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 complex.

This article and the issue of syndication as distribution has been the nexus of a tremendous amount of discussion:

Deletion discussions: Nominations 1 2 3 4 Review 1
A&B in guideline creation discussions: 1 2 2a 3
Arbitration resulting from previous deletion discussions: 1
Syndication discussion: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Following these lengthy discussion, and noting that guidelines and policies are descriptive not proscriptive, it's not unreasonable to view this deletion discussion as a referendum on the question "Does syndication satisfy the content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators criterion of the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guideline?"

Clearly the consensus is that it does not. Some suggestions exist for merging or redirecting to its syndicate,Dayfree Press but these are not supported by consensus. Delete.

brenneman 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker (5th nomination)

[edit]
Able and Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If you ever wondered how GNAA got up to 18 AfD's, here's how. The 4th nomination was speedily kept by a participating admin, but the decision was overturned at deletion review where a new nomination was asked for. So we're now up to #5. Oh, the article is about a webcomic and this is a procedural nomination, so I have no opinion other than that this should run its allocated 5 days, or otherwise it'll end up at DRV again. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow policy. Just because people want to keep one page for bad reasons does not mean that we should keep another one. You should point that out of the AFD for the page in question and you could consider appealing to deleteion review if you think the page was kept againts Wikipedia policies. In case you are wondering DRV can also be used to contest keep decisions. To rilteate we should not be following WP:ILIKEIT or we are going to have AFD 6 any time now. --70.48.110.117 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly systemic bias. Though as I pointed out in the Merge "vote" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road, lage, active fandoms like Tolkien actually produce third-party published works covering the minutia of their worlds so that alot of Tolkien-cruft meets the primary notability criterion by being covered in multiple independent works. Eluchil404 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blahedits 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so many people keep recreating, it could also be a clue as to notability, of course :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Then try unprotecting the GNAA article: it must be notable, since people keep recreating it, right? :-) bogdan 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the GNAA they were actively working to subvert wikipedia. I don't think the same can be said of Able and Baker (what with them being fictional creatures and all :-P ) Kim Bruning 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phil: I've seen several people ask you to insert some claim of notability into the article itself. It might be a good idea to provide that data in the article itself. Could you quickly do so? Thank you! :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done for ages, though I've clarified it in the article. The problem isn't that the article doesn't assert notability - it's that people with no knowledge of the larger subject (webcomics) are making judgments of notability, and people are treating this as a democracy in that "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch" sort of way. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the problem is more that the article has no reliable sources. -Amarkov blahedits 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that the definition of reliable sources being applied to articles like this is useless, and has nothing to do with reliability. The sources being used for this article would be considered reliable for any reputable study of the subject. They are what would be used for scholarship and journalism about the subject. But this whole debate has nothing to do with reliability, and everything to do with using the word "reliable" to mean "notable," which is misleading and wrong. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find any kind of claim to notability or any references in the current revision of the article. Perhaps they have been lost during previous edits? Could you (re-)state them? --Kim Bruning 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wait, you made an edit just now. Hmm, I'm still not entirely sure how that makes the comic notable. Would you care to explain? Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Have a look now and see if that helps. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a statement of notability now. Kim Bruning 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm feeling a lot of "process process process" vibes right now:
Discussion with the previous closing admin? What's that?
Go talk with him! He might actually provide some kind of reasoning!
This article has previously been fine since 2005 and has had many contributions from many contributors. Perhaps it could be improved somehow? --Kim Bruning 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it has no Reliable Sources, it can't be improved. And getting many edits is not a proof of notability: see Gay Nigger Association of America, which had 2722 edits. bogdan 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I've asked Phil Sandifer (who is apparently a subject matter expert) to find some. If he knows his stuff, it shouldn't be too hard to do :-) . As to GNAA, isn't that what I said? :-P It got kept for bureaucratic and/or conflict prevention reasons for quite a while, until someone just deleted it per IAR. --Kim Bruning 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions made after additional information about notability 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(move your statement here if you have indeed reviewed the article)

When an article is up for deletion, it would be unfair if people couldn't actully change the article to fix the problems as people mention them. It's an aspect of consensus. :-) Kim Bruning 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the claim to notability is still not yet obvious. Apparently people still require reliable source(s) to back up why this comic is notable. See the opinions of other people above for how this could be achieved. Also, a reasoning as to why it is reliable might also be welcome, as many wikipedians are not webcomics experts. Could you provide that? --Kim Bruning 17:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - basically, there are two types of webcomics. The first are independent ones - self-published, either hosted on the writer's own webspace or on a free webcomic host. These comics are sometimes notable - indeed, Penny Arcade, which would be a strong contender for "if we include only one webcomic, this must be it..." falls into this category. Then there's the second category - comics that have been picked up by one of what one might call the webcomic syndicates (Though syndicate is an odd term, since there's not always the sort of external publication that one gets from a newspaper syndicate). These syndicates are picked by editors who are respected figures in the webcomics community, and create a sort of brand identity of webcomics. Keenspot and the Modern Tales set are probably the two most important, but also on the list is Dayfree Press, which has some of the most important strips going on in webcomics - Questionable Content, Dinosaur Comics, and Girly. The editor of Dayfree Press, for example, was named one of the 25 big names in webcomics in 2004 by Comixpedia - one of the major places one goes if one is looking for information about the larger webcomics community. (Websnark and The Webcomics Review are the two other biggies at present.) Able and Baker is a member of Dayfree, and has thus been identified by an important figure in webcomics as an important webcomic, and has become part of a significant brand identity in the webcomics world. Ergo it is a notable topic in the coverage of webcomics. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is picked up by Dayfree Press, which is indeed a notable "syndicate". That does mean that it has been identified as an important webcomic. That does not mean that the particular webcomic is notable, or that the particular comic has reliable sources. -Amarkov blahedits 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the comic is a reliable primary source. The Dayfree website would also be a reliable primary source. I'm not sure I see the problem here. As for notability, that the comic was picked up by a notable syndicate ought, I should think, make it notable. It was, after all, judged significant by a notable figure in the field (the editor). Phil Sandifer 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... no. Every scientist Lloyd Cross collaborated with isn't notable, every game Nintendo published isn't notable, and every comic strip Dayfree Press picks up isn't notable. Notability must be established seperately for a seperate article. -Amarkov blahedits 18:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Academic collaboration is a stranger issue, since grad student/professor collaboration is very important in the sciences, which raises a special case. I would, however, imagine that every game published by Nintendo would pass AfD. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a secondary source which confirms Dayfree press does indeed host it? Can you provide a secondary source for any of the character descriptions in the comic? Can you even provide secondary sources about the author himself? --TrollHistorian 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that Dayfree isn't a reliable source on what it hosts? Phil Sandifer 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said secondary sources. The fact that none of the article has citations or references to anything but the author's site and the host's site is a serious issue. We need reliable secondary sources WP:RS, the only good a Dayfree link is for holding up the verifiability. --TrollHistorian 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Not knowing this area of publishing, I ask you seriously if you think everything published/distributed by Dayfree has been notable? everything? There must be very few publishing entitiies of any sort of whom this can be said.DGG 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above is a duplicate !vote reiterating comments made above)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article as it stands now is a perfect example of what happens with articles about non-notable fictional works; there's nothing but plot summary. Unless you can say something substantial about it, or cite some secondary source, there isn't a legitimate piece of article content to be had. The fact that it's published in a syndicate can be reflected in a list of comics published by that syndicate, and it doesn't really take more than one line there to give a decent summary of what it is. the rest is just getting into a level of detail unverifiable by secondary sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:06, 15 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.
More