Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Pussy

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2007 April 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 DELETE. Herostratus 05:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Pussy

No notability established. Being nominated for an award does not satisfy WP:WEB Naconkantari 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any sources independent of the subject, so non-notable. Trebor 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Changing to keep per Barberio - it appears to satisfy WP:WEB now. Trebor 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ahh, changing to abstain (I'm nothing if not indecisive). I'll leave it to editors better able to judge in this particular field. Trebor 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bogdan 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Needs some editing, but it is a notable site. It gained a short-listed nomination for the 2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. It was also selected as a Keenspot primary comic strip, which satisfies "distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" from WP:WEB. --Barberio 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't satisfy WP:WEB so that's irrelevant. Does Keenspot count as well-known, as it seems fairly obscure to me? Trebor 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's pretty well known amongst comic fans, having published their own line of print comic books. (I even saw copies at my local comic book store) Being selected as one of their main webcomics makes it a notable website. --Barberio 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it ever came out in book form like the article said, then I can see maybe having an article on it, but until then it's not notable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per comments above and lack of any reliable sources to show any notability. Jayden54 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails pretty much all of our content policies and guidelines. WP:NOT an internet guide and this is all original research with no reliable sources, let alone enough sources to write from NPOV. We can't keep an article that fails all of our official content policies by trying to stretch the WP:WEB notability guideline. Notability is what we turn to to decide whether neutral, verifiable articles are on topics important enough to cover. It is not the backdoor to writing original research on "notable" topics. That said, I'll point out that consensus has been that sites like Keenspot do not automatically confer notability (see [1], [2], [3], [4], various other AFDs, PRODs and A7 CSDs). Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards nominations are similarly non-notable as about 125 of them are handed out every year. -- Dragonfiend 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 125 oscar nominations are handed out every year too. --Barberio 12:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a movie may require up to hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of people. Making a webcomic may require tens of dollars and one part-time person. I think you got the scale, right? bogdan 12:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home movies have gotten into the National Film Registry. Cost is not an indicator of notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per dragonfriend. Anomo 10:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability & of references. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Delete dragonfriend pretty much hit the nail on its head. Brendan Alcorn 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)~~ ← See checkuser request on this user. --Crossmr 23:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (negative): as Dragonfiend pointed out, WP:WEB is a red-herring, since the real issue is WP:Verifiability ... there are no WP:RS citations to establish WP:Notability in any category, just an External link to the subject's website ... this article gives vanispamcruftisement a Bad Name. --72.75.85.159 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a primary source cite for the nomination. It's selection for Keenspot syndication is an immediately obvious fact. Note, I'm not a fan of this comic. I think it's purile, badly drawn, and pretty crappy a comic. But it did have a readership, popularity and significance in the webcomic medium, as evidenced by it's award nomination. (Also, and I've no idea if it'll be taken as a sign of noteability or not, but Comixpedia referenced the comic in a number of it's news articles. [5]) --Barberio 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and cited Comixpedia, gives more weight to it's notability. (Or Infamy rather.) --Barberio 00:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shortlisted nomination and ran for four years as a selection of a major syndicate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:41, 5 January 2007 (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.