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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap I Drew On My Lunch Break[edit]

Crap I Drew On My Lunch Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Notwithstanding its name, Crap I drew on my lunch break is a neat web comic, also available in self-published print form. Unfortunately, being neat is not one of Wikipedia's major content inclusion guidelines. There is some information in the WP article which is not on Comixpedia, which might be transwikied, but the essential facts are already available on Comixpedia. So far as I can tell, the article does not, and could not, be supported by independent non-trivial reporting of the WP:N "notability is not subjective" type, and there's no way to verify the article beyond the trivial source that the cartoon itself represents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sourced. Nothing verifiable from which to construct an article. Trebor 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was the original author of this article; at the time of its creation it met the policy (or proposed policy) on the notability of webcomics, though I take it this policy has since been superseded by the stricter Wikipedia:Notability (web). The author of this webcomic will probably be aware of any third-party references to her work which would serve to establish notability and verifiability per Wikipedia's guidelines. The nominator (or another voter) may wish to contact her to ask about this. I regret that I'm unable to do so myself. —Psychonaut 05:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:LOL Jin Wicked 05:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hey, that is a neat comic! I may go back and read more of it. But it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:WEB requirements for notability, unless there are secondary sources that I can't find with Google. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:04, 25 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.