Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clone Manga

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.71.91.15 (talk) at 15:54, 6 September 2012 (→Clone Manga). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clone Manga

Clone Manga (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)

Fails WP:WEB, all sources are primary, no secondary sourcing found. Having another webcomic's creator praise you does not equal notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm doing a bit of a search on the Joe Shuster Award and I'm not seeing where this is so tremendously notable that winning one would keep the article on that merit alone. It does somewhat extend notability but I'm not seeing where it's tremendously notable. As far as webcomic creators go, Fred Gallagher is pretty notable in the webcomic world and is one of the very, very few people I'd consider to be notable enough to have a blog count towards notability. I'll see what I can do for the article, but offhand this needs pretty much an almost complete rewrite in many sections. It reads like a fan page rather than an encyclopedic entry. It's pretty puffy in places.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nuked a good deal of the article, as it was pretty non-neutral. I also removed the webcomic info boxes because the info could be best represented in the individual sections and the sections themselves were pretty slim after having the fan content removed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also of note is that the compilation of Paper Eleven seems to have been self-published. I state this because I know at one point having your webcomics published in paper format was something that gave automatic notability. I don't think this is still the standard, but I wanted to voice that this was self-published through Lulu.04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I looked for sources but was ultimately unable to find enough to show that either the artist or the website has enough notability to pass WP:GNG. In the end all we have is an endorsement by Fred Gallagher and the Joe Shuster Awards. Neither one is enough in and of themselves notable enough to keep the article based upon that alone. They both count towards notability but they're not enough to be so overwhelmingly notable that I'd say "absolute keep", and by this I mean specifically the awards. They're not non-descript awards but I don't really see where they're considered to be along the lines of an Eisner Award, for example. They give notability but not Notability, if that makes any sense. That being said, if someone could find a few more sources to show notability I'd be willing to change my vote, but offhand I couldn't really find where this webcomic is being covered in multiple independent and reliable sources. There's plenty of fan chatter, but not really in any formats that would count towards notability. I have absolutely no problem with someone wanting to userfy this content until more sources become available if this were to get deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think with the Joe Shuster award. It's prestiguous enough, I believe. I think Dan Kim's comics also won some other awards. Anyone want to dig a bit to see if anything turns up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.91.15 (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needs a clean up definitely. The comic won three of those Shuester awards and I think self publication still holds up in notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.0.29 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I ran into with the Schuster award is that there is little to no coverage of the award. Normally when an award is notable enough to warrant keeping an article on that basis alone, there's a ton of coverage for the award and usually at least a little coverage for the persons winning the awards in something other than a primary source. That just doesn't seem to exist in this situation, which is why I had to go through the Schuster award site for this. I would also like to add that this isn't a vote and that you'll have to find coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to show that this award is notable enough to give absolute notability to where the award alone would keep the entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shuster Awards has its own wikipedia article, though. Doesn't that help in giving it notability? :/ When debating deleting other webcomics on the basis of 'the awards not being notable enough', which most only had one, they ended up remaining up due to being notable in that the awards had their own wikipedia page. The criteria for notability don't say that something needs to have multiple awards or that they have to be recent.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clone_Manga&oldid=511086220"