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. Proto::► 12:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted, no reliable sources cited. Usenet is not considered a reliable source. Previous nomination (2005)bogdan 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usenet is not considered a reliable source? So what in the Internet can be considered a reliable source. Web pages can change on a whim of creator. This is not the case with Usenet postings, which are there to stay for eternity. Looks like WP:RS is full of bullshit and this is not the reason to delete articles on notable things. Grue 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like, you can try and obtain a change of the policies: indeed, we should allow usenet, forums, myspace pages, irc logs, etc as sources! :-) bogdan 10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should allow Usenet as source, yes, because it is reliable. Others are not reliable, by definition of the word. Grue 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "reliable information" we mean "accurate information". Since anyone can post anything under any name on the usenet, I don't think there is any accuracy involved. bogdan 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, anyone can post anything under any name in a book. Let's disqualify books too. They are so unreliable. Let's delete all alrticles that don't currently have "reliable" sources. I'm sure our readers will appreciate that. Grue 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established. Naconkantari 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom ::mikmt 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable secondary sources? Guy (Help!) 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Jayden54 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked by Grue to clarify my vote, so that's what I'll do. The main problem I have with this article is that it doesn't really show what's so special about this webcomic. Although a few vague claims are made, such as being the best known ascii webcomic and the only one that's still produced, how do I know that's true? Especially the first claim, being the best known ascii webcomic, needs to be backed up by a source, if not a reliable source (but any source would do at the moment!). As it stands there is nothing to back up the notability of this webcomic, and there's no reason to believe those claims. Jayden54 10:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that it was translated by fans to 3 other languages? Right, I see, it must be really non-notable to achieve that. Grue 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep easily the most notable ascii art webcomic. Translated in several languages. Was already kept on previous occasion. Why do we even have this discussion? Grue 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS/V. Anomo 10:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the article in its current iteration is unverifiable? Anyway, this is the reason for cleanup not deletion. Grue 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. One Night In Hackney 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Last time deletion was discussed the reason was no alexa ranking. Now it is usenet is not reliable source. What about facts? The comics will be exist with or without this wikipedia article, and the deletion will do harm to wikipedia only. Janusz 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.