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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned[edit]

Comment Please, when voting to keep this article, be sure to provide links to any wikipedia content you are personally associated with, it will save JerseyDevil valuable time searching for them to propose their deletion as well. - A Concerned Citizen
Good Lord, man. At most this article has to be modified, but certainly not deleted. A really simple search on the Net from the comfort of your own computer chair will show Concerned's high Alexa rating, and the print publications in which it's been featured. Not that the Alexa rating is all-telling in itself, but given the number of times I've seen it used as proof of a site's non-notability recently, I think it's worth mentioning. If you want to show notability, first say the article needs it, but don't assume it's non-notable simply because you haven't heard of it personally and the evidence isn't immediately apparent on the single page you're reading.
Can you please stop calling for an article's deletion before you've done basic research on it? Can anyone reading this with more Wikipedia experience than myself tell me if there's any way I can highlight this user's behavior on this front, as a warning to other AfDs in which he is involved?
Comment to future admin: due to the site's popularity, I fear an influx of just the sort of bad "keep" votes one usually gets for a popular website. I assure you this web site has been featured in worthy independent sources, which I (or others) will provide in short order. I just want to put this right up front so it doesn't get lost. --Spinn 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles referenced above are all print and therefore unlinkable (though I have physical copies and scans of all -- I still don't know the protocol for referencing print articles that don't otherwise exist on the internet). PCGamer UK - March '06 issue, 3/4 page article, Computer Gaming World -- January '06 Issue, 3/4 Page Article, PCZone - January '06 Issue, sidebar. Other possible reasons for considering Concerned notable -- it's the first and only, to my knowledge, Garry's Mod-created comic to reach and surpass 100 comics. Though, I imagine it's really a matter of opinion whether that is truly notable.--Notmydesk 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whups, sorry, forgot some details. The article in CGW included two three-panel Concerned comics made exclusively for the magazine, and included the first sixty comics on their coverdisc for the January issue. The coverdisc for the March Issue of PCGamer UK included the first 100 Concerned comics.
  • Comment Out of 5752 comics, I'd say that 258th is a respectable ranking, especially for a strip less than a year old. I can't find the methodology used to generate that list, though. Zompist 23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The measurement used by that site is a measurement of how many people click through to the comic in question via that particular web page. I don't think it has any more significance than those "Top 100 Sites" pages that people nominate themselves to and have a click war. At any rate, it's immaterial. The site clearly qualifies under criterion 1 of WP:WEB. Lore Sjoberg 00:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be right, on the other hand, we would benefit from having something more tangible. All in all, aside from the hlcomics forums, you'd be hard-pressed to find information on this comic. Read my last suggestion from my previous post and tell me why you think it doesn't make sense. Cdcon  00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the significance. Why would whether an article would be good for Comixpedia affect whether a site is notable? Penny Arcade would make a good subject for a Comixpedia article, as well, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry. Lore Sjoberg 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't. I made the suggestion so that it would be absolutely clear where I feel this article (which I had previously argued would be unsuitable for wikipedia) should eventually go. I appreciate you helping me try to understand the rationale behind a keep vote, but the question of notability still lingers.  Cdcon  00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site clearly qualifies under criterion 1 of WP:WEB. It has been mentioned non-trivially in more than one significant print publication. Lore Sjoberg 00:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which publication? And does it fall under the Trivial Coverage exception?  Cdcon  00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further up on this page, you can see the cites for at least two 3/4 page articles. 3/4 page is non-trivial Lore Sjoberg 00:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw that prior to writing the response. I'm not convinced that two 3/4 page articles and a sidebar are non-trivial. There is no language in the WP policy that is any more specific than that, so it really becomes a matter of personal interpretation of what triviality is. The argument has thus reached a moot point, and I stand by my vote.  Cdcon  00:40, 25 February 2006 (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