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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

The webcomic award this webcomic won is not a notable, independent award. Plus there are no other sources that describe this webcomic. If I or someone else find(s) discussion in reliable secondary sources, then I will withdraw this nomination. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One might presume that since the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is itself notable enough for an article, then an award given by them might then itself be notable. Its a pity that the author had not included additional sources toward notability, but was able to find other sources describing this webcomic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, what I see in that search link are not "other sources" that match Wikipedia:RS and Wikipedia:V - what I see are Wikipedia mirrors, comixpedia, and other non-RS links. Second, I was told that the webcomics award is not notable as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group#Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards - does this confer notability. User:Dragonfiend said on that page 'No, long-standing consensus has been that those awards are not "a well-known and independent award."' WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response ...but you asked for for discussions in reliable sources... and WP:RS requires that sources be considered in context with what is being sourced. You will not find an article on Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki in The Washington Post, nor will you find articles on Barrack Obama at the various webcomic sources offered. Some of the sources found are from those from experts in the genre whose opinions are respected, who are qualified to speak knowledgeably about the subject. Going through the search results, I found a review at Pesky Brain.com for example, that deals directly with the subject and qualifies "in context with what is being sourced"... just as might the review at Sequential Tart. And not using wiki-mirrors, there are additionl sources that might work for expansion at thewebcomiclist.com, comicalert.com, and crossovers.dragoneer.com. I was just trying to meet your concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Look, news organizations have published articles about notable webcomics (yes, that is a sign of notability) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources generally describes sources which could be seen as reliable. Now, let's look at what you stated. Peskybrain.com is a blog. As per Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources most blogs are not acceptable sources. ComicAlert is also problematic because it is a self-published website with reviews, added by third parties, that are not really screened. It just doesn't have authority or editorialism in it. If this was a website from a well-known writer about webcomics, then perhaps it would be proof of notability. As of right now there isn't any. Dragoneers is a blog/personal website, so we can't use that. ComicAlert and ComicList seem like clearinghouses for various webcomics but they do not analyze the webcomics, nor do they explain significance. To see what kinds of qualities notable sources need, see Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline WhisperToMe (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please show me one news organization published article from a genre expert on webcomics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wired Magazine had an article devoted to webcomics: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/07/68240 - this is one example. This discusses PVP and Comic Con and includes commentary from comics experts. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a new user coming over from the SGVY forums, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. However, I would mention the following:

1. Besides winning the WCCA in 2204, SGVY has been nominated twice more.
2. Dr Christopher Abram, lecturer in Medieval Scandinavian studies at University College London recently presented a paper at the Vikings in the 21st Century seminar series. The paper was entitled "Web Eddas: Technicolor Transformations of Nordic Myth" and, as this abstract shows, it cited SGVY as a modern interpretation of Nordic myths.
3. SGVY's writer/artist, Kittyhawk, has been a guest at Dragon Con for several years. She was one of the founding members of the EFF's webcomics panel there. As far as I know, Dragon Con is the SouthEast's largest science fiction convention. Though obviously both verifiable and mediated by experts, I'm not exactly sure if guest status at a major convention would imbue noteworthiness or serve as a secondary source.

--Darkmanfan (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment: BTW as for the paper, we need to have access to the paper itself. The abstract mentions it once. We need to gauge how significantly it was mentioned in the paper. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - won a notable award. WilyD 13:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The webcomic award is NOT considered to be a significant, independent award according to the webcomics wikiproject. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your knowledge of the viewpoint of the Webcomics Wikiproject is questionable because you only asked one member. Buspar (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - If it was ever questionable. It isn't now. User:Dragonfiend's comments need to be addressed in order for all of the keep indications to count. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that you're claiming to know the consensus of the webcomic project after talking to just one person. That's not a good way to assess it. It would be more accurate to say that you and Dragonfiend do not consider it significant. Those voting keep based on the WCCA win think differently. And as Michael pointed out below, consensus is mutable: if there's general agreement here that winning the WCCA satisfies WP:WEB by being a significant independent award, then that's how it becomes. Buspar (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Invalid rationale that asserts a total falsehood about the award won. It is indeed a notable award, and therefore the subject is notable. SashaNein (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The webcomic award is NOT considered to be a significant, independent award according to the webcomics wikiproject. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your knowledge of the viewpoint of the Webcomics Wikiproject is questionable because you only asked one member. Buspar (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - No, it is not questionable. It is valid because we base our views based on policy; please read Dragonfiend's post. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Policy says a comic needs to either have coverage or have won a significant award. I don't think anyone is questioning that. It's a matter of opinion of whether WCCA counts as a significant independent award. I say it is, as do several others. If most people say the WCCA counts, then the matter of opinion is settled and consensus says WP:WEB is satisfied. If more people agree with you and Dragonfiend, it goes the other way. That's what I was getting at. Buspar (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I demand to see proof of this consensus. As said before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination) says the exact opposite of your claims. I have asked Dragonfiend to provide PROOF of this 'long-standing consensus' that the WCCA is not notable, but he has chosen to outright ignore my request. I have provided an AFD discussion from 2007 that cites that the WCCA is indeed notable. Dragonfiend has provided nothing. SashaNein (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article does not meet our content policies nor our notability guidelines. Long-standing consensus which we are not going to override here is that, for example, per WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and per WP:WEB that a site may be notable if it has won a "well-known and independent" award. The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are not well-known by any sense. I've done an exhaustive search at my library -- the type of search that has improved and saved many a webcomic article from AfD -- and found nothing. Zero. Not a single reputable source in any of my library's databases even mentions this comic, let alone discusses it in any way that would help us write a useful encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Déja vu. I guess if you say the same thing over and over again, and the right audience just happens to go along, no one will question the opinions mixed in with policies. This whole AFD came about because you said that there was "Long-standing consensus" (a catchphrase?) that the WCCA is not a well-known and independent award. Please tell me where this 'consensus' was reached, because the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination) says the complete opposite. SashaNein (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are not well-known by any sense. Incorrect. They're well known enough to have acquired a number of secondary sources that justify notability on Wikipedia. This means the WCCA's are well-known by Wikipedia's own standards of inclusion (as consensus has already ruled in the 2nd AfD for WCCA), which means they satisfy WP:WEB. Buspar (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, we need to find multiple references. So far, we have one (The Kings Cross paper) - Also, using the article I found: "Silver Bullets has described the committee as "an independent organization dedicated to the promotion and recognition of online comics and their creators."[4] However, committee member Lewis Powell[5] has criticised the awards as being "horribly mismanaged, they are not well organized and they don't do what they are supposed to" and that "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them."[6]" - so the award itself can have its own wikipedia page, but a webcomic that wins this award is not suddenly notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous keeps. Seems pretty notable to me. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WCCA is a notable award (WP:WEB is passed), as proven by the 2nd AfD discussion which showed a consensus on that point. That's why the WCCA has its own article as well as subpages for each of the nominees and winners throughout the years. An admin ruling that the award is notable should not be overridden based solely on the vague allusion to a past discussion by a single editor. While we should assume good faith, we should also remember that how people interpret what conclusions are reached are subject to their personal bias and should therefore not be taken at face value (as WhisperToMe seems to have done here). With no details on the contents of those past discussions, the precedence of the 2nd WCCA AfD stands: the WCCA is a notable, independent award that satisfies WP:WEB for the webcomics that have been awarded one. WhisperToMe's assertion to the contrary should be discounted as being poorly supported. Buspar (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to add: while I think the article should be kept, it does need some serious work. Someone should go to Comixpedia and copy over the character and plot summaries, for starters. Buspar (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Buspar, please read Dragonfiend's comments. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be a lot of confusion where editors are throwing out some red herring about whether the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is a notable award. For purposes of this discussion we don't care whether it is a notable award. Notability is not inherited. We care, as WP:WEB sates, whether it is a "well known and independent" award. If a topic wins a well-known award, then many reputable sources will write about this. On the other hand, someone can win something like a No-Prize or Lord Florey Student Prize, but while such a Prize itself may meet Wikipedia:Notability, that does not mean every winner of such a prize will inherit this notability and can be covered in an encyclopedia. The same is true of these little known webcomics awards. In other words, find some reputable sources for this specific topic as per our content policies. Don't just have some sources for a related topic and hope they some how rub off on this one. --Dragonfiend (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In addition to the upcoming academic paper (abstract), Kittyhawk was interviewed by ComixTalk an on-line magazine concerning webcomics that (per WP:WEB) would seem to be both "respected and independent of the creators". The interview appeared in the interview section and not the blogs. So, it was not posted "without editorial oversight". If this indeed qualifies as a secondary source, WhisperToMe's nomination can be withdrawal. As I said: I'm a newbie, but I would think that in any case this needs to be addressed in order for all of the previous delete indications to count. --Darkmanfan (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see. We have one academic paper, and we have ComixTalk. In the abstract the title is mentioned once, so it is a trivial mention. Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline says '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"' - A source that mentions it once without really going into detail about it is trivial coverage. We need to see the paper itself to see if it is significant coverage. Aside from the paper, that leaves one source that discusses this in detail. We need multiple reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable. I shall keep looking! --Darkmanfan (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for bringing this matter to AfD, as we are now in the process of creating a new consensus that some other editor may themselves refer to in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The feminist comics site Girl Wonder interviewed Kittyhawk and discussed her work in one of their podcast. The webcomics newsite Coloring Dragons also has an interview. Kittyhawk will be a guest at the upcoming Momocon. --Darkmanfan (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Girl Wonder and Coloring Dragons have editorial oversight? One reason ComixTalk magazine counts as a good source is because its articles are reviewed and edited by those in charge. If those two have the same structure, they'd be good to add. Great work, by the way. You're clearly doing a truly exhaustive search. Buspar (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I know as a newb my opinion doesn't hold much sway (rightly so!). I'm trying to let the facts speak for themselves. I don't know about the other sections of Girl Wonder, but the podcast is not open to the public. It's always "those in charge": Hannah Dame, Kate Fizsimmons, and Kim Fourtner. They usually (as in this podcast) have a guest selected by those three. The interview from Coloring Dragons is labeled as a "Coloring Dragons Exclusive" and lacks a submission username, so one assumes it came from the editorial staff and was not an upmodded public submission. Both groups are "independent of the creators" of SGVY. --Darkmanfan (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did some more digging with Archive.org and Deletionpedia. It would appear that the original version of this article was nominated for deletion in 2003 on notability grounds. The consensus was keep. It should be noted that the main justification for the AfD was the site's perceived lack of popularity due to its (then) high Alexa ranking. Though Wikipedia no longer enforces any sort of "Alexa test", this comic would likely pass it anyway. Its current Alexa ranking is well below 200,000. Its traffic has more than doubled since the original consensus finding it to be notable. The article hung around for almost five years before it was AfD'd for a lack of third party sources. In light of all of this, I would think the prudent thing to do would be to steer the conversation away from the WCCA and notability. The comic was found by consensus to be notable in and of itself. Instead, I would argue that central issue is if there are enough third party sources to write a well founded and neutrally toned article. --Darkmanfan (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, 2003 was awhile ago (I became an admin back then). We did not have many of the policies and standards then that we did now. There are articles that survive previous AFDs that fail later ones because of stricter policies. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Can you point me towards which portions of the notability standard have been strengthened? Because my understanding was that in general they have been loosened (e.g. no Alexa test). --Darkmanfan (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) - 18 nominations before it was deleted. It was first listed in 2004, and it was deleted in 2006. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry if I was unclear. I'm sure there are many instances of multiply nominated articles eventually being deleted. I was asking what notability policy changes since 2003 you thought were relevant here. Thank you for brightening my day by bringing the GNAA to my attention however. :) --Darkmanfan (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In 2006 the current Wikipedia:Notability wasn't really established yet. This was three years after 2003! (See this revsision) - In 2004 Wikipedia:Notability was like this [1] - And prior to then there was Wikipedia:Importance [2] - And before that there was WP:WIWO [3] - I'm not even sure what there was back then in 2003. I'll have to look further, but it is clear that a lot has changed. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Really? Wow. Sorry about that. I completely withdrawal my claim the 2003 AfD could be interpreted as settling the issue of notability. However, I stand by my claim that my life has been enriched by my exposure to GNAA. --Darkmanfan (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sorry about the incomplete state of the article - I've had to work on it slowly. Thanks for the Comixpedia tip - I will take a look at it so I don't need to reinvent the wheel in my summaries. And thanks to Darkmanfan for finding those new sources - could you add them to the article? I haven't had much time to edit Wiki lately. The long notability arguments people have posted are largely over my head, though I agree with the people who say the WCCA's are important. I'm not sure I understand what Dragonfiend is getting at with notability inheritance. Inheritance makes me think of a parent-child relationship, like the subsection of an article split off to its own page. If an obscure movie gets an Oscar, it gets its own article, right? The Oscar makes it important because of the associated status. But the history of the Oscars isn't inherited by the movie. Or are movies that win an award considered subsections of the award itself? It's confusing to me the way he (she?) has written it. Sorry. Ancemy (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin Lots of new users here displaying unfamiliarity with wikipedia's content standards as well as users with long history of using multiple accounts for conflict of interest edits and to manipulate AfD results. We still do not have the type of reliable sources that our content policies call for. As far as this trivial award goes, it was eliminated by the awards chairman because in his words it was like "one of those 'participation' ribbons you used to get at school track meets or science fairs."[4] --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • Dragonfiend, did you even read the source you're throwing around? That source doesn't say the award was trivial; it said the awards would get trivial if they kept adding categories. It says nothing about how important or unimportant the award was at the time. Likewise, the chairman didn't say he eliminated the award because it was trivial; he said he eliminated it because a) it was unfair to other genres that weren't represented in the awards; and b) it was hard to define, given the number of cross-genre comics. The source in no way implies that the award this comic got was non-notable. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your comment somewhat disrespectful to new users since you seem to be implying we're either a) ignorant or b) deceitful. I was just pointing out you weren't stating your case clearly enough. And I think that quote was meant as a joke, since in the first question he says the purpose of the WCCA is "to celebrate and acknowledge the best and the brightest talents in the global webcomic community." He clearly means the awards to be taken seriously. Ancemy (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind elucidating a bit? You say there are "lots of new users here". By my count, only ten people have commented as of this comment: User:Ancemy,User:Darkmanfan,User:Buspar,User:Dragonfiend,User:Gene93k,User:MichaelQSchmidt,User:Mvuijlst,User:SashaNein,User:WhisperToMe,User:WilyD. Is that really an uncharacteristically large crowd for Wikipedia? The crowd also doesn't seem especially youthful. User:SashaNein's userpage was deleted, but of the remaining nine only two have userpages less than six months old and only four have userpages less than a year old. I'm not exactly sure what your position is. Are you saying that because more than two or three people are involved in this AfD process it is somehow invalid? Are you advocating biting the newbs or at least ignoring them? Why exactly do you think these points are relavent? Similiarily, my assumption of good faith means that I cannot take your charge of manipulation seriously unless you substantiate it with some sort of evidence (e.g. examples of identical IP's logging into the accounts). I'm sure you are familiar with the relevant policies, why then do you bring this up at all? Another point on which I'd like clarification: can you tell me why 1,2, and 3 aren't "the type of reliable sources that our content policies call for". They each provide substantial coverage from an independent non-public source in the relevant field. Am I missing something? Do I need to go ahead and add them to the article to have them addressed? Anything further you could offer would be helpful. --Darkmanfan (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that you have already added a reference to comixtalk to the article, so I assume you agree it to be a suitable reference. I'm busy at the moment, but I have started to add this reference to other pages as well. --Darkmanfan (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it wasn't clear from my bolded statement Comment to closing admin, my Comment was to the closing admin. My hope is that they can take into account things like the amazing coincidences that seem to surround User:Buspar and his many multiple accounts which have a habit of showing up and voting together on the same AfDs and making the same conflict of interest edits. I'm sure the closing admin is savy enough that they can contact me for more information. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A savvy closing admin will also see the part on your talk page where another admin said explicitly, "Let me add that the SSP case against Buspar was reviewed and there was no sock puppetry. Please don't venue shop that claim any more." So you've just been rather rude to two editors and harassed a third (me) by rehashing false accusations. The closing admin should note such behavior when they weigh which sides to consider. Buspar (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You greatly exaggerate your numbers. You claim there are 'lots' of new users, when I only see ONE. You claim there are "users" with a history of sockpuppetry, when there are ZERO. Now I can see where your 'long-standing consensus' that the WCCA is not a notable subject. Oh no, it didn't come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination), which says the complete opposite. It came from a consensus of ONE. Your attempts to derail this discussion with baseless accusations of sockpuppetry and notability consensus claims with zero proof provided whatsoever exhibits a colossal failure of assuming good faith. SashaNein (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The problem is the article, not the subject. The article's subject meets notability guidelines; it's the article itself that has failed to express that yet. That just means that the article needs to be cleaned up and expanded, not deleted. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Request WhisperToMe provides this link at the top of the page, regarding a consensus on the notability conferring abilities of the WCCA (or the lack thereof). However, it simply links to a page where she is told as much by Dragonfiend with no one else chiming in. I know that this AfD has recently steered towards an examination the sources attached to the article and away from notability, but I would still like to read the WCCA discussion. Can anyone help a brother out by providing the correct link? --Darkmanfan (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Here is the answer: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics/Archive_5#Award_sites - Dragonfiend said that the answer is that if gaining an award means that other sources write about the comic, then the award nomination is notable. I.E. winning the WCCA is not enough by itself; the comic also has to have reliable sources generated because of the award. Nobody said anything after that, so Dragonfiend's statements were not challenged. I'll see if I can find more. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the research, and for continuing to dig. This is enlightening, but I have to say that it still doesn't seem like the discussion Dragonfiend has been refering to (both in this AfD and elsewhere). In the link you provide, an editor asks if the WCCA confers notability. They receive two responses. One is from someone who references instances where it has been used to prove notability and one from Dragonfiend where she says: "If being nominated for or winning any award results in being the topic of multiple non-trivial reputable sources, than winning the award meets Wikipedia:Notability". I don't think this is the "long-standing consensus" to which Dragonfiend refers, because I don't think she would be intentionally misleading. Being the last to speak when others have spoken first in disagreement is hardly consensus. Two days ago Politizer said, "the article's subject meets notability guidelines". No one has since responded to him. Do we suddenly have a "long-standing consensus" that SGVY is a notable subject worthy of an article? Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think so. Again, I appreciate your research. It's times like this I wish Wikipedia had better ways for searching for content strictly about itself. Dragonfiend will probably give us the link when she comments again, in the meantime I'll keep looking as well. --Darkmanfan (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2008 (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.