and if anyone wants to delete all the other born in X/age group usercats, I'm all for it). I don't want to know what age other editors are, and I cannot see how knowing is helpful in building an encyclopedia. "Not helpful" ought to be sufficient reason for deleting user cats. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, after a CfD discussion, to see if there is a consensus that they're unhelpful. For that matter, I created such a discussion, and it was closed as a no consensus. So you can't really use that argument. -Amarkov moo! 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I think I can. WP:CFDU suffers from an extreme self-selection bias: it's populated by people who care deeply enough about user categories to spend some part of their wikilife debating them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn if 1993 survived CfD, this has no merit. --Random832(tc) 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1993 was a G4 and should never have got to CfD without a visit here, so it could always be that we're reviewing the wrong debate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and the 1993 cat as well. How often do we need to have this debate? I'd say the reasons for not having these cats have been established credibly and with substantial support. What is the benefit formt hese for the encyclopaedia? I can see the downside pretty easily. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn any and all. Haven't we already established that these are too contentious for one person alone to decide? Probably not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three admins have deleted it, other editors favoured deletion at both CfDs, some at the 2nd CfD voted (and I use the word advisedly) keep because other "born in" categories weren't up for deletion, but that's on the WP:ILIKEIT hit-list. It's disingenuous to say that this is a one-person crusade. It may even be wrong to say that there was a keep consensus at the last CfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not on the WP:ILIKEIT hit-list. If you're going to use an argument which says that they all should be deleted, they all should be deleted. We shouldn't delete some of them and then say "Oh, too bad, the rest of these categories don't have a consensus. But we still get to use the nonconsensual argument to delete the others." -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS appears on the same page. That seems to cover the argument. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That only works because two subjects are never exactly the same. Your garage band may have the same X and Y as another, but that does not mean that it has Z. Here, with respect to your argument argument that categorization by age is unnecessary, they are exactly the same. Thus, they should be treated as a group. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So we're largely in agreement, differing only on what should happen to the group. Nominating all of these for deletion is not a five minute job. I'd have to patch IE, upgrade AWB, and waste 20-30 minutes tagging all the subcats. At some point, if someone else doesn't do it first, I would happily nominate all for deletion. But not this week. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The issue is that I already did nominate them all, and there was no consensus to delete them. -Amarkov moo! 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted In this case it is not one person, it is the consensus in all the previous decisions. As to the merits, this is one of the instances where boundary line questions should be resolved on the safe side--I almost said the conservative side.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs). 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What consensus are you talking about? This article has never went through a deletion debate. --- RockMFR 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Should not be speedy deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Either undelete these, or delete the entire bunch of "Wikipedians born in <year>", without an arbitrary cutoff point. >Radiant< 13:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Inappropriate speedy deletion. Prolog 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Inappropriate speedy deletion. What makes the 1992 category any different the 1993 category (which still exists)? If this article is to stay deleted then all the other "Wikipedians born in..." categories will have to be deleted too. As a side note, I was born in 1992, it was a very good year. ;) --Candy-Panda 09:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting admins's rational: Endorse deletion and stop being so bloody silly:

1. This is a category for 14 year old wikipedians. At best social networking categories are of little or no value to us, but combined with the rather obvious downside here, there is absolutely no reason for us to keep this, and every reason not to.
2. You want a process rational for my doing this? OK, per consensus that such things should be deleted see the DRV on Category:Child Wikipedians here.
3. Note in particular Jimbo's comment "Keep deleted - should have been speedied on sight....the obvious additional dangers of a category like this, both from a REAL and PR point of view, are additional factors weighing in favor of deletion. --Jimbo Wales 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)". No, Jimbo's view isn't binding on this, but the DRV endorsed it. How many times do we have to have this debate??
4. The undelete !votes here are nonsensical. Sorry to pick on Radiant but "Either undelete these, or delete the entire bunch type x" is the worst keep argument conceivable. We hear and ignore it all the time on afd. If you think this category is a good thing, then argue keep on its merits. Delete the rest if you want, but there are clearly different concerns with a navigation category for easily finding 14 year olds, and 41 year olds!
5. Half the !votes here are just knee-jerk process wonkery: if they are without reasons, they should be ignored.
6. This has nothing to do with WP:CHILD. I don't believe we can enforce a 'no child identification' policy on 500,000 userpages - if people are going to give their age they will, but we can and should ensure we have no community apparatus (ie categories) to encourage it, or to make navigating minors easier.--Doc^g 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. I don't understand this. Keep this but then remove stuff like "I am 14 years old" from userpages. Latter is encouraged. Apparently the former isn't. Major logic flaw there. Keep deleted. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, these people have to stop kidding me. There would be no need to promote identification of young adolescents and young children by keeping such categories in existence. Please try using some common sense instead of wonking process and policies. Doc's reasoning is perfect, categories like this are bad for the Foundation's reputation. Yours truly, — Nearly Headless Bastid ^{C}
• Keep Deleted, not because it violates the COPPA (it doesn't), not because we have to protekt tha childruns, but because Wikipedia improves in absolutely no way with its existence. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely agree with this logic. Though, if we were talking about any other user cat that is worthless to Wikipedia (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who like Family Guy), speedy deletion would not happen. --- RockMFR 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• True but a Family Guy cat isn't even conceivably dangerous, just utterly useless. I don't want to over-stress the dangers of this, but it has potential for at least PR damage, and even if remote, potential for fairly nasty stuff among potentially vulnerable people. Shooting it is all gain, no loss.--Doc^g 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong support for deletion: We've been over this, re-over it, over it again and re-over it once more. Consensus may be weak in this case but I'm afraid that the constant recreation, renomination and re-reviewing of these subjects is simply an attempt to jackhammer them through consensus by sheer tedium and repetition rather than strong rhetoric or a valid point. Extremely excellent points have been raised for deletion in the past, they can be raised again, the first cases were seen as a (somewhat contentious but,) exemplar case of Ignoring a bad rule. The purpose of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, for every last article, user page, template, picture, userbox or category, we must ask ourselves: 1) does it serve to make the encyclopedia better? and 2) what is the potential harm? Any that answers 'no' to the first and something more than inconsequential to the second should be deleted with extreme speed and prejudice. Wintermut3 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. When people try to review deletions they see as bad, it's an attempt to jackhammer through consensus... but when admins wheel war to keep things deleted, it is not? -Amarkov moo! 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wheel war scoreboard:

• Category:Wikipedians born in 1990 - 2 deletions, 1 restoration
• Category:Wikipedians born in 1991 - 4 deletions, 2 restorations
• Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 - 6 deletions, 2 restorations
• Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 - 9 deletions, 6 restorations --- RockMFR 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought admins were supposed to know better than to wheel war. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. It doesn't violate COPPA. Revealing your age isn't problematic if you don't reveal anything else. And despite what some people say, knowing the age of an editor helps you to know their interest, beliefs and appropriate way to talk to them. The category has advantages, no disadvantages, it should stay. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what COPPA is, and don't care. We are all supposed to be wikipedians, so there should not be any particular 'appropriate way' to talk to anyone. You can put your age on your userpage if you like, but if you think having navigation categories to enable people to identify children is beneficial for wikipedia, then you are extremely naive. There are no benefits here, and as Jimbo has pointed out real and PR risks. I will carry on deleting these things as long as they exist.--Doc^g 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some circumstances, revealing your age is all you need to do for some people to target you. Look at the harassment some people receive when they reach the stage of WP:RFA for example, and that's not exactly something that's going to make headline news like "Wikipedia is a haven for child-stalkers". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: there is no good reason why anybody should need to know how old a given contributor is. If they act in a fashion commensurate with a given age, they should be treated accordingly; if they act like a spoilt child they should be invited to leave until they can grow up: there need be no actual link to their chronological age in their behaviour or treatment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deletion I see no reason to why this would be deleted. No one is forced to participate and people needs to be able for themselves to take responsibility rather than some community! Lord Metroid 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The cost/benefit is just too high. An editor should be free to reveal their age on their userpage, but that doesn't mean the category functionality should be used for this purpose. ChazBeckett 21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Too Far (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Go Too Far is a single by Jibbs, the third from his album Jibbs feat. Jibbs. It features Melody Thornton of the Pussycat Dolls, and a video has been made, which can be seen at the PCD website. However, you have that as not only deleted, but protected. There is something wrong with this, as all of Jibbs' previous singles have wikipages. Restore, or at least Unprotect. Tom Danson 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that foo is notable therefore all albums by foo are notable therefore all singles from albums by foo are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole output to date, be merged at this time to Jibbs. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was cracking up over "articles on...definitely Go Too Far." So you're saying "Let's Wait Awhile" (that was the song which is sampled on the chorus) for this single to become more notable, and I can understand that. If anyone has any input, please let me know, because I am neutral for now. Tom Danson 13:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To think I missed an open goal like that! For shame! :o) Guy (Help!) 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a Lexis-Nexis hit for an article in People magazine (in the regular "Music" section of the 11/27/06 issue). Not sure how substantive it is from the capsule, and there's no version online, but I wanted to throw that out there in the spirit of being neighborly. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was deleted based on one administrator's opinion after a 7-4 vote for keep, with all of the delete votes cast before the article was sourced further and rewritten to remove uncited material. The sources are a New York Times article and a tv show (the awards were also on a radio broadcast, but how on Earth are we supposed to prove that?)
The NYT article is said to be a trivial mention that 'refutes most of the awards', but it's a vital part - after explaining the nature of the awards, WCCA winners are held up and considered representative examples of the state of the field. The refutation claim I can only call untrue. The article criticizes the visions of Scott McCloud, the famous, er, visionary, but the only time it disagrees with a WCCA it does so by saying that an infinite canvas comic isn't all that infinite. It is not a refutation to note that Narbonic, winner of "best writing", does some damage to its pictures by said writing. Nor is it one to note that you have to scroll while reading Copper, winner of "best art", while at the same time calling it beautifully drawn. As an admin, brenneman is a recognized trusted contributor, but carries no more particular authority than that, and what he here considered a clear case... isn't. Kizor 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Closing admin did not reflect the discussion's consensus. I would also like the history undeleted pending this discussion. Nardman1 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also wish to suggest that this be overturned, and would like to speak at some length on the matter.

Kizor has asked me to comment upon this deletion review, as I have found it necessary to discuss the deletion of the WCCA in several recent AFDs. Before I speak as to why I feel the WCCA deletion was not appropriate, I wish to invite scrutiny of my contribution history, noting that prior to the furor of the past days, my contributions to Wikipedia have all fallen outside the area of webcomics, and that I have never been involved in writing or promoting a webcomic.

Even had the New York Times article solely been involved in "refuting" the WCCA, that in and of itself would have been an indication of notability. To be examined and critiqued in detail by a newspaper of the august reputation as the New York Times would be an indication of notability even if the Times article had been scathing. The fact that the awards were covered and commented on Attack of the Show is also not trivial, and represents another secondary source that, like the Times, is completely independent.

Carrying this 7 keep/4 delete motion on the basis of notability when, in fact, multiple secondary sources have been cited discussing - not merely mentioning, but actually discussing - the WCCA and the winners thereof indicates a very strong notability for a well-known internet award. Very few - almost no - online awards have even been mentioned by the New York Times; as awards are an integral portion of the WP:WEB, this precedent poses problems for notability standards of all articles relating to internet phenomena and for articles on notable webcomics in particular.

To summarize, the idea that detailed coverage in two notable external independent secondary sources from two entirely different media, independent from both the WCCA and each other, does not indicate notability flies in the face of everything I know about notability from my time on Wikipedia. The discussion of the WCCA deletion does not indicate a consensus to delete, but in fact - leaving aside the closing comments by the admin - a consensus to keep. Balancer 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. An article in the New York Times solely about the subject is enough notability that I would say to keep it, and definitely enough that it should not be closed as delete after both a rewrite and a numerical count going the other way. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not solely about it, though. --Kizor 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assumed it was, and I'm not sure why. Regardless, it isn't trivial, and it discusses the topic; it doesn't matter if it was lambasting it or not. The second source doesn't look too good, I admit, but the lack of even a simple majority makes me think it deserves another discussion. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the first ~1/3 of the article talks about webcomics in general; it's only the last ~2/3 that talk about the WCCA. It's not solely about the WCCA, but it is pretty clearly about the WCCA for the most part. Balancer 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to repeat myself, but the nomination called into question notability and verifiability, both of which require multiple, nontrivial sources. Even a casual reading of the article from the times would show that it mentions the awards only as a "hook" to list and review the comics in question. The entire content that's actually about the award are:

This is, in fact, a trivial mention. This leaves us with a single non-trivial reliable source. The passion with wich webcomics are debated aside, it's pretty straightforawrd: One and a quarter is not "multiple" and if this was an article about, say, a company there would be no debate here. - brenneman 03:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and while I agree my word carries no more weight than anyone else's, I reckon that saying my name and "trusted contributor" will get you kicked out of some clubs! ^_^
  brenneman 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment That is hardly the "only mention" in the article. While you may think of the WCCA as a "hook" for guiding the discussion of webcomics, the WCCA are referred to extensively in the article. After that initial mention, WCCA awards are used to introduce nearly each comic, topic, and paragraph. This sort of emphasis is typical of NYT articles covering the Webby awards, for example. Anything more than one source is multiple, and both are clearly non-trivial and reliable in this case. A trivial mention is noted in WP:N to include such things as directory listings. It is not, for very obvious reasons, noted to include such things as critical discussion and review. Balancer 03:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion After considering the evidence presented, the closing administrator saw that the required level of sourcing was absent, and that the subject was non-notable. Those favoring the deletion cited applicable policy (verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards) as it concerned the article. Those opposing the deletion failed to establish notability, failed to fairly assess the sources given, and did not attempt to bring the article within policy guidelines. The closing administrator was right in not applying uniform weight to all opinions present, as AfD is not a vote, and has no ballot box to stuff. When three people present a solid, uniform, and policy-based case, and seven others provide no solid rebuttal, the three must take precedence. This is why administrators are given discretion to weight opinions in AfD discussions. In addition, this article should probably be salted, as a number of puppets operating on other articles are likely to re-create it. NetOracle 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject (Web Cartoonists) was non-notable?!?! Right... Mathmo ^Talk 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject, as in the subject of the article - The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. NetOracle 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: "When three people present a solid, uniform, and policy-based case, and seven others provide no solid rebuttal, the three must take precedence." does not apply here and is a gross misrepresentation of the AfD. The three people simply claimed that there are no sources (and acted according to policy at that time, no doubt), but when you read on, you clearly see how the Keep voters do present a very strong case by supplying sources both in print and television. Strong enough for an admin and four other established editors to vote in favor of keeping. --Sid 3050 18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout and erudite. Would that it was more in line with reality. "did not attempt to bring the article within policy guidelines"? Quote from the AfD: "I just rewrote the article to add sources and remove unverified information." "Those opposing the deletion failed to establish notability"? Quotes from the AfD: "results would seem to confirm notability to a high degree of certainty," "the NY Times and AOTS coverage establishes notability." Salted?! I know you started your deletion run because of meatpuppets, but this is getting obsessive.Note that it was gone for several days without once being recreated.d'oh --Kizor 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The salting was a pure housekeeping measure than any sort of impuning of anyone's intentions. I thought(having not checked) that I had made that clear when doing so, and I apologise if it was taken amiss. - brenneman 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No offense was taken. NetOracle just seems to make a bigger deal out of socks than they are. --Kizor 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you don't mind the socks, since they seem to support your side of things. NetOracle 02:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be able to quote a dozen policies like others, but I'm fairly certain that baselessly accusing established editors of approving of sockpuppetry is a "No-No" on Wikipedia. You have shown and admitted that you have a higher-than-average issue with 'puppets, but that doesn't mean that anybody who has a more relaxed view of the events automatically approves of them. The comments/votes that don't significantly contribute to the discussion will be quasi-ignored anyway, so it's not like the "Pro Undelete" people have any reason to cheer them on. On the contrary, sockpuppet spam makes it harder to have our points taken seriously. --Sid 3050 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have made the comment. It wasn't helpful, and came about out of frustration caused by sockpuppets in trying to deal with the systemic bias on Wikipedia that tends to favor Internet-related subjects. Please do understand that it is very frustrating when you propose a point based on the idea that non-notability is perpetuated by fans of a webcomic, and fans of that comic later show up to stuff the ballot box. NetOracle 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've changed it to ((tempundelete)) per the request at the top. - brenneman 00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist An article in the New York Times or any other major news source is no guarantee of encyclopedic notability - nor is coverage by the other sources provided here. But given the late introduction of these sources which arguably support the article passing guidelines, I don't think the closure was quite in order and recommend that a relisting be allowed. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist, as per the editor above me. Mathmo ^Talk 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete, overly strict interpretation of WP:V ("two's not enough for 'multiple'"?) was clearly out of process per WP:DGFA, and consensus was keep. If someone wants to list it again, they can do it the usual way. --Random832(tc) 09:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. It is worth noting that the closing admin was involved in a previous arbcom case about webcomic deletion, and I don't think that IGNORING "when in doubt, don't delete" is any less egregious than removing it. There seems to be a conflict of interest, so if nothing else there should be a procedural relist --22:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse thoughtful closure - it wans't just that the number of sources was low but also that the extent of coverage in those sources was trivial. I know people use these awards as a way of slipstreaming notability for webcomics, but the fact is that the sourcing evaporated under close inspection, which means that however much we like it, the subject fails the notability test. If someone wants to create a workup with multiple non-trivial sources that would be fine. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are we to create a sourced article when not even a NYT article, an episode of a notable TV show AND a radio interview aren't enough? I'm honestly curious. And the rules say "multiple, non-trivial sources", so maybe it is time to change the rules again since you and I (along with the ones who vote for Overturn here and voted for Keep in the AfD, based on the sources) clearly don't have the same understanding of "multiple" or "non-trivial". --Sid 3050 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple: you find a NYT article which contains more than a passing mention, or something form some other reliable source, or - gasp! - you wait until there are non-trivial reliable sources. This being an encyclopaedia and all, we really should not have na article unless the site has been the primary focus of several non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, because we can't ensure neutrality without dispassionate critical reviews. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but the WCCA is used throughout the article to present other comics. The comics chosen for discussion are often based on the award they won ("Consider "Copper," a beautifully drawn animal comic that won the prize for best art in the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards.", "The prize for best-written comic went to "Narbonic," by Shaenon Garrity, which follows...", ""Alpha Shade," by Christopher Brudlos and Joseph Brudlos, the winner of the long-form comic prize, is 107 pages long.", "The winning entry in the category of "infinite canvas" went to "Pup" by Drew Weing.", ""The Perry Bible Fellowship" by Nicholas Gurewitch, the winner of the "comedic comic" prize, does begin to verge on the infinite.", "The prize in the category "outstanding use of flash" was shared. One prize..."). And that is in addition to the introduction of the Award itself. If "won WCC Award" is good enough for a NYT editor, why isn't it good enough for us? And how is this trivial mentioning? And Attack of the Show apparently is non-notable if an entire episode is not enough for more than a trivial mention. Maybe I should file an AfD for it! I asked the closing admin twice why the sources are trivial, and I received NO answer (that actually answered the question). REALLY sorry, but the terms "trvial" and "passing mention" are mis-used here in my eyes. This isn't just "Oh, and there's this award, BUT ANYWAY!". The article introduces the award and then uses it to discuss comics that won it in that year. Besides, the radio interview has been mentioned (though it was only found after the AfD got closed), so there you have your multiple sources. If NO sources had been found, I wouldn't have made the comment, but I see five established editors (including an admin) effectively being told "You're wrong!", so the case apparently is not as clear and easy as you make it sound. *gasp* indeed. --Sid 3050 18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (if that is the proper term to request undeletion). Sources popped up in the AfD, and afterwards, the closing Admin was not willing or able to explain what made the sources trivial. Given that large parts of the NYT article discuss the WCCA, it is not a trivial mention. An episode of AotS is also not trivial. A bit of history that may provide another angle of explaining the decision: The DMFA AfD resulted in a Delete because (quoting brenneman) "the consensus amoung the more established editors is that it (=WCCA) does not count as a a notable independent award". However, that was BEFORE he knew of the AfD and its sources (follow the link to the Notability Talk page he mentions in his Delete reasoning, keep an eye on the timing). So in my eyes, there was a clear bias for deleting the WCCA. I don't know if that's peachy-fine with your policy, but to me it looks like the admin simply adjusting the world to fit his own view, and it looks like "consensus amoung the more established editors" is his way of saying "my opinion". --Sid 3050 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Err, that's actually backwards, but perhaps based upon lazy wording on my part. Of course, the words "Per this debate" at wp:web might have given a clue at the the order of events... First was the Dan/Mab deletion discussion:

  • Among the "more established" were naysayers Francis Tyers, Dragonfiend, and bogdan all indicating that WCAA wasn't enough.
  • On the yea side, there was Madd the sane and ANTIcarrot. MtS's opinion was not only not grounded in policy or guideline, it was one that has been soundly rejected many times.

  Thus the clear consensus in that debate was that the awrds didn't push the comics over the line. I then created a discussion thread at wp:web. This lead me directly to the deletion discussion in question here. But tick off another assumption of bad faith with regards to me, they have been coming thick anf fast the last few days.
  brenneman 15:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe re-read what I wrote? You deleted DMFA before you even knew of the AfD for the WCCA. That's what the Talk page says, that's I wrote, that's what you wrote, I don't see how I got it backwards. Explain?

  I do NOT see "This hinges on the Web Cartoonist's Choice awards, and the consensus (as demostrated here) amoung the more established editors is that it does not count as a a notable independent award." (emphasis mine) as "lazy wording" for "A WCCA nomination is not enough for DMFA notability" (Even though this may not have come up in the AfD discussion due to timing, DMFA received a second nomination in 2007, winner still to be announced). You made a judgment call for the WCCA there, and it overrode the running AfD discussion. Fact is that you simply took the word of three editors that the WCCA is non-notable to delete the comic article. THEN, almost half an hour after deleting DMFA, did you close the AfD for the WCCA.

  And I do NOT think that three naysayers suddenly get to overrule a running AfD. Bogdan nominated the WCCA, and both Francis and Dragonfiend voted in the AfD for the WCCA. The AfD for the WCCA made it clear that there was NO Delete consensus among established editors. In fact, after presenting the sources, one admin (Carnildo) and four established editors voted for Keep.

  And about bad faith: I got ignored in the Talk page section (apparently you considered the case closed after a few hours?) and then reposted in your Talk page. My tone in both cases was polite (in my eyes at least, if others disagree with that, I apologize), and I assumed that you had good reason and that I simply didn't get it. That's why I asked you for an explanation. When I got a cocky reply instead of an explanation, I had been forced to come to my own conclusions. I gave you multiple chances to explain why I might have been wrong, and you instead opted to go into semantics. --Sid 3050 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC) and (for the last paragraph and some formatting) --Sid 3050 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, being mentioned in a couple of sources doesn't make one notable. The short NY Times paragraph is more like a sidenote, as the article's main subject is clearly not the "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards". bogdan 16:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, The entire bottom two thirds of the article reads like award coverage - it's about the awards and who won them. --Random832(tc) 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, the long-standing consensus of our non-negotiable content policies always supersedes the pseudo-consensus of something like "a 7-4 vote for keep." -- Dragonfiend 18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh... care to elaborate? There was no Delete consensus. Not even a rough one. After the second source had been found, no other Delete comments were made. Your own Delete comment was made after only one source had been found, and you apparently had no issue with the NYT article (only later with the fact that it had only two sources, but that is more of a comment and less of a policy-based issue since two sources are enough for notability unless my dictionary is giving me a wrong definition of the word "multiple"). Nobody inside the discussion made any move to argue that the sources (AotS and NYT) are non-notable. If the closing admin had an issue with the notability of the sources, why didn't he just comment join the discussion instead of closing it? It would have been the first comment of that kind. Your cited policy would have been in favor of joining the discussion, I think... at least I can't spot any "if you disagree with the current rough consensus, delete anyway" clause. --Sid 3050 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) and clarified by --Sid 3050 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on, so I guess I'll just paraphrase myself: "a 7-4 vote for keep" in a discussion which is not a vote on an encyclopedia which is not a democracy is not going to repeal the long-standing consensus behind our content policies of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. Basically, half a dozen people on a single AFD page in five days aren't going to decide it's OK to write poorly or unsourced personal-point-of-view original research. Or, as it is phrased in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions." --Dragonfiend 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the primary contention of this deletion review that the closing admin's judgement as to whether the article violated WP:V was wrong, not that the policy should be ignored. There is also new data - a third source. --Random832(tc) 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see where you're coming from. *nods* But the argument is not just "7-4 vote". It's "7-4 vote for keep, with all of the delete votes cast before the article was sourced further and rewritten to remove uncited material". That puts less emphasis on the headcount and more on the multiple sources that had not been challenged in the AfD. Yes, the discussion is not a real vote, but I think the arguments were on the side of the pro-Keep users before the AfD was closed, regardless of headcount. --Sid 3050 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion one line in an NYT article does not a notable award make. - Francis Tyers · 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn Per above overturn comments. There are multiple non-trivial sources, sadly enough neglected by the closing admin.
• Comment there are a lot of endorse voters, incorrectly stating the only source is "one line in an NYT article". Please don't overlook the incorrectness of this. JackSparrow Ninja 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, I read the NYT piece. It's not one line, but it's also barely one paragraph, and the awards are certainly not the focus or a central subject of the article, not even close. They're mentioned in passing, which makes that a trivial mention. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The mention is neither one line nor one paragraph. WCCAs are mentioned directly in no less than seven paragraphs in the NYT article. Those endorse voters claiming one paragraph, "barely" one paragraph, or "one line" are either misrepresenting the article or have not, in fact, read the article. Before voting or passing judgement, please take care to read the actual article[8], which is clearly not trivial in its mention of the WCCA, and also note the presence of other source(s) in question, e.g., Attack of the Show. Balancer 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The closing comments are succinct and to the point, and the closure met WP:DGFA. The NYT piece, as noted, appears to be trivial coverage in respect of this subject (it may be non-trivial on the subject of webcomics in general). The others are even less impressive. Writing an article which met WP:V and WP:NPOV from the supplied sources would be very challenging indeed, but any interested editor can take that challenge up in userspace. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I can't really see any reason for this closure. Our verifiability policy is satisfied, since we have a reliable source detailing the awards. Our verifiability policy states that If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. We have a reliable source for this article, therefore by that rationale, Wikipedia should have an article on it. I'm shocked to see a source discounted because it may disparage something. That a reliable source takes the time to lambast something is surely as notable as praising it, or did we drop the neutral point of view policy in the last few weeks? Our notability guidelines are guidance, they were intended to offer guidance to new editors on what topics are most likely to merit an article. They were never intended to be tools to delete articles, and they should not become so. Wikipedia is not a battleground, it is an encyclopedia, and we should not have to constantly debate the inclusion of articles which have reliable sources simply because there are editors who do not like them. If we are an encyclopedia, if we do summarise secondary sources, then this article must be reinstated. If we are not an encyclopedia, by all means endorse this deletion and then please place your chairs on the tables and last one out switch off the light. Hiding Talk 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are the lines in the NYT source that directly relate to the WCCA. Enough to make an article? I don't think so. The mention is trivial. It states that the awards took place, but does not describe them. It describes some of the comics which won prizes, but it does not give any history or any context to the awards. It does not say who runs them, or give any concrete details. There is no way near enough for an article.

And there are contests too. The fifth annual Web Cartoonists Choice Awards took place at http://www.ccawards.com/2005_ceremony.htm last month. The master of online ceremonies was a Web cartoon character and so were all the award presenters. Otherwise, it was much like the Oscars. There were too many award categories (26) and some commercial breaks, and all winners were rewarded with the Web equivalent of Hollywood fame: a live link to their sites. Consider "Copper," a beautifully drawn animal comic that won the prize for best art in the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards. The prize for best-written comic went to "Narbonic," by Shaenon Garrity. "Alpha Shade," by Christopher Brudlos and Joseph Brudlos, the winner of the long-form comic prize, is 107 pages long. The winning entry in the category of "infinite canvas" went to "Pup" by Drew Weing. "The Perry Bible Fellowship" by Nicholas Gurewitch, the winner of the "comedic comic" prize, does begin to verge on the infinite. The prize in the category "outstanding use of flash" was shared. One prize went to "Alpha Shade" (the one with the great page-turning feature). Another went to "The Discovery of Spoons" by Alexander Danner and John Barber.

- Francis Tyers · 22:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much a non-argument. The fact they do a news report on the awards makes it notable enough. NYT calls it The master of online ceremonies. It is not just mentioned, it as a news report on the awards itself. JackSparrow Ninja 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The columnist is not calling these awards "The master of online ceremonies;" she's referring to a cartoon character Master of Ceremonies for an online "event." And it's not a news report on the awards; it's a critic's feature column in a daily newspaper written when the awards had taken place "last month." If it were a news report on the awards, then people unrelated to the awards like Gary Groth and Scott McCloud wouldn't be in the lead of the column, and the awards would be mentioned before the ninth of twenty paragraphs. And, no, it is incorrect that "a news report on the awards makes it notable enough" because we require multiple non-trivial independent sources. A news report can be trivial, and a news report isn't multiple. -- Dragonfiend 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I miss your point too, Francis. It's discussed in a reliable source. If you want history and context, use the awards website, a reliable source for that information. Or get it from this interview, [9], another reliable source, or this Silver Bullets article, [10], along with ample mentions in T Campbell's blog, author of History of Webcomics, and therefore a reliable source as a published expert writing in his field of expertise. Also add a few quotes from Scott McCloud, respected webcomic thinker, I can't see where the issue is. Multiple reliable sources. Are people seriously suggesting we have to write a featured article on every topic? Hiding Talk 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A webcartoonist's blog is not a reliable independent third-party source for an award which that cartoonist has been on the committee of. I don't think it's easy to dismiss concerns about our systemic bias giving undue weight to webcomics vs. every other thing that's ever been mentioned in the NYT. keep in mind that about half of this article was on controversies, which we don't have the sources to cover from NPOV, yet not covering them seems to favor one POV. So, absent the reputable sources to make this a neutral encyclopedia article, absent the type of coverage we'd expect for any notable seven-year-old annual event, it's deleted. -- Dragonfiend 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, you can't paint respected webcomics scholars simply as web-cartoonists. Do Eddie Campbell's thoughts on his medium not matter because of his trade, are Monet's thoughts not important because he was an artist? This has been discussed on the Attribution talk page and it is felt that this sort of thing is what the expert exception is for. I think you have points about NPOV and OR, but afd is not clean-up. Someone who has been on the committee is perfectly placed to be a reliable source, that is the very definition of a primary source. We may not interpret their comments, but we can quote them and summarise them. I'm well aware of the problems with the deleted article, however I resent the lack of opportunity to fix them. Hiding Talk 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how you're arriving at your idea that T Campbell is a "respected webcomics scholar." Sources? As I recall, the book was far from scholarly and very poorly received. Not that it matters much to this discussion, as his blog and book are clearly not independent, third-party sources for this deleted article. -- Dragonfiend 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was commissioned to write a book on the medium, in my house that tends to imply his scholarly abilities are respected, but your opinion can of course differ. As you say, it doesn't matter how you feel his book was received, so I'm perplexed at you bringing it up. And with respect, perhaps you can detail how T Campbell isn't a reliable source for the article. We can argue over whether he's either a primary source or a secndary source, but in both categories he's reliable. But really, I'd rather not dicker over technicalities, because this is getting into I don't like it, well I do territory. Our policies are not cut and dried, they acknowledge the existence of grey areas, and I think it is futile to pretend otherwise. As people have already noted, this isn't the place to have this discussion. What's being asked is whether the close balanced all the difficulties involved. I argue it hasn't. You argue it has. Let's allow our arguments to stand and fall as they are written here, and see what others think. Hiding Talk 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have no source? -- Dragonfiend 15:37, 12 February 2007 {UTC)

I have no idea what you refer to, sorry. Obviously I have sources. I think this is getting somewhat circular and I'm finding it a little frustrating trying to guess the meaning of this statement. Are you not willing to agree to disagree here? Hiding Talk 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that soemone was a "respected webcomics scholar," I asked for some sources, since that seemed rather weasely-worded. Prominent book reviewers showing respect for the scholarship of the book perhaps? -- Dragonfiend 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. My point about respected web scholars was directed at Scott McCloud as much as T Campbell. Which published authors credentials do you wish to take issue with? He's been invited to conferences, Henry Jenkins, Director, Comparative Media Studies Program, MIT has mentioned his book. But forget it. He's a published author on the medium. To me, and to our policies, that gives him a status as a reliable source. You dispute that. That's fine. Hiding Talk 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

While it's entirely possible that I'm wildly off-base in my thinking here, I see it as a process of this nature:

• "Verification possible?" Means that multiple sources for material in the article must exist in reliable sources. The intention of this is primarily to ensure freedom from bias but it also serves to limit inclusion.
• "Notable or not?" serves mainly to limit inclusion.
• "Reliable sources available?" serves to re-enforce our ability to write unbiased articles.

If something only has a very few mentions in "big sources" than no amount of "little sources" like comixpedia and (respectfully) anyone's blog can't fill in the gaps to ensure that we're presenting a full picture of the subject. In the end, we're obligated to work from a neutral point of view, and for an area like webcomics this can be very difficult. That's what this comes down to in the end: We've got a few mentions from people nominated, a trivial mention in a major media, and lots of "little" items. It's not enough to write a balanced article beyond a stub. Not that that would be a bad thing, and if someone wanted to write it in userspace that would be great. Not a feature article, but not excessive zealotry, either.

brenneman 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have stubs? I'd disagree that this is a trivial mention in the NYT, you assert it took the time to criticise the awards, I don't think that's trivial. We haven't got a few mentions we've got loads. You're right, we work from a neutral point of view, but that cuts both ways. That a stub can be written that meets our policies dictates it should exist, otherwise we violate our policies when we delete it. I don't follow your chain of process at all either. Verifiability asks that information be verifiable. What verifiability is on doubt here? Let's set aside notions of multiple sources since I can't turn up the word multiple in the verifiability policy. Let's set Notability aside. I would hope I've already demonstrated enough reliable sources. You've got a secondary source and a lot of primary source material there. I would expect the number of secondary sources to rise after presentations occur live for the first time at the MegaCon next week. I don't doubt that any article on this topic would at best be small. But nowhere in our policies do we assert that small is bad, small is unwanted or that small is deletable. Hiding Talk 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm not arguing against stubs, not at all. One of the structural problems with the whole Speedy/DrV/AfD/DrV/Rinse/Repeat is that we are comparing what does exist with what could exist. We often spend time arguing here rather than doing the legwork: If this deletion review had been accompanied by a clear, concise, well-referenced stub in user space per the directions at the top of the page we'd perhaps not be having this discussion right now. I don't think I've ever refused an request for userfication, or denied anyone a chance to improve an article. - brenneman 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And the verification policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis mine.)

  Got a funny feeling I wrote that line. But look, I'm not jumping through hoops here. I'm not throwing another dozen sources up for them to be shot at. I feel I've already demonstrated enough reliable sources exist to satisfy the notion that articles "should rely". I was quite specific in that choice of words, too. Generally, articles "should". It would be nice if articles did. I chose the word should with care over the word "must", because it wasn't to be read as "must". Hey, I'm within my rights to remove that salting and restart the article, but I'm not doing that. I'm also not doing it in my userspace, because I don't see the point. I think this review has demonstrated the potential for a decent, in line with policy article (no matter how long or short) to be written. I think I've demonstrated this close falls into a grey area. I believe that's all that needs demonstrating here. Hiding Talk 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and also, cgeck the plurals in that sentence, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources". It doesn't say "An article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources". Hiding Talk 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Contrary to what Brenneman implies, WP:N has not been rewritten to include a distinction between "big sources" and "little sources.". Published sources need only be verified as independent and reliable to be able to establish the notability of subjects. Balancer 03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The discussion we are having here should have happened at Afd. There is enough evidence here (NYT article, etc) to get past the bare minimum policies, in my opinion. Anyone who has spent any length of time working with our web-related articles knows that there is generally consensus to keep such articles if there is any secondary source available. In this case, there is clearly no consensus on whether the sources that were provided are good enough, so I believe this should be kept as no consensus. I could understand a delete closure if the debate had been of the "but I like it!!!" variety, but it was a serious debate. If there is no consensus, then the closing admin should not act as some sort of judge/tiebreaker. If a delete decision requires more than a few words, it obviously is not based on consensus. --- RockMFR 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I have no opinion on the merits. But with respect to the argumentation, if there is this much discussion. it is fairly obvious that there never was any consensus, and the place to decide consensus is Afd. DGG 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The WCCA was obviously the central motivation and anchor point for the NYT article. Specific awards won are listed and in many cases commented for almost every comic mentioned. Playing that down to only accept one of the two paragraphs where its full name is spelled out seems slightly disingenuous. --Latebird 10:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't follow DRV enough anymore to know what the potential for this proposal is, but it strikes me there may be merit in a restoration and merging of the article to Webcomics. I would hope I have showed there's enough sourcing to allow a small article, and in that case it may be better to present it as a section of the Webcomics article. There's certainly not enough unsourced material to support the deleted version. Hiding Talk 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The full discussion did not take into account the newer sources. I don't know if they demonstrate notability, but another AFD with the sources already in place can decide this. — coelacan talk — 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: It seems minimally sourced to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, optionally relist. Sources, check. Multiple, check. Reliable, check. Independent, check. Non-trivial, might merit discussion. Doesn't look like a clear delete to me, though. I think the closing admin's reasoning was sound, but I suspect further consensus toward a keep (either outright or via no-consensus) would have developed had the sources been considered for a longer period of time than actually happened in the AfD discussion. Shimeru 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and if you must then relist it but the NYT article and TV show seem like a good solid start. (Emperor 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Endorse deletion. While indeed a judgment call with respect to the sources, it was - although barely - within the closing admin's discretion to apply their considered judgment to the sourcing issue when closing the debate. That judgment, with which I agree, has not been called into doubt in this discussion to an extent that would mandate relisting. Sandstein 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've read the part where I call the judgement into question, claiming more emphasis was placed on guidelines than policies and you've mentally rebutted it, right? That rebuttal would be useful here for debating purposes. Hiding Talk 08:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As per the mentions in the NYT article [11] and a large section of an episode of "Attack of the Show" [12]. While not as extensive as first thought, independent mentions in a mayor national(if not international) newspaper and a network popular cable/satellite television show should count for something. The fact that the writer of the NYT article disagreed with many of the judges choices is irrelevent here. What is relevant is that the writer thought the awards were important enough to devote 7 paragraphs to them and its winners in an 18 paragraph general article about webcomics. And finally my obligatory mention of Websnark :) [13] and [14] --Aclapton 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) correction cable not netwirk --Aclapton 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and keep. having been mentioned in a newspaper, on TV, on the radio, and on blogs is enough for me. webcomics may be overrepresented due to systemic bias, but WP:CSB's policy is to remedy omissions rather than protest inclusions. Aaronbrick 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. It seems quite obvious from the AfD that this was an inappropriate deletion; after the rewrite the objections had been addressed, there were nothing but keeps. Bryan Derksen 05:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep To be honest I had problems with earlier versions of the article; it wasn't much more than a list of the award winners. However, the rewrite seemed to be fine. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep first of all because it is clear that there was no consensus, not even a rough consensus. When the response to an AfD is more sources coming out of the woodwork, the proper response is to keep the article for the time being and allow for that new information to be incorporated into the article. Maybe a few source tags should have been sprinkled where appropriate but AfD was the wrong way to go. I would also note that at least as many of the sustain delete comments are factually in error as over-enthusiastic overturn delete comments. Some people are either not doing their homework or letting their emotions get the better of them. Doing a search for the word award will miss most of the references to the WCCA in the NYT article. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the WCCA will continue to garner occasional mention in the mainstream press and thus if this deletion review fails on the grounds of notability, we're going to be right back here again time and again with longer and longer lists of articles until the pro-deletes are going to cry uncle. There's no sign that this award is going away, rather all signs point to its increasing prominence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and keep this was a severly inapproprate deletion, the WCCA is the premiere web comic awards in a very new industry (webcomics). It is bound to have the same notability issues that most webcomics have for inclusion, and I believe that the inappropriate deletion of this article opened the floodgates for a variety of webcomics to be AFD'ed for "lack of notability", with this article in specific being quoted over and over. Notability is established through longevity of the awards (6 years, most fly by night awards never make two). Timmccloud 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. The Times article is very clear in not only bringing up and describing the awards, but subsequently listing winners of the awards. I am not sure how much more in-depth one expects from the New York Times: it seems phenomenally anal-retentive to expect them to describe the origin of the awards and, what? Talk about the presenters? That is what, if anything, Wikipedia is for. I have not watched the TV show yet; the NYT article alone is enough, coupled with significant internet fame. However, if the TV show is what it says, it is another... um, what's the opposite of "nail in the coffin"? I agree with Timmccloud that this was a highly inappropriate deletion in the first place. Anyone who has read webcomics for any length of time should have heard of the WCCA (unless they just don't pay attention); it is hilarious to claim they are non-notable.

Comment (edit: oops, my bad. Nevermind this): it took 2 days to delete the article and we are pushing 4 to bring it back. Take that as you will. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, o fellow fancier of expired parrots? The AfD took much longer than two days and a DRV's length is fixed by policy. --Kizor 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Just an observation resulting from not really understanding how the deletion review process is handled (and from misreading the AfD somehow). Comment retracted :) Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it happens. :) --Kizor 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist It should be left to the community to determin when there are enough sources to meet the multiple, non-trivial, ... published works test of WP:N and not the closing admin, who could very well overrule community consensus. --Farix (Talk) 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Please note that there was no tagging whatsoever. As is stated in User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion_is_not_a_substitute_for_tagging tagging is a must! I would also like to note that in the backwash of the Evil Inc. and Ugly Hill deletion attempts that this kind of behavior matches a vendetta. Therefore i would like to request that if the deletion is overturned that the remaining articles are protected.The Shroud 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Seems like consensus was ignored, because the admin disagreed with the aspects of that consensus concerning the suitbility of particular sources. He should have the latitude to ignore !votes that don't offer any rationale, but not to ignore !votes simply because he disagrees with the particular decision they're making on somehting that's essentially a judgement call. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some rationals expressed here that appear wildly divergent from the accepted standards, and before this is closed it should be made clear that the following are really not good reasons to overturn a deletion:

• "if there is this much discussion. it is fairly obvious that there never was any consensus"
• "having been mentioned in a newspaper, on TV, on the radio, and on blogs"
• "it is quite likely that the WCCA will continue to garner occasional mention"
• "no tagging whatsoever"
• "bound to have the same notability issues that most webcomics have for inclusion"

Forgive me if I don't adress each of the above in further detail, but even casual inspection (or even a moment of introspection) should make the problems with these rational quite clear. There are also quite a few arguments to the tune of

• "There is enough evidence here (NYT article, etc) to get past the bare minimum policies, in my opinion"
• "per the mentions in the NYT article"
• "the NYT article alone is enough"
• "It seems minimally sourced to me"

These are all arguments presenting an opinion on the article not the deletion. We're not re-runing the deletion here, and the deleting admin absolutely does get to make some judgement calls. That's why we don't write a script to close deletion discussions.

That being said, some arguments for overturning have been presented that have some weight, for example that there were no delete suggestions made in the latter half of the debate. That being said, I'm taking notice here that no one has taken the trouble to re-write a well sourced article in user-space... If that's not tacitly accepting that it's not possible to do so beyond listing the winners, I don't know what is. I'd urge in the strongest way possible that the proponants of this article (and the various others that hang off of it) review the "freedom from bias" foundation that is one of the five pillars that this whole encylopedia is built upon. If you're one of the webcomics fans who's either issued a plea for my death on your blog or cheered at that call-out, is it at all possible that you're viewing this with bias?

brenneman 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]