Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic)

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. (Previously closed as delete, then reexamined following a request on my talk page.) Sandstein 05:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1/0 (web comic)

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

There is a long-standing precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lackadaisy_(3rd_nomination) that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is not a notable enough award to confer notability per WP:WEB. The only other sources in the article are three reviews from websites which do not appear to be reputable reviewers: one is credited to screen names and therefore inherently unreliable; one is a dead link; and one is openly admitted to be the personal website of a non-notable reviewer. I have looked for more sources but found absolutely nothing, so I have every reason to believe that this is a continuation of the precedent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep While I agree that the WCCA has not been found to be enough in the past, I do think it meets the sourcing requirements of WP:WEB. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how you think the sources are sufficient. I just pointed out how they clearly are not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going with WP:WEB criteria 3, footnote 6. It's been nominated for what I consider an important (well-known and independent) award multiple (3) times. I fully understand that previous AfDs have come to the conclusion that the award isn't enough. I disagree and so feel WP:WEB is met. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a webcomic. End of discussion.75.3.142.181 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes Web Cartoonists' Choice Award is seen as notable, sometimes not, depending on what people say in the discussion and the opinions of the closing administrator. We have multiple Wikipedia articles listing who won this award each year. Dream Focus 13:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant (or even any) coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, which is what we need to write an encyclopedia article. Longstanding consensus has been that webcomics do not somehow inherit notability by "winning" a "Web Cartoonists' Choice Award" (which is basically an unscientific internet poll), and this webcomic has never even won one. "Webcartoonist Choice Awards" are neither independent ("winner" Shaenon Garrity agrees they're a "simpering circlejerk"[1]), nor well-known (Webcartoonist Choice Awards administrator Lewis Powell describes their failure at "making people aware of them, getting people to care about them."[2]) Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no more an "unscientific internet poll" than the Academy Awards. Those who create web comics get to vote on the awards. The negative comments aren't ideal, but again, I suspect you can find Academy Award winners who have made similar statements. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. DS (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You should know better than to put just a !vote. Come on, Dragonfly, I thought you were smart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:03, 25 April 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, NW (Talk) 00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Very Strong Keep: Notable --Reference Desker (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument. Try again, n00b. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was busy earlier. For dead links, consult the Wayback Machine - thus, this source. Also, Shaenon Garrity thought 1/0 was important enough that she interviewed Williams about it after it was finished (note that ComixTalk has a managing editor). I strongly assert that, within the microfield of webcomics, 1/0 is historically relevant and notable. DS (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER DUPER STRONG MEGADELETE Does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Without reliable sources this is just a mess of original research. Long-standing precedent is that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is too minor to confer notability, simply saying WP:ILIKEIT here does not change that. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:21, 25 April 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.