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 Merge to The Wotch. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:37Z

The Wotch: Cheer![edit]

The Wotch: Cheer! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable authorized but fanmade spinoff from webcomic, fails WP:WEB; The Wotch: Cheer! gets only 69 distinct Google hits[1], none of them indicating any notability. Adding the author name Tselsebar to the search, you drop to 21 distinct google hits[2]. Article was redirected to the main article as a courtesy, but redirect was contested and removed, so now it's up for AfD. Fram 06:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The comic is based on The Wotch, but is no simple fancomic. Art quality is better than in The Wotch, and the storyline is mostly independent (as much as two strips playing in the same location at the same time can be independent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs).
• Merge into Wotch main article (unless new secondary sources show up in this discussion), but give it more space than the unfinished game there. Ambi Valent 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are WP:ILIKEIT arguments. What about notability? Any independent reliable sources indicating notability per WP:WEB or WP:NOTE? Fram 10:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal opinion Ambi Valent, please base your comments on Wikipedia inclusion and deletion policies. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wotch: My Sister, Myself seems to be similar. Part Deux 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I noticed that article when debating this one, and thought it deserved an AfD as well. As it is different enough (one a comic, the other a game: one exists, the other is in development: ...), I thought it would be a bad idea to make this a mass nomination (something I normally don't oppose though). But the fact that they are both listed is not a mere coincidence of course. Fram 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:N on all levels. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. The article for the main comic doesn't say much about the spinoff except that it exists, so it seems to me that it'd be better to move the content into there and then get rid of what's unnecessary. (Incidentally, when I tried Googling "The Wotch: Cheer!" I got nearly 600 hits (see for yourself) - it seems to depend on which country's version of Google you use to do the search. And just entering the words "wotch", "cheer" and "tselsebar" gives over 10,000 results...) DGemmell 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, not a valid argument: WP:GOOGLEHITS. And, incidentally, 600 is extremely low for a webcomic; even 6,000 is pretty low for web material. Part Deux 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • There are 600 hits, but some 60 or 70 distinct hits (click on page 10 of your Google search and see how many results you get: add -wikipedia to exclude wikipedia and most of its mirrors, as these aren't reliable independent sources anyway). This does not depend on the version of Google, that is just a skin (except for some notorious cases like Google China perhaps), Google.be gives exactly the same results as Google.com. Anyway, the number of Googlehits, while a possible indicator for (lack of) notability, is not a reason for deletion in itself: the lack of reliable, non-trivial sources amongst those hits is a good reason though (except when people would be able to give good sources which do not appear in a Google search of course). You have the best chance of finding a good source when looking for the exact title, preferably with the author included (can you imagine a review of a book, comic, webcomic in a reliable source that doesn't mention both the name of the webcomic and the name (pseudonym) of the author? They should be rare...). Fram 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've pointed out before, Fram seems to use the lowest results count possible when invoking the Google test, which is typically quite questionable. Balancer 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That said, merge to The Wotch as a section. Balancer 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn webcomic. Google search turns up absolutely nothing of interest, which it should, if it's a webcomic. Part Deux 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This comic is currently number 26 in the TWC, has remained in that area for about a year or so now. Also has several cannonical and non-cannonical ties to The Wotch, and why is it that the Google test only works to prove non-notability, but not notability? Anyways, Redirecting this to The Wotch would just plain and simple be wrong, This may not be 'notable' enough to get its own article, but as Vikedal said, star trek TNG and star trek aren't the same, redirecting gives the wrong impression to somebody who doesn't know the subject. Merging will offer some clarity to fix that problem (I hope) Theturtlehermit 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I kindly ask what TWC is? Part Deux 15:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Top Web Comics (topwebcomics.com) Ranking system, a reader based ranking system to which Comics such as El Goonish Shive and The Wotch belong to as well as many others (1000's if not more, currently contacting them for fact checking). Theturtlehermit 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That might be worth noting. Is there any mainstream media coverage by any chance? Part Deux 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that I know of right now, I am contacting Tbar (the author) to see if he has any mainstream media, I doubt that there has been...but then again, EGS was writen up in a paper on geneology, so weirder things have happened. I should get better info on TWC in one to two business days, and on media of Cheer! in about a day or so depending on Tbar's schedule...Theturtlehermit 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I may be doing a wrong search here, but it looks like many notable webcomics are not even listed on TWC: Penny Arcade, PvP, Schlock Mercenary, 8-bit theatre, ... Doesn't this make the value of this topwebcomics a bit less than it appeared at first to be? It's not only a reader's poll (not a reliable source, but could be an indicator of popularity), but a poll among a section of all webcomics that excludes a lot of the most popular and best known ones... Fram 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This may be true, but just because Megatokyo isn't on Keenspot doesn't mean that it is any less notable. I believe, and once again, I do have outstanding requests for verification about this, that any webcomic can register freely for this list, which makes Cheer!'s constant possition in the upper to mid 20's even better. Accoriding to Tbar, when he first regestered for this it started out just about where it is now, for over a year and a half. Also, Tbar said he didn't have any mainsteam media writeups that he knew about. Which is why I have from the start said merge because this comic has enough notability to merit a paragraph or two, but not enough on whole to merit its own page, at least by current notability standards. Is that clearer? Theturtlehermit 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Clear! Fram 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question about "why is it that the Google test only works to prove non-notability, but not notability?" - going by the WP: GOOGLEHITS rule mentioned above, the low number of hits can't be used as an argument for deleting the article, either. (I wasn't aware of that rule, by the way - I just thought I should mention that I got a different result to Fram's. Thanks to Part Deux for informing me.) All the same, I'll try a few other search engines and see if I can find anything useful. DGemmell 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. 217.91.57.33 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete unless we can find some good proof of notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm glad to see that the deletion is being discussed. If Cheer! fails Wikipedia's rules, I will not object or think poorly upon such a deletion. I was, however, very disturbed by the initial redirect by Fram, as it rather effectively deleted the article without the burden of proof or input by the community; the "courtesy" that was mentioned. It is unfortunate that this AfD has been put forward by the same person who circumvented the due process, but that does not deny the potential validity of the claim. Now we will see what the proper consensus is.
  
  As the author, my opinions are not valid here; I have far too much invested. However, I would like to point out that Google does have very different results depending on the country of origin. It is not just a skin... I discovered and confirmed this fact a while ago when my page was linked first in Google under... a somewhat disturbing search string. I would also like to point out that the name of the comic is not and never has been "The Wotch: Cheer!" in its entirety. This was an error that has persisted to this day due to the images used in the webpage design. The name of the comic in question is simply "Cheer!" Hopefully this will help you more accurately determine the reach of this comic. I leave you to your deliberations. Tselsebar 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, that does remind me - on my webpage I get very different incoming traffic from different country "editions" of Google. And now I have to go check on the title "cheer." Great. Balancer 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google.be hits for Cheer Tselsebar: 37 distinct ones[3]. Google.com hits for Cheer Tselsebar: 36 distinct ones[4]. Please, could people check out for themselves what the results are of different searches before claiming that the low results are due to using google.be?
      • I don't believe that claim was ever made, at least not in the posts you're sub-commenting on. For my part, I was merely commenting on the mistaken belief that the different Google pages are only skins, and the results are identical, which is not the case. As editors of an encyclopedic site, I thought such information may be of value for this case and for others. Tselsebar 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Septate entity from the Wotch that should be kept. This is wikipedia help make the knowledge here better by editing not deleting! -- UKPhoenix79 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another WP:ILIKEIT vote, instead of pointing to any reliable sources to indicate notability. Fram 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, that's an essay, not a policy, second, UKphoenix is pointing out that they are seperate entities, not saying keepit because "I like it" or because "this is so great" etc. Theturtlehermit 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If by separate he means 'should not be merged', then all we can do is delete it. Keeping something only because it is a separate entity is not an argument. AS for the I like it: the second sentence of his or her keep opinion is nothing but I like it. But in the end, I don't really care about ILIKEIT, OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and other flawed keep arguments: as long as someone doesn't give arguments which counter the deletion reason(s) given in the nomination and possible additional deletion reasons given in othere delete opinions, then his or her opinion, while perhaps interesting, is of no value in determining the consensus as to whether any article meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. If editors don't agree with the standards, they should take it up on the talk page of said standards: until then, those are the guidelines and policies we have to follow, and any other !vote basically boils down to "we have to keep it because it is useful, it is popular, it does no harm, or I like it". Like the Wikipedia:Deletion policy (a policy, not an essay) says, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." "They are separate entities" is not a reason to keep an article based on any policy or guideline. It can be a good reason to oppose a merge, but I did not propose a merge but a delete. Fram 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, look all I was trying to say is that if you are going to discount anybody's votes, please do so for an appropriate reason, that said, I do feel that while these are seperate entities, they could be legitimately merged, (kinda like how Joanie loves Chachi could be merged with Happy Days) because while they are sperate they do stem from the same tide. (And incedentally Cheer! is doing better than Joanie loves Chachi ever did...) anyways, I'll let UKpheonix do anyfurther justification of his/her claim.Theturtlehermit 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I don't see anything compelling in the nominator's arguments regarding deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe inclusion of this webcomic in an independent listing of popular titles in the genre (i.e. named noteworthy by those who read webcomics, just as a movie is made noteable by the large percentage of moviegoers who buy tickets to see it, thus giving it a rank in the 'top ten') makes it notable. In addition, the deletion argument seems to rely exclusively on Google results, which are clearly stated as INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL.I exfoliate! 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — UncleNed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: I don't see anything compelling in the particpants' arguments regarding keeping. --Iamunknown 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent sources. -- Dragonfiend 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent sources to bear on notability. —ptk✰fgs 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with the Wotch. It's a spin-off, and though the art style is better than most spin-offs, its forums are located at the Wotch forums. No independent sources either. Wellmann 08:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To Wellman: Perhaps it should be mentioned that Cheer! is not the only webcomic to inhabit the same forum as the Wotch. There are at least 10 other webcomics that also use that same place for their webcomic forums. I felt that needed to be pointed out. Icechicken 12:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? That Cheer is actually less notable than it sounds? Wellmann 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps (and I am just playing Devil's Advocate here) it means that The Wotch is steadily becoming another Keenspot, and therefore association with it should be a point of noteability. Theturtlehermit 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's several orders of magnitude away from that. Anyway, to be anal, it's true enough that the forums in question seem to be a small hub. --Kizor 22:43, 25 February 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.