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 This article "slipped through the cracks" because it was not correctly listed until February 25 - hence delay in closing. That said there is no consensus to delete the main article nor any as far as I can determine to delete the two offshoot tag-alongs. --VS ^talk 09:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applegeeks[edit]

Applegeeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Almost everything is primary source. No reliable secondary sources cover it at all. There is NO serialization or publication outside of the web nor is there any serialization or publication on a busy/major website. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, Mohammad Haque and Ananth Panagariya should go too. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the main Applegeeks article. Serialization or publication outside the web or on another website is not the only criteria for notability. I'll do some searching for reliable third party sources, I'm sure they exist on some level. At any rate, what is your criteria for deletion; that they are not notable, or that no references exist in the current article? Because a lack of references should be a reason to clean it up, not delete it. Just things I found in ten minutes:

The Stanford Daily mentions Applegeeks here [1], as one of four webcomics that are popular and good starting places for the world of webcomics, noting that the artist is "known for his wonderful use of color and ink style in every single issue".

Applegeeks has been nominated for a number of WCCA awards, including Outstanding Character art 2006, Outstanding Use of Color 2006, Outstanding Web Design 2006 [2], and possibly more, I'm still researching.

The awards section appears to be unreferenced. And I'm not sure if "WCCA" counts under this guideline: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]" WhisperToMe (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) - In addition, I cannot find Applegeeks on the WCCA website. EDIT: Found it [3] - But I doubt that this is enough to make it notable - People may argue that the WCCA is not a famous/notable award. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then these "people" would be arguing with the New York Times and the Wikipedia consensus, which decided to keep the article on the awards after a lengthy AfD last year.[4] --Ig8887 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So references and assertions of notability can be added. This is a major webcomic with a long history, and it shouldn't be deleted because the article is poorly referenced at the moment. As for the artist and writer, those should not be lumped in with this; a comic can be notable without its creators being independently notable. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That article from the Stanford Daily gives a short description of Applegeeks, but it is not really about the comic. - In the meantime read: Wikipedia:Notability (web) - These are the notability guidelines of webcomics. In order to ensure this, you have to get "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." - Which means you need to find at least one more source like the Stanford one. As for the award not only is it unreferenced, but the organization may not be notable. EDIT: I searched the organization website and I cannot find any mention of AppleGeeks. EDIT 2: Found ref for AppleGeeks comic nomination [5] - But I do not believe that this is enough to make it notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I will not withdraw the nomination unless I see more reliable secondary sources and feel certain that AppleGeeks is notable. If you want to save Applegeeks, you need to find the references. Since AFD is not a vote, this page will likely be deleted due to the dearth of reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know exactly what is required here. I believe I said I was still looking for references, so if you could possibly hold off assuming that I don't know what I'm doing for the time being. Speculating on what is "likely" or not is not meaningful. Also, repeating over and over that you will not withdraw the nomination within the twenty minutes or so since I first responded isn't really helpful either. I get it, you won't withdraw it. I'm not asking you to. I intend to simply prove you incorrect by providing references, but that will TAKE TIME and there's no rush to close this within the next hour, is there? As far as whether the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are notable, their article is well-referenced to, among other places, the New York Times. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have plenty of time to look for refs - These discussions typically last for five days. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three website references: each one is a multiple-contributor, editorially-monitored website that has written a review or in-depth critique of Applegeeks; there are no blogs here. 1.) PopSyndicate [6], 2.) Modern Humor Authority [7], and 3.) Digital Strips [8]. When added to the Stanford Daily and the Plagiarism Today reference that was already in the article [9], that comes to five nontrivial reliable published works. And as an extra bonus, I give you another comics website (not a blog) that performed a survey of major webcomic traffic in May 2007[10]; Applegeeks comes in at #18 in Alexa ranking of the 300 biggest webcomics surveyed. This is one of the top 20 most widely-read webcomics in existence and has been covered by no less than five reliable websites, in addition to being nominated for a notable award. Therefore, I submit that it is without a doubt notable. (At this point, I actually consider my point made, but if I come up with any more references in the next five days, I will certainly add them here. I encourage others to do the same.) --Ig8887 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not really sure if Pop Syndicate is a Wikipedia:Reliable source - In particular see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

2. Modern Humor Authority and Plagiarism Today are blogs AND they are self-published. Also Broken Frontier seems to be self-published. Anyhow, I don't think 28,640 is good enough, AND Alexa ratings *may* be manipulated. Remember the information about self-published websites. This is not a policy or a guideline, but you may want to see this: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples - Also see this how to guide regarding search engine tests: Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa_ratings WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're inventing a definition of "self-published" that has no basis in reality. Those sites are not published by the people who make AppleGeeks, nor are the articles linked written by the person who publishes/manages/edits the website; therefore, in this context, they are NOT self-published and they are NOT blogs. As far as whether 28,640 is good enough, you may want to see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, I'm not sure if you're familiar with it. At any rate, there's no point in me wasting my time trying to convince you; I've laid my argument out for other editors to see, and until some of them weigh in, I won't bother responding further. --Ig8887 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant self-published by the people operating the websites. The people need to be shown as reliable sources. Generally newspapers, scholarly journals, government websites, etc. are considered notable third party subjects. Anyone can start a blog or a personal website and talk about Applegeeks. This isn't notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every website in the world is published by the people operating that website!! That's the definition of "published by" on the web! TIME.com is published by TIME, The New York Times website is operated by the New York Times, and Digital Strips is operated by the people who operate Digital Strips. How on earth can any website be operated by someone other than the people who operate it???? The proper interpretation of the term "self-published" is whether the WRITER is the same as the person who operates the website, which in these cases, it is not. If Bob starts a website about Topic X, then Jill submits an article for it that Bob chooses to publish, then Jill's article is not self-published, because Bob is exercising editorial control over his website. But you're right, I'm sure the dozens of writers and editors at Broken Frontiers started their website in 2002 and used it to cover the world of traditional print comics day in and day out JUST so they could forge an article about webcomic traffic in 2007. Right. Although bonus points for uttering something so absurd that I couldn't let it stand unchallenged. --Ig8887 (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TIME has professional journalism and exists in a magazine format. The others... don't. Ig8887, please re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly the section "Aspects of reliability." WhisperToMe (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we discussing whether or not they are self-published, or whether or not they are unreliable? The two words have different meanings, though self-published sources are often unreliable. You asserted that these are self-published sources, in error, then changed the subject to whether or not they were unreliable when I pointed out how they are not self-published. If you want to discuss how those websites are not reliable, feel free to do so, but do so without the erroneous charge that they are self-published. As in, prove that they are unreliable in some other way, because they are not, as the self-published guideline stipulates, "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings". They are sites with an editorial staff and multiple contributors, and such websites are permitted as reliable sources. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both, and we also have rules about self-published here: WP:SELFPUB - Some of the websites above were either self-published or unreliable. To be fair, self-published can be used as a source, but we use third-party, reliable sources when gauging notability. By self-published I meant some guy decided to create a website without journalist/academic fact checking. There is a difference between CNN.com and a guy's personal opinion website about Donkey Kong Xiang Jiao Chuan. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I hate to make an WP:IKNOWIT argument, but I've always gotten the impression that this is one of the more popular webcomics in existence. I have no doubt that notability can be established per WP:WEB, it looks like a completely surmountable problem. -Verdatum (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the argument is revealed in the details of the IKNOWIT section: "Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it would end up being original research." - Without enough verifiable sources saying "Applegeeks is popular" becomes Wikipedia:Original research - The way to save the article is to find more verifiable, reliable sources. For that matter, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Legend. - I found one reliable source that documented this, and it still wasn't enough to save the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • to quote the essay, "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions." hence the expansion of the thought. I completely agree, the article should be properly saved by providing quality references, but unless there is a signifigant doubt that any such sources exist, I don't believe the present lack of reliable sources is a sufficient reason to delete, just a reason to request sources. That's all. If concensus appears to move towards deletion I will happily take the time to bolster this argument with evidence or article improvement. -Verdatum (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried a Google News search and I found some articles talking about Applegeeks: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=Applegeeks&ie=UTF-8 - Newsweek, University of Alabama, and Anchorage Daily News - They mention Applegeeks but I do not know if this may be construed as trivial. Of them, Newsweek is the only one which may have it for free. I'll check and see. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Newsweek one is here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/46853 - But the article is not really about Applegeeks. It just mentions it once. For that matter the U of Alabama also only mentioned AppleGeeks briefly. I tried to use an article in a similar scenario for the AFD for Harry's World and that didn't work. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got additional information: Google Book Search tells me that T Campbell covers Applegeeks in his book, A History of Webcomics: The Golden Age: 1993-2005 from Antarctic Press. [11] Now, I have no idea as to how much coverage he gives, because I don't own the book, but it's a published reliable source. Even if one objects to every website I found, there are now two reliable published sources: Stanford Daily, and A History of Webcomics. That should satisfy WP:WEB right there. I leave it to someone else to incorporate these references into the article, both because I don't own the Campell book, and because I've never actually read Applegeeks and am not certain how best to write about it. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good idea to find out how much coverage it has - if the mention is trivial, it may not help. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite from secondary sources. More coverage in the above AFD than many webcomix every get. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly userfy to whoever may want to try to rewrite on this topic based on multiple, non-trivial reputable sources so that it meets our content policies. --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AfD is not cleanup. The current state of the article is salvagable, deleting the article deletes the history which gives valuable clues towards if the article was ever in a better state, and at what points unverifiable content was added. -Verdatum (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To be clear, I doubt multiple non-trivial reputable sources exist for this topic (I certainly can't find them through my library), so I don't think it can be cleaned up or salvaged into a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs sources to improve, but the above shows they can be found, so it's salvageable and should not be removed. Buspar (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:RS. By the way, this has apparently existed for more than 3 years, so any suggestion that it "just needs a little more time" or whatever is rubbish. If it hasn't improved in the past 1,095 days, chances are tomorrow won't be its day either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well traveled convention special guests appearing at Nekocon [12], Anime Boston[[13]], Otakon,[14] Katsucon[15], Anime USA[16], Genericon[17], PortConMaine, ConnectiCon, Anime Central, Kumoricon and others. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:42, 25 February 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.