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 and redirect. - brenneman 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nip and Tuck[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
The content is not 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.

Furthermore, the award which the author received has recently been deleted as non-notable. So... non-notable webcomic, written by an author who recieved a non-notable award. - Francis Tyers · 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nip/Tuck per nom. SERSeanCrane 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nip/Tuck as a possible search term for that TV show. Pomte 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What happened to the Ursa Major article was just absurd. Comments in the deletion log like "furcruft", "I hate furries", "furry spam" make it clear that a strong undercurrent of bigotry was a motivating factor. Some people *really* don't like the furry subculture. I can understand this personally but that attitude has no place in an encyclopedia, period. Notability standards should be evenhanded. Stan Sakai's article lists his Ursa Major award nominations. Samuel Conway's page also mentions the award. The Eurofurence page also has mention of the award as does the strip pages for Newshounds and Faux Pas (webcomic). In other words, this is an award that means something. It just happens to be an award for something that enough wikipedia users and editors just don't like, perhaps are offended by, that objectivity is going out the window. If the award is notable, so is the author and his body of work. TMLutas 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The three comments you quote from the deletion log were far after very valid and substantial arguments had already been made from which the closing administrator could have easily referenced in deciding to delete the article. The arguments for keep did not address the problem of reliably sourced coverage of the awards outside of its community. There does not seem to be anything procedurally wrong with the removal of that article as being on a non-notable subject. If you disagree you are always welcome to put it up for deletion review. ju66l3r 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just looked at the Ursa Major AfD and can't help but agree with the absurdity of its deletion. So by extension, I have to conclude that winning the award is not non-notable. Bryan Derksen 08:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten. Subject is notable, as per Ursa Major award (deletion of the awards page does not make the award non-notable, it merely means that the wiki page was poorly sourced), but the article lacks sufficient information to justify its existance. If expanded beyond a one-paragraph summary and reference to an award, then change to Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.243.116.222 (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Pretty much nothing in the furry community is notable. Furry awards are so subtrivial anyway, but unless the author won the furry award for this very comic. I'm voting delete. - hahnch e n 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect -- no independent reliable sources = not notable. bogdan 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the recreation as a redirect to the F/X show article per non-notability/failure to meet WP:WEB. ju66l3r 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Comment Non-verifiable, non-notable. Also, I should note that another of the author's webcomic articles was deleted a few weeks ago, so I'm not sure what makes this one different. 70.43.138.74 03:21, 26 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.