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. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:V. Unsubstantiated claim of "significant contribution the comic made to popular culture".
Delete -- There's much talk below about the supposedy notability of this but not one reference. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm not gunning for this article, but it needs references not fans. スキャンダルの家 (House of Scandal) 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I nominated this article for deletion so interested parties would get off their asses and find the verifiable references to establish notability. These should be included in every article. I am glad my effort produced the desired result. Now go out and fix more articles. House of Scandal 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider using normal procedure for ensuring verifiability the next time you're in doubt. As Adrian points out below, it is abusing the deletion policies to put the article through this process when it's not unverifiable, but unverified. --Para 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Webcomic only has one author, author claims to have edited the article only to remove mention of his family name and an unflattering picture. WP:V is a reliable source away. Also, nominator appears to have withdrawn AfD, nomination confused "Unverifiable" Flakeloaf 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really rather see this one go to term, to demonstrate consensus, which "keep" does but "speedy keep" does not. — coelacantalk — 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Flakeloaf 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Should be verifiable with minimal effort; numerous KeenSpot artists have mentioned in news posts or otherwise expressed their respect of and/or inspiration from the comic. Not created by the comic's creator, just edited once. -- Y|yukichigai (ramblearguecheck) 09:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above. Somitho 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is more than just a webcomic, a lot of Internet culture comes from this. JuJube 10:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all above. - Darwinek 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless non-trivial third-party sources that can pass WP:RS are found. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. I have strong doubts about the assertation that this is the basis for a lot of "Internet culture". I've been using the internet since before this comic started, and this is the first I've heard of it anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poorly sourced, true, but this should be sourcable under it's current title. If not, I'm sure I can dig up something on The Thin H Line. I'll take a look when I get home tonight. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One unsourced statement surely isn't reason enough for deletion of the whole article. Sexy Losers clearly passes WP:SET and even though the webcomic is no longer updated, it doesn't suddenly become non-notable after its seven years of active updates. It is probably because of its racy themes that it never reached mainstream popularity or many publishing offers. It has however been reviewed online a number of times [1][2]. If there was a webcomicking hall of fame, Sexy Losers would definitely belong there. -- Para 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered IP's are not typically considered eligible members of the community for deletion discussion. Shaundakulbara 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Since when are people without a userpage unregistered IPs?? Please avoid leaving unnecessary comments or "votes" such as the comments above and belove this one in deletion discussions. This is not a ballot or repetition of arguments already brought up. --Para 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that the point of AfD is to reach a consensus through discussion, which anybody, even anonymous editors, may contribute towards. TexasDex 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If its notable, provide the references. Para, the place for those links is in the article as references. Work on it and I'll change my "vote". But this isn't a ballot, it's a forum. If Sexy Losers doesn't get referenced the big shots will justly delete it regardless of the # of "keeps" here. Shaundakulbara 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unreferenced statement, keep article We don't normally delete entire articles if one statement appears to be unreferenced. Remove the unreferenced statement if desired and keep the article. Only delete the article if the article as a whole is unreferenced. Dugwiki 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not proposed for deletion because of that statement. The article is proposed for deletion because statements like that are offered in lieu of references. House of Scandal 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no third-party references on the whole article, much less one that would meet WP:RS. All of the sources are primary and we can't build articles around primary sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references seem to links to related websites with the possible exception of M.O.M. If independent sources are as easy to come by as folks are claiming in this AfD, why haven't they been produced? --Shirahadasha 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this comment and Delete unless such sources show up in the next few days. CyberAnth 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable enough. --Candy-Panda 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered IP's are not typically considered eligible members of the community for deletion discussion.
It's a valid comment from a community member. It is also not a SPA either. --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more independent references (there’s some usable stuff at Comixpedia) and remove everything that can’t be sourced. —xyzzyn 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears notable, verifiability issues can be dealt with in the article. Artw 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this comic is important for us to cover yuckfoo 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It'd be hard to research if it's won any awards or has been mentioned by mainstream media, but you can search google for the following string: "sexy losers" webcomic (note the quotes) and 15,600 estimated pages pop up. If you dig further you'll find that virtually all of those pages are legitimate and truly discussing the webcomic. How can the criteria (taken from WP:V) fairly judge cultural significance when mainstream media is unwilling to acknowledge certain styles and genres? Sarysa 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other note, the claim that the page was made by the comic's author is unsubstantiated. The original version of this page was created on 1/2/04, from a New Jersey IP and traces of it remain in the current version. Clay's first edit, from a Wisconsin IP (still not having a Wiki username), is on 7/17/2005. If it's a plot to cover up his authoring of his comic's wiki page, it's pretty well orchestrated. Sarysa 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exuses, exuses. Quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Those who believe the article (as it is now) shouldn't be deleted simply fail to understand the deletion criteria.Shaundakulbara 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or understand the criteria and intend to try to fix the article in the near future. —xyzzyn 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I said that those that think its okay "as it is now" fail to understand the criteria. I didn't say all the "keep" notes fail to understand. Shaundakulbara 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But, seriously. A vocal minority arguing that the community at large is wrong and that policy should guide at the expense of community-contributed wisdom is failing to grasp the essence of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. It is not the policy of Wikipedia to delete good articles because they are unverified. There's a critical difference between unverified and unverifiable, and deletion policy is clearly intended to address the latter, while the editorial process will self-correct the former.
KeepAugur 2:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.247.174 (talk • contribs)
Unregistered IP's are not typically considered eligible members of the community for deletion discussion. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-25 02:06Z
Comment - So, to reiterate your apparent philosophy, "everyone on Wikipedia is equal, but some are more equal than others"? No. I'm sorry, but that dog will not hunt. Stop being elitist. Besides, you could have just pointed out that the AfDs are for discussion, and it isn't a vote. -- Y|yukichigai (ramblearguecheck) 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the strikethrough from the IP's contribution. That was unwarranted by Adrian. — coelacantalk — 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was quite warranted and has historical precedent. No one is excluding anyone from discussion, as I've elucidated @ User talk:Coelacan. Strikeout doesn't exclude anyone, it merely draws attention to contributions by users who are not established members of the community, for statistical purposes. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 06:15Z
I've unstruck this users not a vote. The issues raised apply, I feel, but this sprawl of discussion amply draws attention to them, and I'm loath to force it to stay struck just to prove a point, at the expense of community.
Delete per nom, Starblind. No reputable third-party sources, no real claim of notability. -- Dragonfiend 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In just a few minutes I found an article in the Webcomics Examiner. A few bits of the content of the article may not be verifiable, but I think the article in general is.TexasDex 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the find by TexasDex, in the Webcomics Examiner, is very strong. And as Shirahadasha said above, the M.O.M. source counts. So that's multiple, and it fulfills WP:WEB criterion 1. Even if it didn't have that, the plagiarism by Maxim would automatically fulfill WP:WEB criterion 3, "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." Plagiarized distribution is still distribution. — coelacantalk — 22:18, 25 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.