Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:50, 28 April 2009

Non-notable award it seems. Almost all the sources are interviews, blog posts or primary sources, with no non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several hits from Gbooks. [1] Edward321 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several in this instance means four, since the rest are based on excerpts from Wikipedia. And I've missed the part where you've edited the article to reflect the new coverage you've found. Sorry to sound like an arse, but I've been here before. [2]. I'm tired of doing the work. People want articles kept, then do the work involved in maintaining them. Hiding T 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article does not have a deadline. Vodello (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior AfDs to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior AfDs to keep. _Plus there doesn't seem to be any new reason to delete this, as it was already permitted to exist, and the information is either the same, or even had more. Deletion is both illogical and uncalled for. It's like having an appeal for someone ruled innocent, to try and find them guilty again... it doesn't work that way. Sorry. --Fesworks (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, was there any mainstream coverage that turned up throughout those afds? 'Cause I sure as heck didn't see it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not again -- Strong Keep per previous AFDs. This is a gateway AFD that's attempting to lead to the removal of many webcomic aricles that have won awards from the WCCA and have had their articles kept on AFDs partially for winning these awards. Hopefully this will not be another battle of admins (and vets that are best buddies with admins) and regular users, which usually seems to be the case with the mission to purge Wikipedia of all webcomics. Vodello (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really think I have a hidden agenda to purge webcomics pages from Wikipedia?! Ha. Get real. And you're still not addressing the main fact that there don't seem to be any significant third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you fail to realize that it was voted to keep, with it's existing (at the time) resources, and additional resources since. Thus, it means that there is nothing LESS from what was acceptable beforehand. So your argument is null unless you provide new and different arguments and/or counter points that go beyond the previous deletion attempts.--Fesworks (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the NEW YORK TIMES already inarguably counts as one credible 3rd party resource, thus making the WCCAs only need one additional credible, 3rd party resource to be allowed on Wikipedia, as per it's own rules. Oh, and look there, G4's Attack of the Show mentioned them as well according to the references. That's 2, so it's good to keep, per Wikipedia's rules. Also, as far as other 3rd parties references, Comixpedia is one, plus mentions on two different podcasts... but of course, these particular thrid parties may not be seen as "notable" by Wikipedia's standards, but that point is moot since it only needs two... which I just told you.--Fesworks (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you continue to omit the New York Times in hopes that users will vote without reading the article in question and trusting you based on your username alone, it is difficult to take this nomination seriously. Vodello (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep very notable (a lot of people would have heard of this) and Fesworks, you can't just make something notable if it's in the wiki-support paper New York Times. All I can now say is: Not again. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:42, 28 April 2009 edit Koshoes (talk \| contribs) 727 edits →Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:50, 28 April 2009 edit undo Emperor (talk \| contribs) 53,677 edits Deletion sorting Next edit →
Line 33:		Line 33:

	*'''Speedy Keep''' very notable (a lot of people would have heard of this) and Fesworks, you can't just make something notable if it's in the wiki-support paper New York Times. All I can now say is: Not again. [[User:Koshoes\|<b style="color:#000">A bloke called Andrew</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Koshoes\|<span style="color:#f90">Convos</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Koshoes\|My Messies]]</sub> 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)		*'''Speedy Keep''' very notable (a lot of people would have heard of this) and Fesworks, you can't just make something notable if it's in the wiki-support paper New York Times. All I can now say is: Not again. [[User:Koshoes\|<b style="color:#000">A bloke called Andrew</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Koshoes\|<span style="color:#f90">Convos</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Koshoes\|My Messies]]</sub> 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
			*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation\|list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—[[User:Emperor\|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor\|talk]]) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)</small>