Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava's Demon

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 Userfy. Article is now at User:Sandstein/Ava's Demon Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ava's Demon

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

I came across this via the webcomic list and a look shows that while this is a beautiful webcomic done by someone that's obviously very, very talented, this is just WP:TOOSOON for an article. The webcomic hasn't received any actual in-depth coverage except for one review by i09 and we need far more than one review to pass notability guidelines. There are a few trivial mentions and some non-usable sources, but by large this series just hasn't really been out long enough to gain any coverage. It might in the future, but we can't keep articles based on the idea that they might one day become notable. (WP:CRYSTAL) For every one webcomic that gains enough coverage to get an article, there are at least 20 others that are just as good that never get to that point. It fails WP:WEB pretty solidly. Speedy declined because of the single review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as creator, else userfy. Per WP:GNG, "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." In this case, I submit that the one existing reliable source narrowly suffices to write a reasonably comprehensive and verifiable stub article, which is the point of the notability guideline. Sandstein 20:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to showing notability, one source is almost always never enough to keep an article. The only times one source is enough is when the source is asserting something that's so overwhelmingly notable (such as winning an Eisner) that it'd be kept on that basis alone. The problem with only having one source is that we have no way of knowing if it'd ever gain more coverage. You could argue that one review is enough, but then most things up for AfD have at least one source. By that rationale over 90% of the things up for AfD would have to be kept. There's a reason that the notability guidelines in general have become more and more strict over time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, You said it perfectly. Unless this becomes notable, I see no reason to keep it.Coteup (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Coteup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Userfy as requested by creator the article. There is insufficient coverage at this point to establish notability, but there is reasonable grounds to believe it may be notable in the future given one substantial reliable source exists and the kickstarter success may allow for publication. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being userfied. It's just not notable enough for the mainspace, is all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danny_Choo_%282nd_nomination%29 where it was held that one story on CNN is not to establish notability. Kristalyamaki (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 2 August 2013 (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.