Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erfworld

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erfworld

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

Not notable. The one claim to fame is an appearance in a top ten list, but that year Time decided to make fifty top ten lists, compiling all the trivia of the year because they could. Certainly does not satisfy WP:GNG. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article as it stands is actively terrible, almost entirely dedicated to in-universe information, character descriptions, and plot summaries. If kept, the content needs culled. But hidden amidst the (dare I say it) cruft, are some relevant sources. Time's Lev Grossman praised the webcomic here; he included it (admittedly with nearly the same description) in his Top 10 list of 2007 webcomics. That Time saw fit to have Top 10 lists in a large number of categories, as the nominator observes, does not make it any less of a reliable and respected source for journalism. The NPR story from the following spring is clearly significant coverage; the direct link to NPR is not working for me at the moment, but the story is available via the Internet Archive. I'm prepping to leave for a business trip, so I can't speak as to whether the mention in Dragon Magazine 354 is significant coverage, although it is certainly independent coverage in a reliable source (I can pull a copy of it when I get back if no one else has before then). And finally, although notability is admittedly not inherited, there's some mention of Erfworld in various media sources in connection with Arthur Chu, who did voice work for the Erfworld project prior to his famed Jeopardy run. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, but I don't feel that the deletion nomination is valid. Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Human.v2.0. The comic has been going on for some period of time and has been covered in part by various sources. It also has its own set of praise and controversy. I'd prefer the article lean more toward those elements rather than descriptions of characters, but in either case I think it should be kept. Guyanthalas (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2015 (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.