Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Days of Foxhound: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Niteowlneils (talk | contribs) m →[[Last Days of Foxhound]]: del |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*'''Delete''': Not encyclopedic. 1) Will it be a puzzling topic a reference work will need to address? 2) Is it something anyone will seek in the future? 3) Does it represent a pioneering or influential artwork? I get "no" to all three. --[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''': Not encyclopedic. 1) Will it be a puzzling topic a reference work will need to address? 2) Is it something anyone will seek in the future? 3) Does it represent a pioneering or influential artwork? I get "no" to all three. --[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
||
**Geogre, I have to ask: where did you get those criteria? They don't resemble any of the crieria for webcomics I remember ever hearing about. --[[User:Marudubshinki|maru]] 03:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
**Geogre, I have to ask: where did you get those criteria? They don't resemble any of the crieria for webcomics I remember ever hearing about. --[[User:Marudubshinki|maru]] 03:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
||
**They're my criteria for articles, all articles. I've been voting on VfD since before the first web comic showed up here, I believe, and all artworks have to answer the same questions, IMO. If anything, we should be more strict about web art, as it is by its nature far more ephemeral than even vanity press publications. For me, an artwork should be either first, greatest, or influential, and it should be something that appears in alien contexts (i.e. something mentioned elsewhere and by someone not in the web comic business) so that we will have a need for explanation. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about video game music or sculpture: the subject is not notable enough for encyclopedic treatment. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. Low Alexa rank alone is enuf, but also hints at the more detailed reasons. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Low Alexa rank alone is enuf, but also hints at the more detailed reasons. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 04:11, 12 June 2005
Non-notable web comic. Alexa rank of 642,713. Metal Gear Solid fanfiction (in other words, they're somebody else's characters). -- — Gwalla | Talk 00:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (Weak)- Yes, it is no Penny Arcade, or Megatokyo, but is it non-notable enough to be worth deleting and trashing everyone's work? Remember, we're not pressed for space here like a paper encylopedia. --maru 02:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Not encyclopedic. 1) Will it be a puzzling topic a reference work will need to address? 2) Is it something anyone will seek in the future? 3) Does it represent a pioneering or influential artwork? I get "no" to all three. --Geogre 03:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Geogre, I have to ask: where did you get those criteria? They don't resemble any of the crieria for webcomics I remember ever hearing about. --maru 03:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- They're my criteria for articles, all articles. I've been voting on VfD since before the first web comic showed up here, I believe, and all artworks have to answer the same questions, IMO. If anything, we should be more strict about web art, as it is by its nature far more ephemeral than even vanity press publications. For me, an artwork should be either first, greatest, or influential, and it should be something that appears in alien contexts (i.e. something mentioned elsewhere and by someone not in the web comic business) so that we will have a need for explanation. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about video game music or sculpture: the subject is not notable enough for encyclopedic treatment. Geogre 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Low Alexa rank alone is enuf, but also hints at the more detailed reasons. Niteowlneils 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)