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, sock or no sock. What a mess (both AfD and article), please proceed for cleanup for the latter. - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Goonish Shive[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose notability, influence, and appeal seems very limited. The article fails to adhere to our established policies of notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. Most of the mentions of and sources for this webcomic are coming from its own site, blogs, forums, chatrooms, personal sites, social sites, and other freely usable discussion media - none of which are notable or non-trivial, or convey importance in any way. The influence of the comic on media, culture, and society as a whole is very limited to nonexistant. Furthermore, the article reads like a fansite, and suggests that the unsourced and non-notable material was added as fancruft, and not by independent and disinterested editors. NetOracle 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make several academically convincing points, however I have to mention that El Goonish Shive is published in 2 books, and it has held a spot in or near the top 10 on the TopWebcomics list for many years. I'd say that merits keeping the article, though with some editing to make it less like, as you call it, "fancruft." As for "independent and disinterested" editors, who besides those who are interested in the subject would bother to write a wikipedia article about it in the first place? Coredumperror 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at those books, and even given the simple fact of print publication, I am still unconvinced as to notability. They appear to be sold by one web outfit, and lack distribution in established channels. From what I can gather, it basically amounts to limited-run publishing. Anybody with a few hundred dollars can have an on-demand publisher print their material, so I think we have to require that notability derived from print publication be limited to subjects whose printed matter is either backed by a major publishing house, or whose printed matter is distributed through a significant number of brick-and-mortar booksellers. As for the toplist [1], that hardly conveys notability. Toplists have been around for years, and anybody can basically get listed on one somewhere. I don't see many notable sites subscribing to them, either. NetOracle 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those books are not published by an on-demand publisher, however. They're published by Keenspot, which is a conventional publisher (ie, the books are returnable) that distributes to comic book stores and other bookstores worldwide. Just take a look at the wikipedia article. El Goonish Shive has been around for over five years now and so is one of the longer-lived Keenspot webcomics. This is hardly "yet another non-notable web comic", it's one of the more prominent ones. As for your complaints about the article's writing style, bear in mind that AfD is not cleanup. Work was just starting to be done on an overhaul of the article when this AfD was listed, see the article's talk page. Bryan Derksen 10:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Keenspot is definitely not a print-on-demand publisher. EGS is on Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble, and it has been sold by proper book stores in, for instance, my native Finland, on the other end of another continent. Please look before you leap, it makes things much easier for everyone. --Kizor 11:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (Schadenfreude toned down on the 19th)[reply]

El Goonish Shive has been around for over 5 years, and joined Keenspot over 3 years ago (Keenspot being rated "High importance" in the webcomic project assessment). The Alexa ratings, used by the top-level article "Webcomic", show elgoonishshive.com to have 1/3 of the reach of sluggy.com, with Sluggy Freelance being listed as among the most popular webcomics. If one assumes that different people use elgoonishshive.com and the alternate domain name egscomics.com, the number grows to half of the reach of sluggy.com. I would prefer the article getting tagged, not deleted. Ambi Valent 10:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one, thewebcomicslist.com ranks El Goonish Shive at #16 out of the 8376 webcomics it keeps track of. Bryan Derksen 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of ranking is methodologically meaningless. —xyzzy_n 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose ranking the popularity of webcomics, in that case? Do you have any sources of your own? Bryan Derksen 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose neither a necessity nor a method of ranking the popularity of webcomics. I have no related sources of my own. Nevertheless, all webcomic ranking sites of that I am aware are fundamentally flawed and cannot be used to substantiate any non-trivial claim. By the way, popularity is not an inclusion/exclusion criterion, as far as I know. —xyzzy_n 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many web comics are there for which you can you cite some independent non-trivial mentions? You might find one, maybe two. Even the most famous of web comics have few if any, and if that alone is grounds for deleting listings then there simply shouldn't be a webcomic assessment. Fdgfds 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent non-trivial mentions. - Francis Tyers · 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep El Goonish Shive is notable for several reasons. It has over 20,000 unique visitors daily and growing, it has inspired multiple people to start their own webcomics and / or start drawing again, it has resulted in some people addressing topics such as transformation and transgenderism that they might not have had the courage to touch otherwise, it is cited under Arbitrary Gender with a pictorial reference in "A History of WebComics" (a book by T Campbell published under Atlantic Press), it was a part of a Free Comic Book Day book last year and will be again this year, took part in a webcomic benefit for New Orleans, a character from the comic was featured prominently on a large two-booth sized banner that was up at the Comic-Con International ( http://www.comic-con.org/ ) in 2006 and will be there again in 2007, the author has spoken in a panel at Comic-Con for the past four years and is expected to again this year, the first book was available through amazon.com and sold out very quickly, and the first book is also now in its second print run meaning the first run has sold in its entirety. Danshive 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan, is that you? IIRC you're allowed to participate in AfD discussions, but you should certainly use first person mode when talking about what you've done. Fdgfds 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s Dan. —xyzzy_n 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current article is ~~garbage~~deletable, but per Dan’s comment can be improved. —xyzzy_n 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a regular reader of El Goonish Shive and many other web based comics I feel that the article as viewed is informative and well composed. Wikipedia may have it's own official document formatting policies but the extent that should extend is a rewrite. Tag it as in need of a rewrite. But don't delete an article based upon a one sided opinion of validity. You may not like the webcomic or have heard about it, but many of my co workers independently found it and I think that is meaning enough. --Maskawanian 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) — Maskawanian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Regarding the "single purpose account" tag, please do note the message a short distance below. Apparently Maskawanian had been a WikiGnome who only saw a reason to register for this discussion. --Kizor 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand why the deletion policy is so strict. I understand why it exists, there are literally thousands of webcomics that barely ran for a month and had no readers. But to extend that to a comic with many thousands of readers that's been going for years is absurd. More people read this comic than read many published books. Yes, it's on the internet, but why should that matter? Wikipedia itself doesn't get its entirety in a book in Barnes and Noble, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant to society. The fact that such a successful webcomic is being considered for deletion makes me think that the deletion rules need to be overhauled. This isn't a case that should be borderline at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.227.126.50 (talk • contribs).
Keep Published comic, popular comic, Keenspot comic. It's as notable as webcomics get, and I think this discussion is nothing more than an overzealous attempt at pruning. Fdgfds 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above comment. Rituro 15:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article reads fairly well, though lacking citation, and given the number of visitors, and the presence of distributed printed media, I think it passes the notability aspect.The Mysterious X 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem seems to be that, while Wikipedia has a clear list of why an article could be up for deletion, some of the criteria is subjective. Good arguments have been established for why the EGS article should be deleted, and why it should not. At the end of the day, though, what makes EGS less notable than Bob and George or VG Cats (both of which have articles, and both of which are not currently up for deletion)? True, Wikipedia shouldn't be inundated articles for every upstart webcomic that dies after a month, but perhaps if a comic is regularly updated for a defined period of time, with a defined number of unique hits, it should qualify as notable?15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)71.253.15.176mikeszekely
Keep There is no way deletion of this page can be justified as EGS is VERY notable in the webcomic world, and as stated earlier has many 'real world' notable moments. --Zikar 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frequent reader of the webcomic myself, which may present bias, I believe that the webcomic is notable for a number of different reasons. Existing for five years is definitely an accomplishment as far as webcomics go, being in print should count for something, and Danshive's reasons ring true to me as well. The article as it stands will need to be edited, because it does not read like an encyclopedic article, I agree. Perhaps some of El Goonish Shive's accomplishments as listed by Danshive should be included in the article. In any case, it is my opinion that what we are dealing with here is an incorrectly created article, not an insignificant article. Masterflux 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having existed, and been relatively continuously updated for more than five years, the comic meets one of the (harder to achieve) sufficient criteria for notability that have been put forward. It has also been published (and therefor has a large enough reader base to support a publishing effort). The reader base itself, as has been mentioned, is also very large. Finally, the content of almost any article based on a creative work be it a movie, comic, novel or anime is usually centered around describing said work. Not only should tone of content not be considered grounds for deletion, but to expect or demand anything different in this case is nothing but folly. :Finally, would it be possible for someone to format this thing correctly. If nothing else, the period for consideration of this article should be extended, as right now it is almost impossible to tell that it is even up for deletion, much less figure out where to comment. Could very easily have been nothing more than a typo when loading everything up, but it does cast doubts as to how well all viewpoints will be represented. (I think, though, that if a "keep" consensus is reached under these conditions where those most likely to support the article wouldn't be able to do so, that it would be reasonable to uphold the decision to keep the article.) Icelight 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope my opinions are not given reduced weight due to the fact that I just created this Wikipedia account. Most of my edits in the past have been gramatical corrections since I only add content to articles where have a significant amount of experiance. However for a voice of opinion I thought best I register so my username be on the edit (to have your opinions weighed less is slightly demotivating and insulting). Heres hoping for a fair weight of opinion. Dan Saul aka --Maskawanian 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As has been stated before, an AfD is not a tool to use to say "clean this up." Considering there has been talk about how to clean it up, deleting this article seems very premature. Furthermore, I must seriously question the original nominator's research into whether or not something is notable or trivial. Considering the user has only been a named part of Wikipedia for 8 days at the time of this comment, and has almost 200 contributions, the vast majority of which (at least 2/3, it seems to be closer to 3/4, however) are supporting or nominating an article for deletion, I have doubts as to how well the user has been able to actually "carefully consider" said articles as they have themselves claimed.

I acknowledge that there are times when an article may be so obvious to be garbage that one could nominate it with only a general look and search on Google, however, considering the sheer volume of the user's contributions to such articles, I cannot help but question if he is only a vandal and a griefer, who has taken an agenda again Webcomics for his own personal reasons. I cannot help but think that it would be near impossible to have carefully considered so many articles, when many of his contributions to their discussion pages are mere minutes apart. Furthermore, many of his comments on whether to delete or keep an article seem to be rehashes of the same paragraph, changing significantly only when it changes topics (for example, the shift between his contributions on porn stars and web comics), while any lateral shift in the same field generally reads very similar.

I also acknowledge that the user in question may very well have done their research before beginning their contributions to Wikipedia. However, I cannot help but doubt such a thing for reasons as stated above (that the user has apparently simply rehashed the same paragraph, changing on minor wording, while in similar categories, user lacks any real proof in case of web comics, often mentioning only the Alexa ranking, and even then only when the topic of the article has ranked relatively low on Alexa, furthermore, user has stated that they are biased "While I am no fan of webcomics and their lack of notability and worth in general" and I will also acknowledge that, following this quote, said user admitted they would be willing to vote in favor of the web comic's article if it were cleaned up. However, the bias of the user must still be questioned if they so willingly volunteer they feel webcomics are without merit.)

I am in favor of keeping this article, so long as it is cleaned up and made to be less based on fancruft. Considering that there were, indeed, talks on how to improve the article on the discussion page, I feel that the AfD was premature and done with bias and animosity towards a genre. Furthermore, if a user looking into whether an article fits for an AfD, one would think the article's discussion page would be one of the first places to look for information supporting or dismissing the need for an AfD. Had the discussion of the article been looked over, it would have been made quite obvious that this was a concern, and efforts to improve it were being discussed.

Again, I vote to Keep this article, so long as it does, indeed, improve itself. --Caejis 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is information that hasn't been added to the article yet, such as the Edutopia mention (found at http://www.edutopia.org/magazine/ed1article.php?id=Art_1605&issue=sep_06 ) and "A History of Webcomics." Also, it is in the process of being cleaned up, so this was unnecessary. --Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment.

Random section break 1[edit]

Comment As per the notability guidelines, I move to dismiss this AfD with a keep. The evidence supporting this is broken down by criteria points below:

1) I am not aware of any published articles about this webcomic, although there was a Keencast interview with it's author over the comic.

2) The author has been invited onto convention panels to discuss this comic.

3) The webcomic is a member of Keenspot, which is exactly in line with the requirements of this point.

Since only ONE requirement needs to be met, this comic meets the notability requirements. As such, non-notability is not a valid reason for deleting it. As the basis for this AfD was non-notability, QED this AfD is baseless.Fdgfds 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nonnotable comic, lacks multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources tp prove notability. Edison 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Edutopia (Published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, http://www.edutopia.org/ ) link provided a few posts above not good enough for notability? It specifically starts out referencing El Goonish Shive, one of its characters, and its popularity as a webcomic. Also, it is discussed in "A History of Webcomics" which is a published book. --Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment

Weak Delete, no sources with which to write anything even remotely resembling a decent, encyclopedic article (WP:WAF). References in places like this are nice but don't provide anything even remotely resembling relevant information. If it's not too much trouble; what, exactly, does The History of Webcomics say about EGS? Nifboy 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy of this to look it up in. Does anyone have a copy? 76.0.26.181 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment.[reply]

Strong Keep, but remove anything that most of us can agree is cruft. Popular, long-running and well-known comic hosted by Keenspot, the last of which in itself makes it meet the notability criteria (as Keenspot is both well-known and independent of the cartoonist); has been mentioned in published works and is, itself, available in print from a non-self-publishing source. As such, "non-notability" is an invalid reason for deletion. CameoAppearance ^orate 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasons listed by many that make El Goonish Shive notable. Other shortcomings should be handled with tagging and assessment in the WikiProject Webcomics —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This may not be notable in and of itself, but a small review of EGS was published in The Reflection, http://www.transgender.org/lntsss/news/2005-02.pdf , in February 2005, on page 4. This is a publication by the Lambda Nu Tau chapter of Tri-Ess, http://www.transgender.org/lntsss/ , which deals with Transgender issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.0.26.181 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, the above comment was by me. 76.0.26.181 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment.[reply]

Keep, although I'm probably not saying anything that hasn't already been said. By your policy's defenition, EGS is notable because "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." EGS is hosted by the Keenspot network. On a weaker point, The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. EGS is reliably in the higher rankings of TopWebComics.com comic ratings. Lastly (but unrelated), I'm a little annoyed at the policy itself. Not that there's much I can do, but anyone who is sufficiently subborn can simply sling the word "non-notable" and do nothing else. By not bothering to look, they won't find anything notable. ~ChroniclerC (no wiki account), Feb. 16, 2007, 12:18 (US Central time)
- CommentTopWebComics is a voting site, not an award. Measuring popularity should use better criteria. (Which have been named above, and met by EGS) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.91.57.33 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This is another link to be discussed, though it is most likely more tenuous for notability. Bisexuality Research Today (http://bisexuality.researchtoday.net/) briefly discusses the bisexuality of Ellen, one of the characters of El Goonish Shive, and also mentions the popularity of the comic. http://bisexuality.researchtoday.net/about-bisexuality.htm 76.0.26.181 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment[reply]
- (As mentioned elsewhere,) that’s a mirror of the Wikipedia article bisexuality. —xyzzy_n 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 2[edit]

Keep As this comic has been around for half a decade, party to one of the most respected webcomic syndicates in existence, has been published in book form twice, holds a perpetually high standard of writing and drawing, keeps a consistent update schedule, and has a zealously devoted fan base. Undoubtedly, good enough for Wikipedia. Jeremicus rex 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number of bolded "Keep" !votes on this page: 17. Number of "Keep" votes that present a valid reason for doing so: 0. (Hint: "I like it", "It's cool", "it's popular", "there's other stuff here" etc. are not valid reasons - see WP:ILIKEIT). Says it all. Chris cheese whine 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be mistaken; valid reasons have been provided. For example: It's up for deletion as non-notable, yet it clearly meets the requirements put forth for notable web content. You also seem to have miscounted the number of keep votes, but that's understandable since it's blatantly obvious that you haven't read a single comment. Perhaps you should read through WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as it seems to stand against you.

Of the three delete votes, two fall under "Arguments without Arguments" for being no more than a "Non-notable" accusation, and the remaining one cites an invalid reason - namely, the comment poster's inability to find sources.

Of the sixteen keep votes, zero cite their personal preferences as a reason. Although several cite popularity as notability, these are not in the majority. Only two comments meets the requirements WP:JUSTAVOTE. Although several reasons have been repeated, only one provided has been shown to be invalid and/or insufficient. If you wish to comment on the number of meaningless keep votes, then first you must actually present at least some semblance of an argument against the points provided.

I don't begrudge people their right to express their opinions or vote for delete, but dismissing arguments as invalid without providing a refutation is intellectually dishonest and improper behavior. Fdgfds 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being unable to find sources is a very valid argument. In fact, it is one of our core content policies, which are beyond the realm of consensus discussion. I suggest that it is you who is being intellectually dishonest here. I did read all the "keep" comments. Not one of them presents anything near to a valid argument. I challenge you to identify one of the above or below which is not only valid but also stands up to scrutiny. I would issue a rebuttal to all n of them, but I haven't the time, and to do so would only serve to disrupt this debate. Chris cheese whine 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't too good at this, are you? It's called "Burden of proof", and it's on the people who wish to prove notability, not those who do not. If somebody is voting to delete, then their claims they can't find anything are suspect. For all we know, they googled "Evil mimes invade Quebec" and found no sources to support the article's notability. The burden of proof is on those voting to keep to prove that it's notable, not on those voting to delete attempting to fraudulently "prove" a negative.

For positive proof, feel free to look at Keenspot's official list of the comics they publish at their website, http://keenspot.com/ . Being published by Keenspot grants it notability as per point three, period.

As for ad hominem attacks, that's an attack in the format of 'my opponent has quality X, therefore their arguments are invalid'. Take note of the fact that nothing I said attempts to discredit your non-arguments on the grounds of who you are, I simply demonstrated that they were invalid.

Further, you haven't refuted a single argument but instead have simply made vague and unproven allegations. If you want the article deleted, then it's your responsibility to discredit claims of notability. Demanding that you actually refute arguments you want to dismiss is not in violation of WP:POINT, while posting unsupported allegations and derailing the AfD discussion is. If you lack the time to contribute to this properly, then I suggest you not participate at all. Fdgfds 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have the burden of proof thing the wrong way around. The onus is on the keepers to provide evidence to support the argument that a given article belongs in Wikipedia, not the other way around as you suggest. Meeting point 3 of the guidelines is worthless, as all articles must meet the equivalent of point 1 (see WP:N), something which nobody has made any effort to prove yet. Chris cheese whine 10:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Have you read the "Keep" comments, or did you just count them? Numerous citations of publications in a variety of fields and meeting Wikipedia's own article requirements should qualify as rationale beyond "it's popular" -An accountless browser —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.92.4 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I know this isn't supposed to be a "vote" and I've already argued in favor of keeping this article above, but figured I should throw in a bold-faced keyword anyway just to be on the safe side. Check up near the top of the section for my reasoning. Bryan Derksen 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:N and WP:WEB, most conventionally in the clear case of the Edutopia and "History of Webcomics" references. Yet another notable webcomic nominated for deletion in bad faith or ignorance by NetOracle. Balancer 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to let it be known that I vote to keep this page, but I am holding off as I would like to point out that it is as a result of EGS that the webcomic KeenFans has come to be. It was created by fans of the comic to be a comic about the forums (and using some of the characters that Dan has created). Now that may not mean that much, but it is another comic (with it's own webpage, it's own characters, and using two artists) as a direct result of EGS. Squato 20:30, 17 February 2007
Keep: Published by Keenspot as per WP:WEB. If Keenspot does not count as an independent publisher, what does? Somercet 09:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just agreeing with the article meeting WP:N and WP:WEB. Although in the long run, outside sources wouldn't hurt the article any and would help its case, but AfD is not a tool to say "clean up the article". El Goonish Shive still meets notability through how it was published. JONJONAUG 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 3[edit]

Keep, meets notability guidelines. --Kuroki Mio 2006 14:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To both the above comments, it's no good saying "meets WP:N", because that in itself is meaningless. You need to explain why you think it meets it. We don't do proof by assertion (i.e. "it is because I said so") at AfD. Chris cheese whine 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the two don't appear to think we do. They - or at least jonjonaug - are asserting their agreement with the reasons given before. The likes of Kuroki's comment are quite common when the editor thinks that a case is clear enough. --Kizor 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As these things have for the last couple of weeks, the nomination is attracting fan attention. What is surprising is the politeness and reasonableness of their invovement so far (God knows it's easy to take nominations personally.) Off-site, the author is appealing for calm and forumgoers are banding to improve the article and its sourcing. I thank the fans for their courtesy and trust that my fellow editors will return it. --Kizor 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:WEB states as one of its guidelines The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Keenspot is an independent source as many others have said. Petrelg 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previous comments note, this article fulfills the third requirement of WP:WEB due to being published via Keenspot both online and in print. The article could use reworking to better fit the format, but that is not a vaild argument for deletion. Binarywraith 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Kizor said in his comment above, the fanbase itself has been extremely polite and have argued throughly. I agree with the fact that it has met the notability requirement and that it should be edited and fleshed out. Deleteing this article seems premature. Steve J 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep I suggest we need to keep this article. This comic inspired me to start drawing, and has definitely improved my world views as to racism and other sensitive topics. I also noticed that many of the webcomics on Wikipedia, such as 2Kinds (Which definitely improved my vires on racism, and should have been kept). Many webcomic authors are getting extremely hassled with other comics being struck off of wiki with no warning whatsoever (No AfD, nothing). I honestly want to know what some people mean when they say "It looks like it was made by the fans, and not by a non-reading person." Well honestly, not to be brash, but "No S**t Sherlock!" Some random person is not going to pop up and start typing on something they never read, and probably don't plan to. As much as I'm sure some people would like to say "POS, DELETEZORZ!" And move on to the NEXT webcomic they want to nuke, this one must be kept. This is where I learn about comics I read, and I am feeling increasingly rushed to read before they get deleted by some new dude. As self-correcting as Wikipedia is supposed to be, this is what you get when you add one or two really bad apples. They spoil the whole bunch. [/rant].
Vikedal 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong comment I know what you mean, but ranting here hurts more than it helps. (This from someone who chose Keep as well) Ambi Valent 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT. —xyzzy_n 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please Note: That says right at the top: This is not wikipedia policy, this is an essay. Vikedal 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 404 Point Not Found. Chris cheese whine 10:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 4[edit]

Keep meets prerequisites for WP:NOTE& WP:WEB.Freepsbane 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOne of the major lines I see come up continually is the "this isn't notable" phrase, and the person points out the lack of use and tie ins to other comics, amongst other things, however being a reader of many webcomics, I have seen some referances to El Goonish Shive in The Wotch and Sailorsun.org, there are other references in The Wotch that I did not track down, and many other comics that I did not have the time available to track down exact pages from, as well as a reference to EGS in an article about Genetic Engineering in Edutopia Magazinee. I feel that these are all signs of just how noteable this comic has become over the past 5 years.Theturtlehermit 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Wotch, probably an equally significant webcomic, had a similar RfD last year.[2] If one stays, the other should stay, in my mind. --ScottAlanHill 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:it's obvious when you look at NetOracle's record that he is trying to vandalise wikipedia through getting three-quarters of everything he sees deleted. The very fact that this is still being discussed amazes me in a sad way. 82.42.205.93 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree, that's neither topical nor a reason for why you're voting as you are. This isn't a democracy; the number of votes is irrelevant, it's the content those votes provide that matters. Fdgfds 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This comic is hugely popular - simple. kjs1982 10:391, 19 February 2007
Keep*. Frankly this is ridiculous; web comics are constantly getting nominated for deletion for spurious reasons, leading people to have to keep running just to stay in the same place. Ken Arromdee 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for many good reasons stated above. GG Crono 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point this out:

"This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose notability, influence, and appeal seems very limited. The article fails to adhere to our established policies of notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. Most of the mentions of and sources for this webcomic are coming from its own site, blogs, forums, chatrooms, personal sites, social sites, and other freely usable discussion media - none of which are notable or non-trivial, or convey importance in any way. The influence of the comic on media, culture, and society as a whole is very limited to nonexistant. Furthermore, the article reads like a fansite, and suggests that the unsourced and non-notable material was added as fancruft, and not by independent and disinterested editors. NetOracle"

Sounds familiar? The first one is from this deletion; the second is from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killroy and Tina. It's clear that he's just repeating the same paragraph without actually trying to determine if any of the claims made in his paragraph are true for this particular case, particularly since his language is worded in a cover-all-bases way that applies to as many different web comics as possible. This nomination was made in bad faith and should be rejected completely; making us spend days on it and 36 kilobytes just to prevent web comic deletionism only wastes our time. Ken Arromdee 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the above poster. it is more and more obvious now that NetOracle is trying to Vandaise this wiki, and personally i beleve an IP ban against him editing, and keeping all the articles s/he has put up for deletion would be the best solution. 82.42.205.93 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC) - NinjaPirate.[reply]

- Comment: In support of the above two posts re: NetOracle's bias against webcomics and a bad faith nomination, NetOracle's own user page contains a copy of the "reasons" for deletion. By his own admission, he is "busy trying to nominate every webcomic article for deletion [by] cut and pasting the following paragraph". Rituro 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: That was made by an anonymous IP. There is no way to guarantee it was him unless you can give proof. *Sighs* I'm on the other side and I'm defending him. Just give me proof that the IP is his and I will let you do that. Petrelg 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I have been working through it, and it appears the person who caused the statements on NetOracle's userpage was none other than the one called NinjaPirate himself. He also was the one that caused some vandaliztation on the Wikipedia Article and inflammatory comments on EGS'S tag about NetOracle. His thank you has nothing to do with revelation of the nom admitting his personal vendetta against webcomics, although stated elsewhere. He is thanking Ken Arromdee for finding his vandalization and bringing it to the table. Petrelg 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Got evidence? (Diffs, please.) —xyzzy_n 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Gladly. Here's the contribution page of the proxy.[[3]] Next is the diff of adding some vandalism. [[4]] Here are the diffs of his vandalization of the Wikipedia page: [[5]], [[6]], and [[7]]. And the messing with the AFD Template is here [[8]] Enjoy. Petrelg 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Addition I want to make it clear that I am not siding with the nom; on the contrary, a look up a ways, you'll see I voted to keep. While our sides may be opposite, and he did indeed use the same argument for both this and another comic. He also has stated his aversion to webcomics elsewhere. One place he hadn't done so was his userpage. No Wikipedian, no matter how POV, trollish, NPOV, or WikiGnome or WikiFairy deserves to have his or her Userpage vandalized in order to win an argument on AFD. *Steps off soapbox. Petrelg 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 5[edit]

Keep: Aside from plain numbers as to El Goonish Shive's popularity, NetOracle's personal preferences, and etc., it's important to remember that these sorts of articles are true to Wikipedia's nature. There are thousands of articles with only a few lines, but they still serve as gathering points for those who are interested in them. Though some users may with to disagree, Wikipedia has become likely the best online reference for a myriad of subjects, both popular and relatively obscure. Should all of the articles on small U.S. farming towns be deleted, since they only have a few dozen residents who would be interested in them? There hasn't been a press for this so far. The Internet is composed of an infinite number of groups with highly specialized interests. Wikipedia is an ideal Internet site in that it caters to, and accepts help from, this world of so many fragmented sets of hobbies and observations. While some may not appreciate a webcomic that a "mere" few thousand people pay attention to, the fact is that even a thousand regular visitors would generate large amounts of traffic for any single online resource amongst the crowd, especially compared to webcomics that haven't even become half as popular as El Goonish Shive. To conclude, if Wikipedia is to restrict itself to only allowing pages covering "notable" topics, it will cease to be of use to the millions who have built it up, those whose tastes never match up 100% with the mainstream focus. - Vintagejonny 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As nearly all of the reasons I can think of as to why the comic is notable, including popularity of the comic, it being referenced in what would normally be called "notable" sources by most, and just about anything else that doesn't violate Wikipedia's fancruft regulations on this subject, I've decided to focus on the character in question as well. NetOracle has more and more proved that he is not experienced in the area of webcomics, to the point of admitting that he has only a week's experience in the area.

In "The noob" article for deletion (2nd nomination) (the topic was deleted for fancruft, lack of sources, and other reasons why NetOracle seems to be on this mad crusade) he verified his bias, lack of experience in the area, and why he believes that these "unnotable webcomics," as he likes to call them, are destroying wikipedia's image as a professional, respectful, informative website.

His direct quote from that article:

"Your comment concerning the timing of the discussion, and the hushed accusation of my intentions as being based in bad faith, is rather inappropriate. I couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday, and only began to care about these things yesterday after I saw a solid case for deletion destroyed by insane levels of meatpuppetry and fanboyism. I have a strong concern that postponing this discussion until the author returns will only allow time for a similar meatpuppet army to assemble. I'm not here to attack a specific strip - I only became involved in this because I saw the professionalism of Wikipedia being compromised by a steady encroachment of fancruft, and wanted to remedy the situation. NetOracle" The_noob

And, on the same article, talked about why he believed the article Webcartoonists' choice awards should be deleted. His Quote again:

"As for the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards", this "organization" is not notable in itself. It appears to be some loosely-organized group of Internet cartoonists, established for the sake of mutual promotion.NetOracle" The_noob

In general, this could be said about any award, award ceremony, or the organization behind such formentioned awards, as it's meant to promote the winner, nominees, and the event in itself. Award ceremonies gain prominence when more sites, or people recognize it. Any subjective person could see this.

Sure, while these quotes and comments, especially on the awards stuff would fit better in their respective AfD pages, this was meant as something to go and prove his biased against such webcomics, and prove that El Goonish Shive is just another victim of his crusade. - Dalton2K5 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regardless of my own opinions on this subject, I have to note that we've reached (or crossed) the point where further discussion of the nominator's character would be counterproductive. The points have been made. --Kizor 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability asserted due to 1) Longevity of Comic 2) Printed versions 3) External references. And unfortunately, another unnecessary AFD of a notable comic by NetOracle, where we editors waste our time fighting his prejudice against webcomics as "fancruft". If this keeps up, I think a RfC on NetOracle is in order. This is now becoming a pattern.
- Could you add those "External references" to the article's references section? --Dragonfiend 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those have been discussed in this AfD; apparently the exact details of one of them are being tracked down. --Kizor 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I see. People are calling for an RFC on an editor because he thinks we should consider deleting an article whose only hope for a single reputable independent source is something we haven't been able to track down. That's a really bad idea.--Dragonfiend 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, no. We know what, where and by who this one is. From what I can see from several of his nominations, people are calling for an RfC on an editor who cuts-and-pastes excessively vague deletion nomination reasons, makes up standards ("Test of time" indeed), mistakes AfD for cleanup, refuses to use concern tags, writes "Non-notable web comic, and we're going to sack it" in edit summaries, uses cruft as an argument when there's an effort to remove said cruft and make the article more acceptable going on in plain sight, uses Alexa rankings as an argument though only when they work in his favor, openly admits to knowing nothing about the field he also says he's moving against, etc. That sort of thing. --Kizor 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of coverage in independent, reputable secondary sources, let alone any suggesting historical significance or achievement. --Dragonfiend 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 6[edit]

Speedy Keep. It is obvious that NetOracle does not intend to back up any arguments of his own, so much as he desires to propose for every webcomic Wiki article's deletion. We should not be wasting our time on this, and as many of the other comments have noted, this comic does have notability through references in many other webcomics along with a few articles from the media and press. I am amazed this is still being "discussed." --Blinkstale 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think references in other comics can count, cameos and guest strips and the like are common. --Kizor 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. El Goonish Shive is a prominent member of extremely popular, invitation-only Keenspot. To quote admin BradBeattie, "there's an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted on Keenspot is sufficient notability." As is discussed on top of this page, the comic has a print presence on a conventional publisher that extends to the likes of Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble (both very well-known distributors independent of the work) and proper brick-and-mortal bookstores to boot. I believe WP:WEB has been met with flying colors. --Kizor 03:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/confused comment First, El Goonish Shive meets the requirement for web notability that "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." ~ Wikipedia:Notability (web)

I am under the impression that it's long been agreed Keenspot counts as such. On that basis alone it seems odd to delete this article on grounds of non-notability.

Also, as a result of the recent burst of webcomic article deletions, and accompanying discussion/rants from fans/authors, I've realised that I'm entirely unclear on Wikipedia's actual policy regarding webcomics notability, and it seems like I will need to read a years' worth of discussion to figure out exactly what is and is not accepted. This is an extremely daunting task. I think I shan't be trying. A relatively concise, explicit explanation would be very welcome, though.

It seems to me that while very few webcomics (indeed, none but the most famous, equivalent in notability within their respective worlds (webcomics and printed fiction) to perhaps Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings) will be discussed at all extensively in non-webcomics-related sources, surely it must count for something if they are notable within the webcomics community. I understand that most likely this suggestion will be thoroughly ignored, an impression reinforced by the cliquey and elitist reputation Wikipedia has got in my usual internet haunts. However, I feel like it has to be said: if Wikipedia is to compare a category with one sort of following - webcomics - to a category with another sort of following - everything off the internet - in terms of what makes it "notable", then I do not think Wikipedia's policy is adequate.

Also, there is the matter of using AfD when perhaps it should be tagged as needing sources or references. Userfriendly is another webcomic article which lacks any links to references which would prove the webcomic's notability, and it is tagged appropriately, rather than being up for deletion. Esty 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keenspot is not a "both well known and independent" publisher. If it were well known, there would be no need to try to make the case that it is "notable within the webcomics community." This comic and its publisher may be well known in certain corners of webcomics fandom, but it is hardly well known in all of webcomics, and definately not well known in any general sense. This publisher (Keenspot) is certainly not well known in the sense that the content it publishes "will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion [of having] been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Meeting the WP:WEB guideline won't necessarily make or break an article, but an article with absolutely no third-party, independent sources fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." With no sources, it's pretty much all original resaearch and wikipedia editor's personal points of view -- non eof which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Dragonfiend 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I can say to the Keenspot thing is to request that you read the comment by Kizor that is directly above my original comment at the time of me writing this. As for the rest, all I can do is repeat my easily-dismissed, probably invalid, opinion that webcomics shouldn't be held to the same standards of notability as, say, bands; if they are to fit identical requirements, I expect there would be fewer than 40 articles on webcomics throughout Wikipedia.

According to the Wikipedia Webcomics Project, this is an "okay" article. I expect that ought to count for something. Esty 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keenspot is well known for those who are interested in webcomic publishers. That the Wikipedia article lacks better references on Keenspot's activity and success doesn't devaluate Keenspot itself. As comparison: I only started reading Megatokyo a few weeks ago, and before that I thought it was just manga fanfiction with the low standards associated with fanfiction. Finding it both here and high on thewebcomiclist.com changed my mind, but Megatokyo certainly wasn't well known to me, and I have read web comics for years. My position rested on a false premise because I haven't bothered to look. And those people who bother to look on info about webcomic publishers will find information on Keenspot that supports the position that it is notable. I understand your "delete" position if it rests on the premise that Keenspot isn't notable (and that therefore none of its actions count), but I think that premise is false. Ambi Valent 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dragonfiend, you seem to be missing the point. this article is only up for AfD because of a troll, and the Webcomics Project guidelines actually side on keep.
  - To quote in full agreement what Phil Sandifer said to you over a similar situation: "I will point out once again that the standard you are applying is not the standard intended or endorsed by any of our content policies. This is not OR by any useful definition - useful both in the sense of being useful to writing an encyclopedia and in the sense of actually being used by Wikipedia." Looking at that policy page, the article draws from the primary source - the comic - without "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories," without independent "analysis or synthesis" of material, without "advancing a position," without a "novel narrative interpretation." Or if it has started any of these during the ongoing attempt to improve it, feel free to point that out. Aside from the brief fandom coverage, the facts in the article are either from outside references or unambiguously visible in the work itself. If we must blind ourselves to a work while making an article of it, then every plot description of every book, play, TV show or game on Wikipedia is immediately suspect. We have sources and references, the described situation of "absolutely no[ne]" isn't in play, though I am unfortunately too tired to contest in detail whether being known by a million or few net-users is "well known in any general sense." Damn you, body. --Kizor 00:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not at all sure why Kizor is making apeals to the authority of another wikipedia eitor, but if he's going to, it's probably worth noting that he's quoting from the the "keep" reasoning an editor used for an article that was ultimately overwhelmingly deleted. --Dragonfiend 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because, as I mentioned, I agree with that argument and it's better phrased and worded than what I could write myself, therefore I'm quoting it. I'm frustratingly inarticulate on these things, you know. Further, the article was ultimately deleted in an entirely different nomination. The one where that was used resulted in a keep. --Kizor 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Right, you are quoting from an AFD improperly closed as a "keep", overwhelmingly reversed at DRV as in improper close, and then overwhelmingly deleted when relisted. In other words, you're quoting from someone who was wrong. See your talk page for more. --Dragonfiend 07:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(NinjaPirate's insults removed, I believe that his points have been made clear and that this is not the place for productive discussion for his or near anyone else's antics. We're trying to have an AfD here. His comment is viewable here. If wrong, slap with fish. --Kizor 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
I went and looked at the Keenspot "swag" page to check which books are on sale, and then went and compared Alexa reach. Result: among the books EGS book 1 is on 3rd position, combo package (books 1+2) on 7th, book 2 alone on 10th (8 and 9 not being books). Alexa reach of webcomics to which those books belong show EGS on 4th position, behind Dominic Deegan, Wapsi Square and Scary Go Round (which all left Keenspot). Among those who are still at Keenspot, this leaves EGS with the #1 bestseller on the list, and among those with published books who are still at Keenspot as the #1 in Alexa reach (I haven't checked the Keenspot comics without published Keenspot books). Ambi Valent 01:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Think the page should be kept due to the comic's influence on other webcomics, not too mention it's incredibly large fanbase. As others have noted, El Goonish Shive is availible in 2 books, the first being "Read or the Owl Will Eat You!', released in 2003 by Dan Shive, the comic's author. I work at the Borders in a local mall and I have teenagers coming up to me every week asking for it, showing said fanbase. On a visit to a webcomics convention in Los Angeles, I have found more people 'cosplaying' as El Goonish Shive characters than any other webcomic, due to the imagination used in the character's design.
- The above comment was made by: 21:12, February 20, 2007 Stoopid Monkey
Somebody asked me to look into this. Taking the Keenspot publisher, the lack of other sources, and the appearance of the article itself into account, I'm tempted to vote "Delete". It seems as though the webcomic meets the Wikipedia Webcomics Project guidelines, though, so I'll go for a weak keep and rewrite. Wellmann 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, there's a rewrite starting already. (Honestly, though, I don't get why an article's state, if not completely messed up, is an argument against it. Wikipedia by definition has an awful lot of volunteer workers around, and if they fail we can always revert to the December 2003 version or the like.) --Kizor 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would help me a lot when people who are more experienced than I am helped me in a section-per-section analysis where to trim and what can stay (just looking at sections, not every single entry, would be enough) Ambi Valent 10:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep No reason to delete... This is Wikipedia edit it and work with people to improve the article! -- UKPhoenix79 08:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The comic is hosted and published by parties independent of it's creator. As to the writing of the article, AfD IS NOT CLEANUP. Tag it for ((cleanup)) and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule 52: Any editor claiming "AfD is not cleanup" must then on the spot undertake said cleanup themselves. Chris cheese whine 10:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is being done. There is an ongoing effort to clean up the article. There was when the article was nominated. It's clearly visible on the talk page. --Kizor 11:05, 21 February 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.