| Revision as of 18:50, 19 September 2010 editNovil Ariandis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,028 edits →Ozy and Millie: + Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:09, 19 September 2010 edit undoTenPoundHammer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers278,958 edits →Ozy and Millie: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| * '''Keep''' The notability of this webcomic has already been established by a vast majority in the last deletion discussion. This is therefore a bad-faith nomination since the nominator is the same one as in the first discussion. --] (]) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' The notability of this webcomic has already been established by a vast majority in the last deletion discussion. This is therefore a bad-faith nomination since the nominator is the same one as in the first discussion. --] (]) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *You're still not answering one thing: <big><big><big><big>'''''WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCES?!??!?!'''''</big></big></big></big> <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, ] and a clue-bat • <sup>(])</sup> 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:09, 19 September 2010
Ozy and Millie
AfDs for this article:- Ozy and Millie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Dana Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Doesn't seem notable. All sources are comixtalk (deemed unreliable in the past), personal blogs or the comic itself. Claims to awards are sourced, but the Web Cartoonist's Choice award is generally deemed insufficient (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures). The fact that it was printed in book form doesn't convey notability, nor does the fact that it lasted for 10 years, nor does the fact that it's hosted on Keenspot. Notability is not inherited from Keenspot.
A search on Gnews found only four hits, none of which amount to non-trivial coverage: in fact, one just mentions that the cartoonist will be at a convention. On plain Google, the first hits are its website, this article, TV Tropes, WikiFur, Cafepress, Deviantart, Comixpedia and the comic's forum. Also listing the author's article for similar lack of notability.
Yes, I know it has a green disc in the corner, but don't let that stop you. Zig Zag (character) was somehow ranked as a GA only months before its deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. So wait, winning three separate awards - the last on three separate occasions - isn't enough? Didn't the discussion in April settle this? And for the artist, winning a publishers' comics competition adjudicated by a juried panel is "a similar lack of notability"? Moreover, you didn't add the deletion template to the article about the artist. Filing multiple deletion requests in a topic area in a single day is a recipe for mistakes. You need to slow down. You also keep trotting out a deletion discussion referencing the WCCAs from 2008 when there is a far more recent and more relevant discussion indicating its notability. You should know that one very well because you were the nominiator. GreenReaper (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. On a more general note - and perhaps this needs to be raised elsewhere - I think you should seriously consider whether your actions are actually improving Misplaced Pages. When you're not filing deletions on often questionable grounds, a large portion of your edits appear to consist of changing articles into redirects (without putting the content anywhere), then removing the links to the articles, causing them to become orphans even if the change is reverted. This concerns others, and it concerns me. GreenReaper (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I see nothing seriously wrong with this article, and I don't see any reason to delete it. It contains good and useful information and is well-sourced. The only objection you have against it is that it's not notable, but I disagree with that for the same reasons noted above. Beside that, it's a very weak reason to delete an otherwise good article. CodeCat (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Those arguments aren't any less subjective than notability, so I don't see what the issue is. I'm staying with my position. CodeCat (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, does not appear to pass WP:WEB at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The notability of this webcomic has already been established by a vast majority in the last deletion discussion. This is therefore a bad-faith nomination since the nominator is the same one as in the first discussion. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're still not answering one thing: WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCES?!??!?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)