The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Res0rt (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)

Source breakdown:

• A personal blog, which I removed.
• An article on the furry fandom which only mentions Last Res0rt for a couple sentences.
• The comic itself, twice.
• A 404'd interview on what does not appear to be a reliable site (it hosts webcomics itself).
• The comic itself, twice, again.
• A podcast with the creator.
• The comic itself, twice, again, again.

None of those seem to meet the source guidelines except for the New Times SLO article, but even that only dedicates a short segment to the comic. The rest are either primary sources or unreliable publications. I was unable to find any reliable sources on the comic — only one hit on Google News. This seems to completely fail WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are TWO newspaper articles -- you completely ignored the Technique newspaper article. Also, the New Times SLO article features the comic much more extensively than the online version of the article implies -- the print edition devotes several pages of images to the comic, including the cover art for that print edition of New Times SLO. Regardless of your opinions of online media, both newspaper articles are solid sources. Veled (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. Still, the Technique article only name drops Last Res0rt for one sentence, saying that she'll be at a con. That is not extensive coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "name drop" is still non-trivial coverage. It should also be noted that MomoCon is a large anime convention (10000+ people in attendance that year), yet Last Res0rt is the only comic (out of the many creators with comics in attendance) mentioned in the article. Veled (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how that's non trivial. They only mention it in PASSING. For ONE SENTENCE in the context of something else. The article is NOT EXCLUSIVELY about the comic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about WP:WEB that says articles used as sources on a topic must exclusively focus on that topic. It discusses what trivial coverage implies, though: "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." Stating that the creator of a specific comic presented at multiple comics panels at a convention to talk about her experiences working on said comic doesn't sound like trivial content to me. Veled (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does to me. It tells us nothing about the comic itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that you would be in favor of starting an article on the artist/writer of the comic, Rachel Keslensky? Your argument implies she would be notable, but the comic itself is not, despite it being her reason for being notable and discussed in said sources at all. That seems backwards to me... or at least that it would imply that both the talent behind the comic as well as the comic itself are notable. Veled (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm implying that "she was at a con" is not a notability assertation, no matter how big the con. Any derp with at least one good drawing hand can get a booth at a con. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about an article that just happened to rattle off a list of vendors at the con, you might have a point; that's not the case here. Singling Last Res0rt out for mention, to the exclusion of multiple other comic artists at those panels and vendors with comics in attendance, is still notable. Veled (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There is nothing about WP:WEB that says articles used as sources on a topic must exclusively focus on that topic." WP:GNG still applies and requires "significant coverage", defined as "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Mentioning that somebody is attending an event is not "addressing the subject in detail". Dricherby (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the "name drop". Ducknish (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Just because some of the sources are online instead of in print doesn't make the print sources any less relevant. Veled (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that they're online instead of in print. It's that they DON'T DEDICATE MORE THAN A DAMN SENTENCE to the context. Tell me how "Oh yeah, the person who created this comic will be at the convention" is enough to hang a WHOLE ARTICLE on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• While a single paragraph in an article certainly isn't enough to hang an article on, it is worth noting that Last Res0rt has been running nonstop for the past five years, updating every single Sunday since it began, even if it is sometimes filler. THAT is certainly worth something. Add to that the noteriety of it being singled out, by name, in a panel of three(neither of the other two comics is named), and having multiple paragraphs dedicated to the author in a separate article, and you have something a bit more substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.242.162 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It's been up a long time" is not per se a reason to keep. I can think of several other webcomics that have been just as long-lived or longer-lived, but have flown completely under the radar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:34, 8 May 2012(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that the Technique reference does much to establish notability per WP:GNG. It's just one sentence so I don't think that's significant coverage. The source is just a student newspaper, so it's hardly national coverage or even the professional media. In fact, it's the Georgia Tech newspaper when the author of the comic was a student at Georgia Tech, so arguably it is not even independent coverage. It is one student writing one sentence about a fellow student's comic. As for the New Times article, it's three short paragraphs in a weekly local paper with a circulation of 37,000. If this coverage was repeated in multiple local papers, that would help, but this seems to be a one-off. The point that the paper reprinted some comic strips is nice but I don't see how that is relevant to establishing notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's The Technique we're talking about here; I understand notability isn't inherited, but it's not "just a student newspaper". Also, as I previously mentioned at the top of this discussion, the New Times SLO featured the article as the cover story for that edition, and used artwork from the comic as cover art. It's quite a bit more than just the "three short paragraphs" that are readily apparent in the online version of the article. Veled (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Veled, are you personally acquainted with Rachel Keslensky? You both seem to be grad students at Georgia Tech with highly similar interests. A google search on Rachel Keslensky Veled suggests some further connections. I could go on.... If you have a WP:COI, at the very least you should acknowledge it before editing an article or voting in an AfD such as this one. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally, someone with some sense. Logical Cowboy, you are indeed the logical one here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the current perceived attitude to webcomic articles on Wikipedia, this is a loaded question; any acknowledgement or denial to this accusation will color the conversation and distract from the merits of the discussion. Also, does this mean I get to call WP:COI on TenPoundHammer for repeatedly nominating various webcomic articles for deletion and questioning the notability of their sources? Veled (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misses WP:WEB and WP:GNG by several kilometres. A few paragraphs in a single small local weekly newspaper is not the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources we are looking for. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete due to the lack of covarage about the comic. A name drop is not non trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. A brief mention (or "name dropping") in a college newspaper is not significant coverage. The palaceinthesky.com site returns a 404 for me, as do the versions on archive.org (but at any rate the domain itself looks to be a WP:SPS, not something to establish reliability on). The only reference that helps establish any real notability is the New Times article, which comes from a local alternative newspaper. This single source does not give the article's subject the notability necessary to satisfy the general notability guideline. - SudoGhost 04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all this arguing and still no RS. I will also add that trying to drag the nominator into AN/I was a very good WP:Boomerang. Instead of complaining about an editor pointing out lack of sources, improve the article by adding sources. Ridernyc (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The AN/I is secondary to this discussion. 108.200.70.59 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• never even implied it wasn't random IP that seems to know a lot about how Wikipedia works. Ridernyc (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder if the random IP editor has a WP:COI to acknowledge. Geolocates to Atlanta, Georgia. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also find it interesting that the editor that created this account instantly had a very elaborate user page. So far not making a big deal because I see no evidence of a sock, but it sure seems there is more going on here. Ridernyc (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the IP user's contributions (there aren't many), you'll see that one of them, on a different page, was subsequently re-signed by a non-IP user. It looks like that person just commented without realising that they weren't signed in. Dricherby (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was also unable to find any sources to establish notability, beyond the New Times SLO article and a reprint of it somewhere else. It's an interesting question whether the Georgia Tech newspaper counts: easy to dismiss as not independent but there are 25,000 people at GT and the newspaper of a town of 25,000 people would be accepted as a source, even though it's probably also written by and mostly about people living in the town. Dricherby (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because name-dropping is not significant coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep San Luis Obispo County has 269,637. NewTimes has been publishing for more than 25 years in San Luis Obispo County and is the largest circulated paper in the region. The coverage they give about this webcomic is sufficient coverage in a reliable source.[1]

Keslensky’s online comic strip Last Resort features a gaggle of aliens and anthropomorphic creatures engaged in a deadly reality show in outer space.

Keslensky’s work, as she explains, is a statement about the Autism Spectrum. “All of these creatures not only look different, but also perceive the world differently as well,” she said. Certain characters hear better than others; some see better. “All this leads to a world where what you can sense is just as important as what others can’t. The world around them has learned to adjust and accommodate for these differences primarily because they can see that they exist—if a creature has big ears, you know not to shout at them, for instance.”

“It used to be that to have a career as a furry artist you had to be an animator, a children’s book illustrator, or a comic artist,” said Keslensky. “Now we have folks who can produce original, on-demand artwork and can make good amounts of money off of that artwork alone. Being a furry artist is now much more profitable, and it’s thanks to the Internet.”

Seems like enough significant coverage to me. Finding sources for a web comic are hard, Google news archive search not indexing anywhere near everything ever published of course. Dream Focus 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles requires multiple reliable sources, not a single source. Finding sources for anything is hard when it does not meet the general notability requirements; there is no exception for this requirement because without multiple reliable sources we cannot form a neutral article with content equal to its prominence. We can't have an article based on a single reliable source and then draw the rest of the information from primary sources; multiple reliable sources ensure that the article is in fact as prominent and neutral as the content implies. This article does not meet these requirements, not because of arbitrary guidelines formed to determine if a specific type of article is notable or not, but because it fails to meet the most basic requirement for an article, and because of this cannot accurately adhere to WP:NPOV. An article that cannot follow such a core policy does not need to be on Wikipedia, at least until more reliable sources can be found. - SudoGhost 00:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. The New Times article is nice, but not enough to establish notability. Ishdarian 02:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Whiteboard (3rd nomination) article, it implies that the comic being available in print is part of its notability assertion. Would pointing out that Last Res0rt is also collected in print help bolster its notability enough to meet GNG? Veled (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can self publish. Unless the collection has coverage in multiple reliable sources it's meaningless. Ridernyc (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• aka WP:ITEXISTS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Being in print would only help establish the notability if it met one or more of the criteria of WP:BKCRIT and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Threshold standards. - SudoGhost 03:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 10:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- coverage of the topic found does not seem to be strong enough to show its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs)
• Delete -- fails GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a lot of sources previous identified were either unreliable (self-published, affiliated with the subject), or didn't provide the necessary coverage to independently WP:verify notability (which is different from verifying its existence). It's fair to say that in previous AFDs, some people thought this article could improve as more sources were found. But after this much scrutiny, giving people more time to find appropriate sources WP:WONTWORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the article in New Times is decent, subjects need to have multiple reliable sources in order to pass the GNG. I'm not finding anything other than the single article, and it would appear that no one else is as well. This isn't enough on its own to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question? why is this still open after two weeks? Ridernyc (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Because at 7 days, consensus had not yet been established. It was relisted on the 15th, so it will likely close on the 22nd. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Rorshacma →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 09:43, 22 May 2012 (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.