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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drowtales[edit]

Drowtales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable webcomic/website. All sources are primary and everything outside of the lead is a plot dump. Previous AfD is from 2005 and most Keep votes centered on WP:other stuff Argento Surfer (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Sure Hmm, the best result I can find from google news is an offhand mention from ComicsAlliance, which I would consider a RS for this subject. The trouble is that it's not a direct mention or discussion of the webcomic, but rather talking about another webcomic that is "part of the Drowtales network", and talking about it in a way that simply implies that everyone knows about Drowtales, and implying that Drowtales is notable by saying that this other webcomic must be notable by association with Drowtales. That puts me in a tricky place... I normally require at least a review. I can't find a review, but a reliable source seems to be strongly implying that notability is established anyway. What to do? I'm not sure... I guess that's all I can say. I'm not sure. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There have been published books of the comic see here. - Also, there's plenty of reviews, if you look for them. 1 2 3 4 5. The product is not just a webcomic or published comic. It's a long running trans-medial world, including audio-books with voice actors, composed music and at least one video game. Google give me 62.500 results on a "Drowtales" search from my location. I dare say, there is around 100.000 articles on the enWiki with less notable works of fiction or culture than DrowTales... Anjoe (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of a physical copy doesn't convey notability. The reviews linked aren't from what I'd call reliable critics. Longevity doesn't convey notability. WP:other stuff is not a valid reason to keep. None of your points satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web) Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This nomination was a joke, right? Almafeta (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, and your comment has done nothing to change my mind. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a pretty straightforward delete. I've only been able to find one offhand mention of the website by a reliable source (as mentioned by Fieari above), so it's impossible to write anything about the website without just going into original research. Suggested sources by Anjoe above are all self-published (be they personal blogs, forum posts, or Youtube videos), meaning we can't meaningfully assign value to them, nor can we deem them reliable for facts. Unless there are print sources available that discuss this website, there is simply nothing to work with. The article doesn't meet general notability guidelines, and should therefore be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 07:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When I was first a wikipedian, a decade or so ago, community standards regarding webcomics and other internet things were that notability was a bit more subjective, and factors tended to include alexis rankings, community size, and google prominence. Fan pages and forums posts were counted towards notability criteria. These days, the community has shifted its standards towards the strict letter of the WP:GNG. Drowtales would clearly and obviously qualify as notable under the old community standards, but looks like it is on far more shaky grounds given contemporary community standards. I wonder whether the standards shift really makes for a better encyclopedia in all situations... would returning to a looser standard for popular internet things be helpful? I mean, notability is all about whether a wide/broad audience would be interested in learning more details about the subject. That said, strictly applying WP:GNG as we do now does make for better sourcing and referencing, so I see why we do it.

I'm not sure where I was going with this, but I think discussing our standards is useful to this particular conversation. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea that webcomics should be somekind of special exception at all. There is a variety of sources that occasionally discuss webcomics, and this one isn't discussed by a single one of them. The big issue is: the information on Wikipedia is a result of collecting information made available by reliable sources. Wikipedia generally doesn't do original research. If not a single reliable source discusses some topic, how could we as Wikipedia ever write anything about that topic? ~Mable (chat) 10:13, 29 June 2016 (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.