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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greeneyes[edit]

nn webcomic, 23 unique Google hits (Greeneyes + JetFuel) which one of the Google links calls a "Seldom-updated web comic", and which JetFuel him/herself says on http://greeneyes.metalbat.com/news.pl "I'm not sure when greeneyes will be back, but I hope that it will be someday. We're very sorry that things are so uncertain". User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against. This webcomic has been running for years and breaks like this are quite normal on long-running webcomics. On the other hand, I find it impressive that just after creating the article and going to commit the second bunch of lines (just one or two minutes passed), I found I already had an edit conflict and it was an AFD request. I find that very unpleasant, it becomes hard to start an article like this.Rvalles 03:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it hasn't been updated in years. :-) bogdan 17:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's plain wrong. It may be on a break right now while the main author K works on other stuff of his, but the latest strip is only weeks old, far from years; don't be fooled by their copyright notice at the very bottom of the page... that one certainly hasn't been upgraded for ages.Rvalles 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not dead, it's resting" :-) look at what it says at: http://www.metalbat.com/ a quiet webcomic (presently defunct) bogdan 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make it even funnier, just after seconds of merging that second commit and the VFD, somebody put it for speedy deletion. Please, let me work on the article, or rather, let me have some grace time to _create_ it at least!.Rvalles 03:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. See, that's the point, we don't want you to waste your work if the comic is deemed non-notable and the article is deleted. On the other hand, if you create an article on the Comixpedia Wiki it's almost certainly not going to be deleted there. Nifboy 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What if the next commit was going to discuss the fact that it was published in the Narobi Times, circulation 7 million, and was translated in 14 African languages? If the original author is still posting it, they obviously believe it's notable, and should at least have the chance to assert that notability.--Prosfilaes 04:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then that should also come up in the AfD discussion, as well as be citable. The point of a Google search is an attempt to find some kind of source that points to the notability of the comic. If it is that notable, then Google should come up with something. Nifboy 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On notability, I have to remark I got into it since the authors of other webcomics that I like a lot, Seasons of Constancy and Tsunami Channel, talked about it on the authors' comments under their comics. Since it's interesting, I'll comment on those quotes at the article itself.Rvalles 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Rvalles 08:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please dont waiste my time with this kind of noms. Can you please provide the google URL you derice the 23 hit count? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Dual vote. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rvalles has already expanded this into a non-stub page. I see reasonable potential for this. -- Znode 08:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bravely, I say delete: It's lavishly illustrated, but I do not see any indication that it is widespread, published, or discussed in other media. Wikipedia is not a web guide nor a web comics guide. If it's very popular within its own world, that's a fine thing, but that would be said also of certain web forums, fan fiction, and micronations. This is a general encyclopedia, and therefore all subjects should have broken out of their own fan bases to a wider, confused world that requires explanation. Geogre 18:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm going to go for delete too. For me, being referenced by other comics just doesn't make it stand out from the crowd. - Hahnchen 20:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn webcomic per nom, Geogre. Eusebeus 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding my keep: Well written article, I see no reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + Hahnchen. Webcomics, by nature, tend towards friendly relations and linking to other webcomics. Not everything linked to by even Slashdot or Penny Arcade are notable. Nifboy 03:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discrete knowlege should be welcome on wikipedia. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck does that mean? Discrete knowledge? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do not ridicule other people based on them misspelling a word or two. Please do not irritate or attemt to irritate ever again. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably "not general knownedge", that is, the knownedge that's known not by everybody, but by people into math, physics, webcomics or history.Rvalles 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So far we have three naked "keeps" that don't provide a rational, one "discrete knowlege", and one "don't waiste my time". Wait, that's Cool Cat twice. This has no Alexa, low google for greeneyes webcomic OR Jetfuel, and no other claim to notability barring two tangential references. I recomend transwiki and delete per Tony Sidaway. Good idea. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It means we do not want to bother giving a reason. It can be interpreted that this VfD nomination is that bad. No personal offense intended. Sorry for the duplicat votes. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As nicely as possible, if you can't be bothered giving a reason, please don't "vote". It's not a vote, it's a discussion. Even if you just say "keep per Znode", give us something, please. Why do you think this is a bad nomination? Is it actually notable, but WP:CITE hasn't happened yet? Please note that Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion says explicitly "Always explain your reasoning."- brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron, please remember that this is a discussion on whether to delete the article, not whether to keep it, and that for deletion you need a consensus. If you want to make an argument for deletion, please feel free to do so. If you're unable to persuade us that it should be deleted, then it won't be deleted. But please, I ask you, stop this hectoring and bullying and telling people what they can and cannot do in a deletion debate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think both of you are skirting the bounds of civility. Tony, I specifically think that describing Aaron's comments as "bullying" is quite unfair. I'd like to ask you to redact yourself. Nandesuka 21:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you Nandesuka, you are of course correct. I was flippant and chose my words poorly. I've redacted.
      brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre. No significance of this webcomic explained in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it meets the notability guidelines, but I can't bring myself to vote delete or even be non-participatory on this one. The article itself is well-done, and the material is of quality. On occasion, that should trump notability IMNSHO. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So we're now suggesting that nn-comics should be kept, yet nn-bios should be speedied? Wow. - Hahnchen 15:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I think it's a good article and in this case I'm not impressed by the notability argument. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is also not a bottomless pit for Stuff. Pilatus 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here is where I point out that Wiki isn't paper and I am in turn reminded it's also not a directory of Web sites. It's not a discussion we need to repeat again. You have my input on the matter, and it's not going to change. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kilobug. This article is well-written, and one of the things which makes wikipedia so great is that you can find informations on a huge variety of subjects. I don't see any reason to suppress a well-written, complete article about a fictional artwork which has its fans.--Kilobug 13:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It hasn't got any impact. Pilatus 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Geogre. Get famous first, and then write the Wikipedia article. Nandesuka 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Popular culture and emergent internet literary forms --- especially long running examples --- are worth documenting in the Wikipedia for the sake of having current second hand sources for future scholars. Wmjuntunen 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact it has served as an inspiration at least one notable web comic (Tsunami Channel) is certainly evidence supporting a claim of "setting a trend" (see WP:WEB). Though finding other references to it by other authors would be helpful. I'll come out and say right now I've used it as a reference for Okashina Okashi, another notable comic (though I'm a bit biased when it comes to OO). Xuanwu 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Having read "Wiki is Not" closer, I say this successfully passes the test for inclusion on all grounds. The article is NOT: defining jargon, publishing original material, propaganda (in need of NPOV, maybe, but not promotion, certainly), a repository of links, personal home page, indiscriminate list of info (as per the examples given there), or crystal ball. Therefore, by the official Wiki standards, this article merits inclusion. QED. ^_^ Xuanwu 05:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - And one more comment to really nail the coffin of this AfD: Wiki is not a bureaucracy. Fiercely applying Alexa violates the spirit of the law (and its letter, as I just showed). So, I argue that the spirit of Wiki's rules (as well as the proto-spirit of WP:WEB) supports this articles presence. And now I'm going to be insufferable with future web comic AfDs. I just know it. ^_^ Xuanwu 05:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's worth noting that that section about "setting a trend" was added to WP:WEB by you, attempted to be used by you to support an argument of yours at WP:DRV (since archived), removed several times, discussed on the talk page and found wanting, removed several times again, and recently added back in. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 06:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The edit history of that policy page is simply a function of the tumultuous nature of working by concensus (note that it was not added back by me, but by someone else who agreed). And even without the setting a trend argument, the spirit of WP:WEB still supports the inclusion of this article. So your comment has little relevance to the matter at hand. Please avoid ad hominem personal attacks; this does not reflect well on someone up for arbitration. Xuanwu 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure that any single person is qualified to claim that they understand the "spirit" of a guideline. And thanks for reminding me that I' currently having a struggle session held over my opinion that webcomics should meet the same encyclopedic standard as everything else. Is it at all possible that silencing dissenting opinions is an undesirable result? It's here, in case anyone is interested. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I claim no privileged knowledge of the law's spirit, only knowledge of how I view it. If you have a different view, then state it as it applies to this AfD. Trying to discredit my views with irrelevant edit histories has no place here. It's hard to "silence a dissenting opinion" when you have yet to voice any opinion on the topic, let alone a dissenting one. As for the merits of the arbitration, I won't comment here since it's not relevant and I don't want to assist in your derailing of the AfD discussion beyond personal defense. Xuanwu 07:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorted on respective talk pages. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure, void of encyclopedic value. The article seems to be someone's pet project. --Mecanismo 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. bogdan 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, webcomics really aren't my thing, but this one does seem to exist and the article gives a decent write-up and there are pretty pictures (it's creative commons). I'd suggest ~~keep~~ or, if there really is a consensus for deletion, that the article be held until someone from comixpedia has been asked if they want to take a copy. Think of it as a kind of transwiki. If they don't want it then it can be put out of its misery. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised vote. A rarity for me: strong keep. The reference to Greeneyes in Tsunami Channel did it for me. The first thing I noticed when I visited that webcomic was the eye coloring of the girl. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell. Keep. 99% of the NN articles I see, the articles a crummy ("the band cant play instraments yet and they dont have any but they plan a world tour in 2009.") But this is a good article. I like greeneyes. And I hate to delete good articles. So if the Tsunami Channel thingy gives me an excuse, I'll take it. Herostratus 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of the various notability guidelines is to remove material that is unencyclopedic—that is, material that does not (and cannot) constitute a proper article in an encyclopedia. A good article being written, as has been done here, on a subject that may be considered "non-notable" suggests that the spirit, if not the letter, of the guidelines has been satisfied. —Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So a well-written article about the doorknob on my bathroom door would meet your keep criteria? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I said "good article" rather than "well-written article". I think the bar for inclusion is more easily passed by an article about an artistic work (even a little-known or unimportant one) than by an article about a mass-manufactured household item; but yes, if you were able to write such an article, I see no reason why it could not be included. It would be harder than it seems, I suspect, simply because there's very little to say about the average doorknob that is both verifiable and meaningful; but there likely are particular doorknobs (with enough history or distinguishing features) for which legitimate articles could be written—the doorknobs in the National Academy of Sciences building, for instance [1]. —Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - See, this is where I totally disagree. In my time at wikipedia, I have nominated some "good" informative articles on absolutely non notable subjects, and will continue to do so. I'm surprised at the amount of support this one has obtained and the amount of attention it seems to have garnered though, but I do not think that the bar of inclusion should be lowered or raised depending on the perceived quality of an article. I would vote to keep a substub on something notable as I did for the Quantic Dream article, yet would vote to delete an article aproaching featured quality on someone's house. I don't care how much it's worth, who built it, who it's former residents were and how bad the kitchen fire of 2003 was. - Hahnchen 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think article quality and "notability" tend to intersect rather neatly (as I noted, perhaps less clearly than I could, above). In other words, if we are able to write a near-featured-quality article (with all of the details of referencing and so forth that the status entails) about a house, it serves as an indication that the house is notable; conversely, a truly non-notable house will make for a lack of references (as well as a lack of verifiable content for the article). So the quality of an article, while not the only factor, is certainly an indication of the subject's potential. —Kirill Lokshin 16:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's worth noting that there's a lot of good information that can be written on any given work of fiction (See: WP:FICT amongst others). Doesn't make the fiction any better or more notable. Nifboy 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Hahnchen: your example would fall under the "indiscriminate information" part of "Wiki is Not." There is a large difference between a web comic that has influenced three other notable comics and someone's house. As I showed above, "Wiki is Not" clearly seems to indicate that this article is fine for inclusion. Please pick a better example to avoid the paper tiger fallacy. Also, I think a reason this has drawn attention is the fact the community thinks this article is notable. Also, there's been a much closer eye brought to the status of web comic articles on Wiki over the past few weeks in large part due to all the deletions that have happened. In essence, your own past actions (and those of others) have motivated other editors to react and respond to help make Wiki better by blocking what they think of as bad AfDs. An interesting example of a social feedback loop in action. Xuanwu 02:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Please note that you are the only user who has made this declaration. It's easy to project our own motivations onto others, in particular when they agree to a course of action. I'd urge you to speak as much as possible for your own motivations. If other editors make explicit reference to blocking "bad AfDs" then you may reasonable mentions it. As it is you are drawing on facts not in evidence.- brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually I think I agree with Xuanwu on this. I've seen a similar reaction in response to Neutrality's campaign to delete school articles in ~~April~~ May--as a result of that reaction, it's now all but impossible for anyone to delete an article about a school provided the school actually exists and is not a pre-school. The unfortunately deletion listing of Checkerboard Nightmare had ramifications beyond Wikipedia, and ultimately led to internal side-effects that , through the arbitration case, drew this campaign of webcomic deletions to my attention. So on a wiki, it's true that every action has an opposite reaction. History has shown that the reaction is seldom equal; deletion campaigns, where they are seen to pick the wrong target, tend to backfire because the reaction has a somewhat greater effect. Engaging in what looks like attempts to marginalise dissent, and to bully those who disagree with you, well it makes things worse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        That was a nice speech. It would be nice if any of that were backed up with some diffs, though. If I may address each of the claims you've made:
        Difficult to delete schools now just because of neutrality
        
        The AfD for Checkerboard Nightmare was "unfortunate"
        
        Previous deletion campaigns - like what
        
        seen to pick the wrong target- by whom
        
        a somewhat greater effect - like what
        
        Those who vote delete here are marginalise dissent and bullying.
        
        Please do attempt to present a concise rational for the keeping of this article. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Aaron, I warn you that your wording above is on the absolute edge of good faith. I'll leave my words to stand, for the current situation readily illustrates the unwisdom of deletion campaigns and the last thing this debate needs is more nitpicking.
        
        And again I remind you that nobody ever needs to provide a rationale to keep an article. Unless a consensus can be raised to delete it, it will not be deleted. The article should be kept in my opinion because it's a perfectly lovely article about a rather pretty webcomic that influenced two others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        The AfD for Checkboard Nightmare was unfortunate, because it pissed a lot of people off. It was seen to pick the wrong target by many webcomics fans. See the Websnark article on the AfD.--Prosfilaes 07:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Webcomics are already taking the flavour of schools, theres been a webcomic afd watch page for quite a while now. If wikipedia is going to say, "yes, let's allow articles for all webcomics", then we better start removing the wiki is not a web directory because it obviously would be. No, the comparison to the house is not fallacious, no matter what you claim. It's just that you see the house on the wrong side of indiscriminate information, whereas I see them both to be on the wrong side. So a webcomic is notable if it influences another webcomic. Right, OK, what about the webcomics which influenced this one? And then? - Hahnchen 10:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And then? Then we should have kept all articles on influential webcomics! This would be a good thing. We only want to delete dross, not good material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Aaron: I think the recent efforts to "clean up" web comics on Wiki can be deemed a "deletion campaign," since deletion was the primary tool used for this clean up. Also, ym statement about a reaction to it was not judging the worthiness of the attempted clean up (it had both good and bad points about it); I am saying that people are reacting to how they preceive it. And, like it or not, many seem to view it as "bad," because articles that appear well written wound up deleted alongside those that were obvious poor entries (like some "My web comic is teh awesome~!!!111!!one!"). I'll point to this AfD as anecdotal evidence: I think a few months ago this article would have been deleted with little ceremony. Now enough people have become aware of past deletions that you're starting to see some actual debate on the topic. In some ways it's good because now the concensus is more representative of what the people want, in other ways it can be negative since it will mean having to present much stronger arguments for deletion than simply "Fails Alexa, not notable, delete" (which was the general gist of many previous AfDs). So now the people who want to see something deleted have to work harder to make it so. Not entirely bad.
        
        Hahnchen: No, the house is still flawed because it is a poor example that lacks similarity to the issue at hand (again, a paper tiger you've constructed because it's easier to tackle than the matter at hand). A web comic is like a science article or a literary work. And their electronic format means they can affect thousands across the globe. When a scientific article is published, part of what makes it important is not just the results it finds, but how much it is cited (you can look online to see how this is measured). An article is important not just because of its content or how many read it, but by who cites it. If an obscure study is cited in an article that itself becomes famous, then the article cited itself is notable for the role it played in shaping that person's research. Similarly, when an artist paints, they usually study the works of others. If they become famous, then those who inspired them likewise become famous for the role they played in shaping the work. Another example, when Wen Wang became the first Emperor of the Zhou Dynasty in China, his father, Wu Wang, also became notable because of his role in setting the foundation for his son (I may be switching the roles of Wen and Wu, but you get the idea). What we have here is a webcomic that has served as a literary and artistic inspiration for at least three notable webcomics and possibly more. Therefore, it is notable in the same vein as the examples I just cited. And because the article itself passes the check of "Wiki is Not," there is no grounds for deletion. A house does not have this property of becoming notable through citation; so, again, your example is logically unsound. Xuanwu 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perhaps not as notworthy as some would like, but it is definitely a good article, informative and well-written. You'd have to be a grumpy deletionist to get rid of it, and I'm not. Mushin ^talk 05:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre and Zoe. Very pretty article, but the low Alexa and Google numbers, together with the author's admission that the comic is dormant, make a case that this is non-notable. Xoloz 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick note: dormancy doesn't really factor into notability; that's why you can have webcomics that ended but were notable added here. Or comics that were notable when they updated (Tsunami Channel is a good example of this). Xuanwu 08:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tsunami Channel] is actually back of a two year-or-so hiatus, since a few weeks ago, which I celebrate (I love Tsunami-chan :).-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 10:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability. I see no reputable sources being used here. Friday (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good article. I can see no notability issue. Hiding talk 12:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should have occured to me before, but I'd strongly support Userfy. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's a decent article on a notable webcomic. It should be in the article space. Wikipedia is supposed, unless I'm very much mistaken here, to be about presenting information of value in an encyclopedic way. I'm not quite sure how thie article fails on that count so miserably that it should not exist in the article space. Are we that pressed for room in the article space that we need this to go? If thine own eye offends thee... Hiding talk 05:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has established its notablity.--Prosfilaes 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and verifiability established to my satisfaction via evidence given by others, and the article is encyclopedic. Notability also based on the following factors:
- Guest writers for some chapters are noteworthy in their own right.
- Simultaneous story threads as an approach is of artistic signficance.
- Use of elements for chapter headings is of artistic significance.
- Anonymity of writer and illustrator is of artistic significance.

(Current dormancy is not evidence of non-notability. Poor Richard's Almanac is probably on hiatus too, ever since Ben Franklin died) That the article is already well written is useful but not in itself evidence of notability. It however, IS reason for the closing admin, should the decision be Delete, to hold off long enough to allow transferrence of content to a venue where notability standards are not as high, such as Comixpedia. Note: the fact that an article would be welcomed on Comixpedia is not in itself something that supports a keep, but should not be used as support for delete either. ++Lar 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know that people here aren't probably going to delete it nor is this going to change peoples views. But this is just to counterpoint some of Lar's claims. I can't see any of those being "artisically significant". If that were so, then every webcomic ever in existance would probable be notable enough for Lar. Simultaneous story threads? Writer anonymity? How is this of artistic significance, it's the internet, lots of things are posted anonymously or through stupid pseduonyms such as Anne Nonymous, and a webcomic to have multiple story threads is just any webcomic which isn't of "gag a day" style. - Hahnchen 00:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Poor Richard's Almanac were in fact written by some tramp named poor richard, and never actually published, then I'd vote to delete. - Hahnchen 00:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hahnchen on this: anonymity and and interweaving story telling is not notable, because Greeneyes was not the first to use either. The "Guest writers are themselves noteworthy" is a valid argument, though you'd have to be more specific. Say which guest writers were notable and why. Xuanwu 02:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies, all from Lar:

I am not sure that I agree that "people here aren't probably going to delete it nor is this going to change peoples views" as my nose counting shows this a close run thing, it depends on how the admin evaluates the consensus here. Further this discussion may well change the views or influence the views of those yet to express themselves. I know I read what is written before I add my thoughts. So it's good that you are making yourself heard even if I think you're incorrect. (and I tweaked a bit of formatting above, please feel free to untweak it if you did not like what I did)
The deletion nomination and several other delete comments refer to the webcomic being on hiatus, or having finished its run. That, in and of itself is not evidence of non-notability. Nor is something currently being published evidence of notability. THAT is the point I was trying to make with the Poor Richard reference, that things that happened in the past can still be notable in an encyclopedia (since wikipedia is not an almanac... THAT must be why my subconscious dredged up the Poor Richard example!). So I think, just as with CxN, just as with so many other AfD nominations I've seen lately (yes, I've been lurking about a bit, you've got my attention now, and you may hear from me again) that using "it just ended" or "it's on hiatus" is a bogus reason for deletion. Argue that it wasn't significant when it was active or that it hasn't had an effect since, but not *merely* that it's in the past. Encyclopedias cover the past as well as the present. If something was significant in the past, that it is over is irrelevant.
Simultaneous story threads... Yes, I am aware that many story comics have different threads, sorry for not being clearer. I refer to the fact that several of the "elements" (story chapters) were being worked on at the same time but kept separate, near as I could tell. THAT's the significance I see there, not just interweaved threads in the same story. That's a lot less common in webcomics than just having threads.
Guest writers are themeselves noteworthy... see bio. I found them noteworthy. You may not. If you ask me why and I cite their work or the fact that they have different styles, or come from different places, or chose pseudonyms that are interesting, or cite their articles here in support of their noteworthyness, we're in a regress.
As pointed out elsewhere, the problem of noteworthiness (er, is it I or Y?) and how to establish it is hard. Webcomics are somewhat loosely linked to highly verifiable sources, it takes a few links from source to source to get to the NYT or Brittania. But Wikipedia is not paper. I am inclusionist. While I would not include every single webcomic that ever had 2 strips published, I would include this one. In fact, I would include most of the ones that have been coming up on AfDs lately. I think the efforts to purge Wikipedia of most webcomics are misguided. Wikipedia is not paper. I am inclusionist.
I'll reiterate, I am satisfied with the notability and verifiability that others above me provided as well. You may not agree, which is fine. ++Lar 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiability per Friday. Dragonfiend 02:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely no disadvantages to having this information. The current version of the article is pretty good, and establishes notability and verifiability. Because of that, I assume that this nomination was based on a substantially different earlier version. It's good to see that the wiki process can improve articles this way, but please remember that AfD is not cleanup. (As a side note, I'm glad that the majority of the voters here haven't been fooled by the meaningless red herring of Alexa.) Factitious 06:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Xuanwu has convinced me. Further, notability is not measured in google (or Alexa) hits. -- Taiichi «talk» 11:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Factitious. Good enough. -- JJay 17:22, 11 December 2005 (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.