Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone with the Blastwave

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HagermanBot (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 10 January 2007 (Haemo didn't sign: "Commenting"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gone with the Blastwave

Gone with the Blastwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone With The Blastwave. Back then it was on its 17th strip and the forum had fewer than 150 users. Now it's up to 29 and the forum has nearly 220 users. Taken to Comixpedia after a this deletion, I think.

It's since been deleted three times by separate admins at Gone with the blastwave, and is back yet again and was tagged for WP:CSD#A7 again. Somebody obviously thinks it's important, equally, a number of other people clearly don't. No sources other than the comic itself, as usual, so impossible to verify if this is WP:OR or not - probably is, since it has all the hallmarks of being distilled directly from personal knowledge of the source material. This version was created by WP:SPA Grimreaper0125 (talk · contribs) and appears to be largely the work of Darkcraft (talk · contribs) who also has very few edits outside of this subject and whose username is strikingly similar to a moderator of the site's forums. Asserts that it's about to be published, but a quick look at the publisher's website shows that it's pretty much a one man shop, it only publishes one other comic and nothing else at all. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt - purest OR spamvanitisementcruft. No assertion of notability in the slightest. Die, die, die. That bad, really. No reliable sources, no verification. Yuck. Moreschi Deletion! 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - still no reliable sources added to the article, little assertion of notability, WP:RS is important and WP:V is non-negotiable. Being about to be published - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL - is not an indicator of notability - plenty of books that sold 1 copy have been published. Well, a bit more than 1, but you get the point. I have struck "and salt" as it seems as though there is an argument that this should be deleted without prejudice against further recreation, if and when this becomes notable and gets multiple non-trivial references to it from multiple reputable sources. Moreschi Deletion! 17:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per above.--Drat (Talk) 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I wrote below (how am I supposed to express that much writing...somebody help me deuglify this page please)I would also appreciate it if people here bother to read both sides of the arguement before casting their vote. To quote the Wikipedia guide to deletion "Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable."(it makes things a bit fairer) Darkcraft 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't do much outside of reading articals so I am not sure of this procedure but I am assuming I am supposed to reply here. No, I am not a forum moderator, I am not even signed up to the forums. I also do not believe that this artical was largly my work, if you compare my edits to the previous version, you will see that I mainly made the already existing artical clearer. The fact that this comic is going into print is what matters, not that it's publisher is a small company.
Here is my proof that this webcomic is notable:
1) It had around 16,000 unique site views and around 46,000 page views on New Years Day alone (which is a traditionally low traffic day) and records don't go far enough back for me to see what kind of traffic it was getting before the festive season. http://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=856&type=3
2) It was featured on the main page of VGcats.com for several weeks recently (VG cats is one of the most notable webcomics)
3) It is coming 22nd in the buzzComix list (one of the most notable comic ranking sites). http://www.buzzcomix.net/index.php?from=1&to=100&bannershow=10#Morr
4) It is coming 32nd in this webcomic list (not as notable but still well-known). http://topwebcomics.com/
5) It had an artical written on it in 'No Mutants Allowed' http://www.nma-fallout.com/ (which has an alexa rank of 65,634)
6) The comic itself has an alexa ranking of 66,374 (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blastwavecomic.com%2F)
7) An artical was written on it in a national newspaper. http://gotmorr.com/stuff/tages-anzeiger-2006-1123.jpg
8) It was also featured in a Polish magazine which I do not have an image of.
9) It is going into print.
NEW 10) Prints of images based on or around the comic are available right now. Website seems to be down (?!) link coming soon...
As for the proposed salting, the previous articals were created many months apart and reflect different stages in this webcomics development. Even this artical was to be deleted, who is to say this webcomic wont become far more notable in the near future, and a salting would hamper efforts to create an artical. Darkcraft 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these "sources" even remotely qualify it for inclusion. To begin with, pageviews, Alexa ranking, and hits are not sufficient to form the basis for keeping an article. The article needs to be the object of several reliable, verifiable articles. You have provided no evidence of this, other than one article on a single website - (which I cannot find, but I will take your word for it). You picture of the national newspaper is not verifiable, as we have no idea why they are printing a single frame of your comic, or for what purpose. The same could be said of the purported Polish magazine. Suffice to say there is no evidence of notability, and (as noted) the article remains basically unchanged from the previous form. A future promise to get it into print means nothing either. I vote to Delete, but not salt, since the strip may become notable in the near future. --Haemo 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Darkcraft's sources look promising. And what's with the salting requests? The webcomic may be a bit borderline on the notability department right now, but it's still being updated and publication seems likely in the near future so the situation could easily change. Salting should only be for something that will definitely never warrant an article. Bryan 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an article is repeatedly re-created and then dleeted and then re-created, without anything actually changing overmuch other than perhaps being published by a guy who publishes one other cartoon, his own, then WP:SALT is appropriate. This has already been transwiki'd top Comixpedia. Plus the artist says he's off to join the army anyway. The above info is not significantly different from what was seen at last AfD, the ranking of 22 puts it well below other comics which have been deleted previously. Nothing here speaks of actual encyclopaedic notability. And then there's the WP:OR problem... Guy (Help!) 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, your ability to misrepresent facts to further press your own viewpoints on others is amazing. The artist is going on compulsory 6 month army service, after that he is coming back to continue his comic. A lot has changed since last time a similar artical was created, and in my opinion, and apparently the opinion of most people, it has become notable enough to have it included in Wikipedia. I don't see any problem with Original Research in this artical, and that does not seem to be the issue here anyway.Darkcraft 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to focus on those standards because they are the reason this AFD page exists, but what annoys me is that throughout this page, Guy has misrepresented facts, wrongly inferred things, misused the SPA tag, and appears to be ignoring most of the evidence. From a newbie who isn't aware of protocol around here that kind of stuff is acceptable, but from an experienced admin, it is absolutely terrible.Darkcraft 09:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per 7 and perhaps 8. The Swiss newspaper is available online for paying subscribers, so it's verifiable, but not yet verified. The Polish magazine isn't verifiable without the name of the magazine, that really needs to be known. Secateur 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
The article can be found on page 24 on the Nov 23, 2006 issue of Tages Anzeiger, available online on pressdisplay.com . It's in German, though, so I can't read what it says, but other editors should be able to verify what it says. However, you certainly have a point regarding the Polish magazine, which isn't verifiable. I thought the name would surface eventually, but maybe not? Secateur 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will search for the name and possibly a copy of the polish magazine.Darkcraft 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you need an account to view this article, even with pressdisplay.com. That's very unfortunate - do you have a clean screenshot, or transcript of the article. I know several people who read German who could translate for us. --Haemo 05:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While Darkcraft might have a clean screenshot, I don't. Because pressdisplay.com charge for their services, it might very well be against their rules to take a screenshot, I don't know. Secateur 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see why this is such a big issue with everyone. This comic is notable and quite popular as outlined in previous comments. Why is it such a big deal to wish for it do be deleted? It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space...Dooster 16:45, 4 January 2007 -5 GMT This template must be substituted.
  • Keep You begin to wonder what makes a comic notable. Whether or not the author goes on a hiatus should not be taken into consideration regarding the notability of the comic. This has been confirmed to have been in one newspaper. You'd be better off trying to find other webcomic articles that have no notability at all. According to the notability guidelines, it has to have been the subject of multiple published sources. We currently have one newspaper and one magazine. If I'm not mistaken that's multiple. IndecisionV 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • JZG (or Guy) I noticed you added three SPA tags after the above messages. In my opinion, one was done rightly so, but the other two accounts were created before this page existed and have had a fair number of edits.It clearly states in the SPA guildines that inappropriate use of this tag can lead to action being taken against you. Darkcraft 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tend agree with the placement of the SPA tag after Dooster's article, but would probably not agree with the others. Fans are allowed to vote in WP:AFD discussions. However, I strongly urge anyone here with a previous interest in this article - you know whether or not this applied to you better than I - to set aside their personal opinions of the quality, or popularity, of the comic in question and instead focus on whether or not it meets guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Currently, I do not think it does, and believe the evidence so gathered has not been sufficient to meet these guidelines. Remember - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and foremost - and standards need to be met in all instances. --Haemo 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, standards have to be met, but what this string of comments is discussing is Guy and how he, in my opinion, is doing something he shouldn't by placing SPA tags on the comments of 3 people, whilst two of those people have accounts with a fair amount of edits and have existed since before this artical. It says in the SPA guildines that by placing an SPA tag outside of the guildines, action can be taken against you, so clearly he was doing something wrong. I would like to see him remove those tags asap or give a good reason why they should stay. Darkcraft 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whether or not it meets guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability.


Notability: 'Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance.'
'a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.' - This part has been answered by Darkcraft, I think, with his(?) list of appearances.
Verifiability: The site is there, the things documented in the article are accessible to the reader.
I think that is enough. 203.169.17.194 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is fundamentally, and totally incorrect. I strongly urge you to re-read WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY before discussing this deletion. Again, this is not a vote, and it serves absolutely no constructive purpose to have editors weighing in on an article with little to no understanding of the standards required. Again, I repeat - the only reason to keep an article under the guidelines given are multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable. So far what we have been given is:
  • A single unverifiable newspaper article, which no one has examined, and of which we have no idea of the context being used. All that is discernibly even from the comic in question is a single cell from one strip - we have no idea what the context is. This does not meet the standards under WP:NOTE.
  • A purported magazine article, of which there is absolutely no evidence given that it even exists. This definitely does not meet standards under WP:NOTE.
  • A variety of e-polling data, including Alexa ranking (which even the sites own forums admit are "not that high"). None of this meets standards under WP:NOTE.
I reiterate, again that the only meaningful criteria for keeping the article in question is whether or not it conforms to WP:NOTE. Frankly, the current evidence does not even remotely meet the standards required, and I must express dismay that editors are accepting it without question. --Haemo 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to all editors to find out how notable this is and weigh in all evidence. I am giving you evidence, but you are saying "Not good enough I need more" without actually searching for more yourself. Furthermore, the newspaper IS verifiable as other peoples comments have stated. I am hoping to get more information on the magazine artical soon. The editors are not accepting this without question, the ones who agree appear to have weighed the facts and decided this is notable and worth inclusion. Alexa is not E-polling, it is a measure of how many visit the site, and is an excellent resource to determine a sites popularity. Many arguments of notability and popularity include Alexa rankings and amounts of site visitors as they are hard facts and are not subjective. Darkcraft 06:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The onus is not on me to find evidence which may, or may not, exist. I have done my research, and determined that this article does not quality for inclusion under WP:NOTE. I have no other evidence to present. I will, however, take issue with other evidence presented. Especially when it simply does not conform too WP:NOTE, or even Wikipedia:Notability (web). In material that I accept would conform to WP:NOTE standards, you have a single article which apparently no one can read, in order to back up your claims of it conforming to WP:NOTE (I would question how you know it is applicable to WP:NOTE, when you cannot even read it, but that is besides the point) and a magazine article which may or may not exist in any form useful to us. Again, under WP:VERIFY the onus is on you to show that these are reliable sources relevant to the object being discussed. This has not been done, and as such they do not qualify under WP:NOTE, and the article should not be included. Claims are evidence are not evidence, evidence we cannot examine is not evidence, evidence no one has a (even untranslated) text of is not evidence.
  • Per the Alexa rankings - the fact that others have used them as some kind of metric for notability does not matter. All kinds of erroneous arguments are routinely put forward in deletion debates relating to WP:NOTE (as our anonymous friend has illustrated) but they have no bearing on the argument. Again, read Wikipedia:Notability (web) - nowhere in that section are Alexa rankings listed. They have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, and should be totally dropped from consideration - again, the features we must consider are laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (web). None of the purported references meet this standard. You have repeatedly claimed they, yet there has been no evidence that they do. Again, under WP:VERIFY, the onus is on you to show they do - not on me, or any other editor, unless they so wish it. I have tried my good faith best to ascertain the status of both articles but have been stymied by the fact that one simply has not been presented, and the other no one can apparently either read, or even provide a transcript of it for translation. I cannot in good conscience consider retaining an article on the strength of such completely nebulous sources, and I strongly urge other editors to consider this argument in reaching consensus on this matter. --Haemo 07:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Alexa rankings are not evidence because you say they are not evidence? They are not evidence because they are not part of the guildines? Alexa rankings are an unbiased, objective source for data. This unbiased, objective source is giving us information but you want to discard it because it is not part of the guildines? It is a similar story with the amount of hits it gets. Take for example Chugworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chugworth_Academy) (http://chugworth.com/). When you discard it's Alexa rank, amount of visitors, and links from other comics, you have virtually no evidence of notability. Do you know why that artical has not been deleted? Because the guildines are guidlines, not cold, definate rule. Very few webcomics that currently have wikipedia articals would actually fit the guildines for notability because a webcomic being: A) Put to print, B) Featured in an offline publication, or C) Being featured on a major website, is a major and very rare accomplishment. You seem to be completely ignoring that this webcomic is about to be put to print. Clearly we have an artical about this webcomic in a national newspaper, but due to problems that we seem unable to avoid, we cannot actually read it I have unsubstantionated claims that it was featured in a Polish magazine. At this point, I can't back up those claims, but in my opinion you should at least give me the benefit of the doubt. I believe that this webcomic is notable enough to make it into wikipedia, however some people's strictness when it comes to the guidlines means we have to debate whether it should be considered notable. We even had a deletionist agree with me, and I believe that really does mean something.Darkcraft 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, they mean nothing because they do not meet standards under WP:NOTE - not because "I say they don't". Again, in order for an article to be included, it must meet standards under Wikipedia:Notability (web). The fact that they are "objective" or "unbiased" does not matter. The fact that other authors have erroneously used them to establish notability does not matter. Again, you are openly admitting that your sources do not meet standards under WP:NOTE, yet are still arguing for inclusion. I am not willing to include an article based solely on the benefit of a doubt - it is directly contradictory to WP:NOTE, since it requires that the article be referenced using those sources. You cannot reference material you cannot find, so the article cannot currently be brought up to meet standards. Chugworth Academy does meet standards under WP:NOTE, since it has been verifiably published by a non-trivial publisher, and so falls under Wikipedia:Notability (web). It specifically meets guidelines under WP:NOTE, and that is why it has not been deleted - not because we bend the guidelines, as you are asking us to do here. I'm sorry, your article still does not meet standards, and should not be included in the encyclopedia. Note, however, that I am not calling for action under WP:SALT, since I believe that this article could become notable in the near future. --Haemo 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:NOTE does it say that Alexa rankings and pageviews are irrelevent? And no artical must meet those standards, the page itself says the guildines are not set in stone, and that common sense should be used. Give me a reason why we should not use page views and it's Alexa ranking as evidence. It is objective, unbiased data from a very reliable source. I never admitted that this artical does not meet the WP:NOTE guidlines, I was using an alternative arguement to show that more leeway should be given to webcomics when it comes to those guidlines because it is almost impossible for all but the most famous and popular webcomics such as Ctrl-Alt-Del and VG Cats. Darkcraft 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NOTE is inclusive, not exclusive. It specifically outlines what is required to meet the standards - it does not list things which do not qualify it, because there are an endless number of those. Alexa ranking are not mentioned, therefore they do not qualify to make an article notable - it does not matter if the material is objective or unbiased; that really has nothing to do with WP:NOTE. Again, your use of an alternative argument is flawed - it does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, and it does not meet standards under Wikipedia:Notability (web). In fact, Wikipedia:Notability (web) specifically mentions webcomics in describing the standards laid out. Webcomics are not permitted more "leeway" in the guidelines, and that is made explicitly clear. --Haemo 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly disagree with your decision and it seems as though most of the community agrees with me. In my opinion, I was not using the 'Pokemon Defence' as I was drawing no parallels between this artical and 'Chugworth', but I was trying to make people look at the decision process behind deciding whether an artical on a webcomic exists or not, and why it differs from Chugworth to Gone With The Blastwave. As for the inclusion not equaling notability, I could find many other webcomics on Wikipedia from which I could use a similar process to invalidate the WP:NOTE arguement. In general, I believe that Wikipedia is too hard on webcomics because it is so difficult for them to fulfill those criteria. I would have liked another day of debate because I would have liked to have seen a rebuttal to my post just above yours, and I believe 'Guy' was not acting as he should have.
I accept your decision and wont take this to Deletion Review mainly because I don't think it would pass, and I can't bother continuing this debate. Several admins have voted keep on this page, several have voted delete, so I think that it was a bit of blind luck whether the volunteer who made the final decision was for or against the deletion of this artical. Thankyou for not salting this artical, you can probably expect to see this artical back at AFD within 12 months >:) Darkcraft 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised you are not an Administrator, and only editors in good standing can close discussions that either end in a 'delete' or have an unambiguous resolve between other users (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions) sorry nothing personal, but we need an admin here.Darkcraft 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it was very late at night when I wrote that, I assumed he was closing this debate. I am silly.Darkcraft 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do we cite them, per say? Since none of us read the language the newspaper is in, there's no possible information we can get from it. Multiple non-trivial published works. One newspaper and one magazine. If you're going to say two is not multiple I'm afraid I will have to throw a dictionary at you. If your problem is that the magazine has not been verified yet, I would have to suggest you wait on the Deletes until it is proven that the claim is false. Also, no one has used the Pokemon Defense, the only thing I can see that you could have mistaken for it is Chugworth Acadamy. He is simply stating that by the very guidelines you are condemning this article that Chugworth Acadamy has no right to exist.

The entire reason for deletion posted by Guy has nothing to do with the notability guidelines.IndecisionV 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Again, if you can provide a clean scan, or transcript, I know people who can read German, and would be happy to help out. Until then, we cannot determine the nature of the publication, and so the evidence cannot qualify under WP:NOTE. With respect to the magazine, we have no verifiable evidence that the story exists, let alone whether or not it is relevant. Claiming this article as a source is contradictory to every WP:NOTE stands for. I have addressed the Chugworth issue, but would state in any case that it is irrelevant to the issue at hand - even if Chugworth failed under WP:NOTE, which it does not, that would not mean we allow other articles to remain if they fail as well. --Haemo 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE is not set in stone, as it says itself. I believe I have enough evidence of notability to prevent this artical from being deleted at this time. Where in WP:NOTE, does it say, even though we have evidence of an existance in a national publication and website, that our inability to read it at this time means that it can't be used as evidence, and is "contradictory to every(thing) WP:NOTE stands for." Ok let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that this entire newspaper artical is saying how terrible this webcomic is and that it is really bad. So what? It was still in a national independant publication, which works under WP:NOTE.Darkcraft 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, please read the standards under WP:NOTE. In order for an article to qualify it must have multiple, non-trivial, publications in which it is the main subject of discussion. Because we cannot read the article, we have no evidence that this is the case - all we know is that a newspaper used a single cell of the comic in a publication. We have no idea what the context is, or if it qualifies under the requirements in WP:NOTE - therefore, we cannot admit it as evidence of notability. Again, although WP:NOTE is not set in stone, it has reached one of the highest levels of consensus possible, next to official policy, and unless there is a compelling reason to consider an exception, it should not be ignored. In fact, the section you are opting to be overlooked is the very core of WP:NOTE, which is derived from WP:NOT, which is official policy on the site. Either you are arguing one of two things - that your site does not qualify under WP:NOTE, but that doesn't matter, because WP:NOT should be disregarded, or that your sources do qualify under WP:NOTE. I would object to the first argument in the strongest possible to terms, and believe that I have shown that the second argument is incorrect by the policies outlined in WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (web). If you wish to take issue with the standards under WP:NOTE or Wikipedia:Notability (web) then I suggest you bring it up on their discussion pages, and argue that webcomics should be prevented more leeway than is currently perscribed. Once you get that changed agreed to, then you can re-create the page, if it is deleted. A deletion argument is the wrong place to begin arguing that the WP:NOTE standards are misapplied or incorrect. --Haemo 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
"What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc."
Whatever the context, his artwork has been featured in a national newspaper. There we go, source number 1.
It has been featured several times on this site: http://www.nma-fallout.com/archive.php?year=2006&month=06 (Which classifies as a non-trivial and independant, in my opinion) Source number 2.
It is/ has been linked to from many other webcomics that are notable enough to be in Wikipedia (most notably the VG Cats home page, which is, surprise surprise, an independant, notable website.) Source number 3
It was featured in a Polish magazine, but I have no evidence of this. I would not lie or make something up just so that an artical can get into Wikipedia, so I do hope that you do not entirely disregard that evidence, and that the closing admin keeps that in mind.
It's Alexa ranking and amount of visitors reflects the ammount of traffic it gets. Both are monitored by an independant 3rd party, and so I believe should be taken into account by the closing admin, despite their not being included in the guidlines.
The webcomic is going into print. It is not in print yet, but the author has expressed that he will, and the publishers website mentions the webcomic. This should be taken into account.
Prints of images based on the comic are available, and are printed by a 3rd party.
It is coming 22nd on the Buzzcomix list, which is one of the most notable webcomic lists.
Clearly this webcomic is notable.Darkcraft 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, again. Let's go through your assertions point by point:
  • The newspaper article does not meet standards and thus does not qualify under WP:NOTE. We have no way of ascertaining the nature of the article in question - simply being mentioned, or included, in an article does not meet standards. It must be the object of the article in question. We have no idea whether or not that is the case here. This does not qualify.
  • The given mention in NMA does not qualify - a two-sentence news post does not meet standards under WP:NOTE. None of the other mentions I can find on that site are any longer. This does not meet standards, and does not qualify.
  • Alexa rankings, Buzzcomix, cross-links by VGCats, etc. None of these qualify under WP:NOTE, as I have repeatedly explained to you, and am not exactly keen to explain once again. They do not qualify.
  • The Polish magazine does not qualify, since we have no idea about it, as we have not been given a name, date, or any other documentation of existence. This does not quality.
  • A promise to be going into print in the near future does not qualify under WP:NOTE. Future notability does not translate into current notability. If the publishing deal goes through, then it meets standards. Not before. This does not qualify.
  • Let me say this again, to be very clear - none of your sources qualify the article for notability under WP:NOTE. At this point, I sound like a broken record, but I strongly urge you to read the standards expressed therein, and to understand why this article does not meet notability standards. --Haemo 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all the guidlines, and I have determined that this artical is notable according to those guidlines. The guidlines themselves say to use common sense, and common sense tells me to include Alexa/siteviews as evidence. I don't understand how being mentioned by several webcomics, at least one notable one, does not qualify under WP:NOTE. I have expressed my views multiple times and I stand by them. This debate is going in circles. Unless you or someone else has any new evidence or whatever to bring up in this debate, I think it is time we had an admin close this. We have both explained how we have drawn our respective conclusions, and we both disagree with eachother, so I see no point in continuing this. As I said before, I will now sit and wait for an admin to close this, unless someone has more to add.Darkcraft 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh one thing I didn't point out is my reasoning behind the webcomics being sources. Here is an extract from WP:NOTE:
"What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms"
VG Cats is an independant, published, notable work, so therefore it should be acceptable under WP:NOTE.Darkcraft 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's really no reason to request a close on this - it expires in a couple of days, at which time an admin will make a descision. You are misreading the guidelines under WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Alexa/siteviews do not fall under the purview of those sections, in the same way that Ghits do not. Look at the criteria for inclusion. Nowhere are this mentioned in it - thus, it does not qualify for inclusion. It really cannot be anymore singlular. There have been no Verifiable sources which meet standards under WP:NOTE presented, and thus this article does not meet standard. Again, a link from VGCats does not count. Two sentences of "check out this comic" do not count. The webcomic community routinely engages in this kind of tit-for-tat recognition, and it does not qualify as a non-trivial published works. You seem to believe that because a source is notable, everything they write is qualifiable for inclusion under WP:NOTE. This is not the case - if the New York Times wrote an article about webcomics, and included Gone with the Blastwave in a list in that article it would notqualify - it doesn't matter that the New York Times is one of the most reputable and notable newspapers in the world. It still does not meet standards. In order to qualify under WP:NOTE a source must meet every word of has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself - not some of them, and certainly not just the parts that apply to the particular purported source under consideration. Again, you seem to harbour grave misunderstandings about WP:NOTE, and I strongly urge you to re-read the guidelines therein. You are attempting to retain an article based on notability, without having any sources or references which conform to standards. I find this unacceptable - it is nothing against the comic (I very much enjoyed reading it) - but rather a belief in the guidelines which help improve Wikipedia. --Haemo 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not request that an admin closes this, I said that I am content to wait for an admin to close this, because neither of us are bringing anything new to this debate. Gone With The Blastwave is mentioned 4 times on that page, but due to that sites lack of a search feature, I can't find anymore references to it from that site. These mentions are small, but together they must count for something. Sorry I will continue my rebutal later, I have to go now.Darkcraft 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Continuing from above) Yes, I know that Alexa and siteviews do not fall under WP:NOTE. WP:NOTE says editors should use common sense, and my common sense is telling me that it's Alexa rank is high enough for it to have some weight as to the deletion of this artical, and so do it's site views (having an Alexa rank of below 100,000 is a proposed addition to the WP:WEB guidlines anyway). I don't understand why you choose to follow these guidlines to the letter, when really they are just guidlines, and they themselves ask editors to use common sense. You didn't explain why being featured on VG Cats doesn't count under WP:NOTE. My interpretation of WP:NOTE is that it does. Gone With The Blastwave has been linked to by several webcomics, and even if somehow none of them fit under WP:NOTE, it should still hold some weight.
WP:V is irrelevent unless we are sourcing material from the newspaper into the artical. Surely you will agree with me about that. The newspaper artical/image fit in under WP:NOTE because, and I will repeat this as many times as I have to, whatever the context, artwork from the webcomic was featured in a national, independant newspaper. Your analogy about it being featured as a list in The New York Times makes little sense, if this image and artical were featured in The New York Times, I would still believe that it fit in under WP:NOTE.Darkcraft 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it is violating WP:OR. Most of this information can be found on the website, and the deductions about the greens were confirmed by the author. Considering this is a very new artical with few contributers so far, I think it is doing fairly well.Darkcraft 11:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article needs to freshen up. The easiest thing to do would be to reimport the olsd article from Comixpedia and bring it up to date, rather than fixing the current one (which seems a little bit amateurish - no offense). Send an email to that swiss paper about a screen on behalf of wikipedia - it might get fixed, and we can have the screen on Commons. Basically, the newspaper article is a short review of the webcomic, describing what it is about, mentioning the creator and so on. Together with the fact that the comic is going into print, and that it has throned the webcomic rankings, I believe that it is notable enough to have it's own article here. But as I mentioned earlier - the article has to be freshened up. Brainman 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I found the blogpost that led to the printing in the Swiss newspaper: [1]. In the comments there is also a rough translation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wow you found a translation? You are my hero! I agree, this artical is substandard, but I don't believe the Comixpedia artical is suitable in it's entirity for use on Wikipedia, but if other people think otherwise, then I don't mind replacing this artical with the Comixpedia one(I didn't write most of the Wiki one anyway).Darkcraft 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Excellent work, Brainman! With this translation, we can see that this source probably does qualify under WP:NOTE. As a result, I would change my !vote to Weak delete - we really only have one source, and WP:NOTE requires several, but the addition of only one, or two, other non-trivial sources could bring this article up to standards. However, I agree with the sentiment that the article needs a clean-up, regardless of the outcome. Again, though, I would point out that Alexa ranking, etc, and promises of future publication do not meet standards under WP:NOTE. I would suggest, though, that even if this article is deleted, that someone retains a copy of it, and continues improving it locally, so that if and when it is published, it can be restored. --Haemo 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason at all under WP:NOTE for it to matter whether it were in print or not, yet clearly we all agree that if it were in print, it would affect it's notability. This is an example of using common sense when it comes to use of those guidlines. The artist was approached by the publisher who asked him whether he wanted it to be printed, so clearly both the publisher and artist want this webcomic to be printed. If there is a promise that this webcomic will be put in print in the near future, then why should we disregard this? especially seeing as being in print doesn't meet the WP:NOTE standards anyway.Darkcraft 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, you are misreading the standards under WP:NOTE. Not only is publication a sure-fire way for there to be multiple non-trivial articles written about it, and thus is a good "rule of thumb" for such content - it also does, however, also meet standards. Quoting from the web section, The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators. This would qualify as such. --Haemo 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators." I interpret that to mean distributed by an independant source, such as it being published as a weekly comic in a newspaper. Being put to print as a book of comics is not independant of the author, however if it were publised weekly in a well-known newspaper, then it would be published through a "well known and independant source". I understand that being put to print would be a rule of thumb, but being put to print itself, unless I am mistaken, does not meet the WP:NOTE guidlines.Darkcraft 07:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm afraid that interpretation makes no coherent sense. The creator of a work, like a webcomic, will invariably be involved with the publication of his works to the degree you have outlined - it is illegal, in most jurisdictions, not to be, since he retains copyright on it. What the guidelines are actually stating is that the medium of distribution is independent of the creator of the content - for instance, a previously established publisher, or magazine. It is designed to exclude self-publication - that is, when a creator also publishes or distributes his work - being printed by a publisher who is independent of the author, and not a self-publication house, counts. --Haemo 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are most likely right, but still I am not convinced that your interpretation is correct. I could draw up some artwork, run off to a publisher, offer them money, and have my work published. It is not independant because they are just taking money from the artist, and turning it into printed images. However a newspaper will have certain standards. A newspaper is independant of the artist, but a publisher is not. Maybe my interpretation is incorrect, but that section from WP:WEB you have quoted is fairly vague. What does it mean by medium? A medium as in print, radio, or television, or a medium as in a specific newspaper, specific radio station, or specific tv channel. (I don't think I am explaining my self very well.) How would you define one medium 'well known'? "Print is a well-known medium, but radio is not." Or is it more like "NBC is a well known medium through which it could be published, however Fox is not." My interpretation is that by 'medium', it means, in this case, a specific form of print. A well known, specific kind of print would be the New York Times, however spending your own money to put your own material to print would not be because the medium is not well known. Sorry if this is a bit confusing.
Anyway this artical is going into print fairly soon. If the closing admin did decide to delete this, someone would probably remake it as soon as it went to print, and then it would go through this whole AFD process again, and then still could be deleted. Ask yourself "If it were in print right now, would I still be voting delete?" If you answered no, then I think you should rethink your stance on whether or not this artical should be deleted. This webcomic is going to print. The chances of one of the two suddenly backing out of the deal is very unlikely, so I treat this webcomic as though it is already in print.Darkcraft 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the thing is, a publisher has to approve you for publication; I mentioned that pay-for-print houses are not considered independent of the creator - as the medium is produced at the behest of the creator. However, agreements wherein the publisher and the creator split the payment do qualify, since the medium is independent of the creator. The section is intentionally vague - it is meant to be broadly applicable to all kinds of media, without restriction. However, there are generally specific sections for certain media - radio can be notable, but being aired, say, once a week in small-town Texas radio is probably not. The same is true for other media. Nonetheless, we are still discussing a future event, and notability does not inherit from the future. When it's published, it will probably be notable, as per the guidelines - when, not a "promise" or "very sure thing". --Haemo 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I accept that. Though I stand by my argument for the inclusion of this artical in Wikipedia. We have short articals at www.nma-fallout.com that have been verified, and images from the comic are in print right now: http://www.deviantart.com/print/378534/
I have mentioned other reasons for it's inclusion above. Even if these other arguments do not meet WP:NOTE, seeing as there are so many references to the webcomic, these references should be collectively taken into account in the final decision making process.Darkcraft 11:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, the articles on NMA are too short to constitute non-trivial publications. The fact that there are lots of them does not make them notable as a group - a bunch of things which individually do not meet standards under WP:NOTE does not meet standards under WP:NOTE as a group. This, really, seems to be the heart of your argument - that, though you admit that each source does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, you argue that a group of them does. This is contradictory to what is outlined under WP:NOTE, and I cannot support inclusion of an article on this basis. Furthermore, Deviant is specifically designed not be independant of the creator - it is like saying that because I got my art printed by CafePress, it has been "published". That is contradictory to standards. I too stand by my argument that this article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE and thus should not be included in the encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gone_with_the_Blastwave&oldid=99662394"