Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square (3rd nomination)

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 delete. Nobody has seriously contested or rebutted the argument that there are insufficient reliable sources for inclusion as an article. Sandstein 00:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wapsi Square

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

The only sources are a.) a dead link to a press release, b.) a review that may or may not be reputable; c.) a podcast

Being published in book form is not an assertation of webcomic notability. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are not a sufficient assertation of notability; even though the second AFD kept this comic due to its winning this award, several WCCA winners in the past have been deleted. Likewise the Lulu awards; their page shows a huge amount of redlinks, suggesting that the award is not a paragon of notability.

In short, I'm seeing no reliable, secondary sources for this comic, nor could I find any. The second AFD argued entirely on the point of its award win, making no arguments either way as far as the sourcing issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lulu awards site is outdated because it is historical; the awards have not been presented since 2009 - citing that the website has redlinks *now* as a cause to believe it was not important at the time that it was awarded to the article subject seems poor logic to me. I'm not sure why I'm even trying; I believe most people interested in webcomics abandoned this fight during the last sweep of article deletions when a few editors seemed determined to destroy all webcomic articles based on a belief that only work that is in print and covered by the print media was significant. I think the web and the world of epublishing have evolved beyond that, but perhaps attitudes here have not. Netmouse (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you suggesting that prove notability here? Precedent from other AFDs is that the awards given are not sufficient for notability, and I'm seeing nothing else that's reputable here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that webcomic articles found non-notable by Wikipedia standards have been offered to Comixpedia to keep them. Does anyone know if this is still a common practice? I've asked about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Webcomics_work_group to seek advice on how these cases are handled. Diego (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned before, Wikipedia's notability standards are somewhat broken when it comes to webcomics. Some of the best-known, longest-running, most notorious-on-the-Internet comics get nominated, and deleted, for a lack of reliable sources; while it's true that WP:ITSPOPULAR and WP:ITSUSEFUL are arguments to avoid, the fact that these are things people will come seeking information on simply because, well, they're widely and popularly known, but find the articles gone, means that at some point a WP:NWEBCOMICS really needs to be considered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with all of the above that this does not satisfy current notability and WP:SIGCOV standards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 06:23, 31 December 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.