Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snafu Comics (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  Sandstein  06:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snafu Comics

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Snafu Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly fails WP:WEB. Kept per three "weak keeps" in 2008, based entirely on the presence of one source. The external links include multiple primary sources and two reviews, one of which is user-submitted. Never mind that no one's touched the article since 2008, I'm not seeing notability per WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll see what I can find. I did find one source that mentions the site and its founder at length, but I will say one thing: if this is kept, it's going to need some major cleanup to condense sections that are overly long and drawn out. There's a lot of "fan update" type material than actual encyclopedic content. If it isn't kept, there's going to be an awful lot of redirects that will need to be deleted as well, so just alterting the admins to this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional. I'm also going to see if I can find individual reviews for the comics that could be put in a big "reception" type area, although I am already predicting that it'll be hard to find some that would be considered reliable per WP:RS. I'd like to try to keep this since it's noticable, but I don't know how well it fits Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the two print sources in the article are deemed reliable, then it will just barely be enough to establish notability, for now I'll assume they are. I don't think Dream Focus' link establishes enough notability by itself, but the presence of other sources should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is famous doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough for an article. In order for something to have a Wikipedia article, it needs to be the subject of reliable, independent coverage. Fame ≠ notability, unless of course reliable sources say so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the comics there were nominated for awards, for instance, the PPG one and I believe also the namesake comic. As for being famous, it does have a sizable fanbase (it has millions of search results even). Besides, what more "notability" would you need? Being a webcomic website that gets millions of hits daily should belong here. There are webcomics with articles on here that don't even meet the same criteria as well. You might as well delete several entries on Wikipedia for these reasons then. So I vote to definitely keep this up and, perhaps, do a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the comics are notable then they can have separate articles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Winning the WCA is not a criterion for inclusion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Times change. Linking to an old discussion where one person agreed with you, and others indicated shock about it not being considered notable by some while other things were, doesn't prove your case. That article was once deleted, as you mentioned at the start of that discussion, but its back now. That discussion is not valid. With the number of Google news archive search results showing people talking about the awards, or mentioning someone won one proving it was the news source felt it significant enough to mention, its obviously a notable award. Dream Focus 19:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have access to the first source in the article, and thus cannot judge it's content. With respect to the second article, I do not believe that one third of a single article from 2007 whose provenance I am unable to clearly discern is sufficient to build an article upon. Do we have previous consensus that Stephanie Mangold / PW are reliable sources with respect to articles of this type? That is to say, are these mentions in this article "standard coverage" of the generic press-release type? As it stands I'm not convinced that this article meets the general inclusion guideline for notability of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Not shown to be signifigant, and what's in that first source anyone? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the first article is from 2007 doesn't deplete its notability. The guidelines say nothing that the notability has to be recent. Besides, it's Publishers Weekly, they're a prestiguous source. Also why can't winning awards specifically for webcomics count as well? Webcomics fall into a different category than newspaper comics, therefore have different types of notable sources. I agree with narutolovehina, having multiple sources should be enough to keep this afloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google Scholar provides two links to full copies of Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media here. The first is chapter 1 which summarises the rest of the book and single paragraphs on pages 56 and 61 mention DaveSnafu and refer to his profile in "box 7.1"; and the second is this larger PDF with similar mentions in sections Looking Around and Experimenting and Play, a longer paragraph under Getting Started, two paragraphs under Publishing and Distribution and five paragraphs under section 8.1 Snafu Dave comics. -84user (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • @84User - Thank you for that. This source does appear to tick all of the boxes above, albeit weakly. @173.72 - "prestiguous" is not the same as reliable. It's a trade magazine, with a much smaller and more specific audience, a factor that must be taken into account when gauging notability. There's a reason that the criterion for inclusion is not "Two sources were found." While I sometimes despair of how frequently this point is ignored, can you imagine an article based upon these two sources? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I understand what you mean, but with webcomics, it's tougher to find sources. They're still a rather new medium, even now, so it's not as easy to find published works that can determine complete notability, you know? But at the same time, if you look at other articles in the webcomics category, you might think they most have weak sources. Internet born media has a harder time proving notability but I feel it should be covered here on this site as well. Anyway, combining all of the sources collected, I think this article particularly can stand on its own two feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending acknowledgment of WCCA notability. That said, this article needs updating badly to account for sources so it isn't nominated a 3rd time. I'll wait until this AfD is settled to see what I can do. Veled (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were notable, we should have no trouble finding significant coverage in multiple (more than two) reliable secondary sources for a ten-year-old webcomics site that has published at least 18 webcomics by at least 12 creators. As others have said above, in the four years since the previous AfD only two potential sources that may meet Wikipedia:Notability have been found. The first is "Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media" which uses interviews of young people for ethnographic study. This is a clear example of an interview as a primary source, not a secondary source. Being interviewed along with 12-year-old girls who play Warcraft for such a study is not a sign of notability. The other potential source is a 6 paragraph portion of an article in Publisher's Weekly as part of their comics week. We could debate whether those 6 paragraphs represent significant or merely routine coverage, but if a single six paragraph source is all we can find after a decade of publishing the work of a dozen creators, then this is clearly not notable.Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the work Ngo did on Rumble Pak (comics) add any sort of notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.247.26 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Snafu_Comics_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138774655"