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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superosity[edit]

Superosity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superosity. Re-created article has identical content. No third party sources (WP:V and WP:OR issues. /Blaxthos 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Salt as nominator. Evidence of WP:SPAs re-creating deleted webcomics. ANI case opened. /Blaxthos 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4 unless there's a reason we can't. --N Shar 06:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Recreation of deleted article. Maxamegalon2000 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete If the nom by Blaxthos wasn't enough, this article was deleted as a result of a previous Afd and nothing has changed. Delete delete delete. auburnpilot talk 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it meets the requirements of speedy deletion or not, I still maintain this article doesn't meet the requirements of inclusion. It's nice that sources have been added, but real sources other than Comixpedia.com, the comic's own website, and the site that hosts it must be found. Remove these and there are little to no reliable sources; well, unless you count a Google.com group site, a blog, and some fan sites. auburnpilot talk 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability. The claim of notability through hosting on Keenspot doesn't apply in this instance. WP:WEB states The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators. As the author of this comic is the founder of Keenspot, it's not independent. However, it is in print and it seems notable enough for Amazon.com to carry it. The sales rank isn't too high, but it's enough to meet the independent distribution clause. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't only a Keenspot-hosted comic, this is the first Keenspot comic. Created by a co-founder of Keenspot. Daily for almost eight years now (closing in on 3,000 episodes). Seven comic book issues in print. Substantial press coverage. "Hugely influential" according to Schlock Mercenary creator Howard Tayler. CG animated series spin-off in the works. etc etc etc. Egunthry 07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated, and you guys are asserting notability... half of the article is summarizing web spinoff minifilms. If all this notability exists, then get some third party reliable sources. I'm willing to change my vote if the notability claims are verifiable and sourced within the article. If something is truely notable, sources exist and can solve all three problems (V, RS, N) all at once.  :-) /Blaxthos 07:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember though, only offline sources are valid for determining notability on an online webcomic for an online encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.8.147 (talk)

You're not helping. --Kizor 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia's editors and admins have such frail egos that they can't handle having their ridiculous policies rightfully lampooned, then perhaps they need to revisit those policies so that there's nothing to make fun of.

We can. I'm just saying that you're not helping the situation. --Kizor 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, trim to stub if necessary. There seem to be some third party sources. More importantly, I’d like to remind everybody that opining on AFD carries the responsibility of actually checking your facts. The article has been deleted exactly once, by the A7 criterion. It has been undeleted, not reposted. Regardless of that, it does not qualify for speedy deletion under G4, since that is only for items deleted by an XFD process and the first nomination of this article was closed not by consensus but because the article had been deleted in a different way. So, will the ‘speedy delete’ people please refresh their memory of WP:CSD and reconsider? —xyzzy_n 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough for me. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The logs and archives seem to agree with xyzzy, and anyway the article as it is now is different enough to not be a repost. The now-added references section reaches more than a bit, but comes up with enough good ones. --Kizor 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed completely since I nominated for AfD. My problem is still that there are no published sources... although the article is better than where we started (by a long shot), it's still essentially unverifiable by anything other than the blogosphere/interweb. Just because it's notable within the world of webcomic fanbase doesn't make it actually notable in the "big picture". /Blaxthos 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having several collections in print isn't good enough for you? [1] --Fang Aili ^talk 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren’t very good. Ideally, we would replace some. However, I think most of them actually pass the reliability test, even if only at its lowest setting. Since the article is about pop culture and not not astrophysics, the sources, weighted by their reliability, do, in my opinion, substantiate the article well enough to have it kept. (It goes without saying that the Websnark search page should be replaced by something more tangible and everything else should be cited properly, but that’s a style issue.) —xyzzy_n 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the "no published sources" comment, as references clearly include Comics Buyers Guide, Editor & Publisher, and Daily Variety. Do these national printed magazines not count as "published sources" of notability? Egunthry 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing primary and secondary sources. Every source under the references section is a self-published webpage/blog/comicfansite (be it comixpedia, etc.). The strip itself may have been published in print, but this doesn't mean that these are sources discussing the strip (a secondary source). I'm not saying they don't exist, but right now the article is lacking anything but online citations (generally a no-no). See WP:RS. /Blaxthos 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren’t Campbell’s Comixpedia article and the review in Comics Buyer’s Guide reliable? Also, I can’t find anything in WP:RS about having only online citations being a ‘no-no’. Printed sources are obviously more valuable, but that doesn’t mean online ones are useless. —xyzzy_n 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors seem to willingly overlook our most basic policy on Wikipedia, especially when they like a certain topic. As I often quote in AfD discussions (emphasis added):

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

— WP:V

So yes, I would continue to assert that an article that can only cite online sources from very niche-specific sites will continue to have WP:V problems. /Blaxthos 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Buyers Guide is a well-respected, long-running print magazine, as are Daily Variety and Editor and Publisher. All are cited as sources here.Egunthry 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except Campbell’s book isn’t self-published and Comixpedia is neither his homepage nor a blog but is a magazine about webcomics where Campbell has contributed some material. Furthermore, neither Campbell nor Comixpedia seem to have any close affiliation with Superosity. So I don’t see how that quote applies. —xyzzy_n 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to a basic invalid WP:ILIKEIT argument, the strip seems notable. I kind of like a guy who wears a cape for no reason though. TonyTheTiger 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The original speedy deletion was on the basis of "no assertion of notability". If "will have a TV show based on it" isn't an assertion of notability, I don't know what is. --Carnildo 20:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to have tenuous links to notability; perhaps when it has a TV show (on a national network) it might deserve notability. Hawker Typhoon 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete While I am no fan of webcomics and their lack of notability and worth in general, this one may need to be kept, and I will be fair in that regard. If this is to stay, then those familiar with it really should help better establish notability, and expand the article in that regard. The article mentions that it was the first series in a rater large website featuring webcomics - did the site expand rapidly because of this series's popularity? It is mentioned that this webcomic existed in print form - how many copies were printed, by whom, and how widely were they distributed? This may be one of the few notable webcomics, and thus, I am hesitant to condemn it without allowing a chance for certain ambiguities to be first cleared up. Should the needed facts fail to appear, my opinion will be that of a solid delete. NetOracle 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here have LexisNexis access? I know Superosity has been referenced by many newspaper and magazine articles, but it's impossible to find them all through Google search.66.35.99.183 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Clearly notable enough. Balancer 08:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Historical value if nothing else; keep. DS 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and influential comic series. Wizardbrad 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep Who online hasn't heard of this if they've been online for a while and read comics? Ccfr88 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ccfr88 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Ccfr88 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn’t until I got here. —xyzzy_n 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carnildo. --Krator 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we can find multiple non-trivial independent sources on thi topic. May be a pragraph or two worth merging into Keenspot. -- Dragonfiend 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the article itself says: "first comic ever to be hosted by Keenspot". Mathmo ^Talk 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep with a very clear case of notability. JackSparrow Ninja 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The more impressive looking references (Variety, must be good) don't deal with the subject, and the ones that do are generally either not independent (Keenspot) or not reliable (Comixpedia). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added information and sources on Superosity's publication in The Turlock Journal and other newspapers. Egunthry 11:26, 14 February 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.