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. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Questor[edit]

Tales of the Questor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

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.

- Francis Tyers · 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: lack of independent reporting required by WP:N and no significant achievements as listed in WP:WEB. Not verifiable except in the trivial sense of existing, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mere directory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comic HAS won a notable independant award:

Tales of the Questor Volume 1 print edition was awarded the 2005 Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work.

The Ursa Majors are the leading awards for anthropomorphic fiction and comics.

• Undelete Article as it does meet criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.142.2 (talk • contribs)

• Comment The Ursa Major Award is not notable. Please see the relevant afd. - Francis Tyers · 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AFD page features 7 pro delete comments, 5 of which evidence animus to the subject matter. That was wrong for the awards article and justifying the deletion of further articles based on that animus laden AFD just stinks. Anybody can like or dislike furries, its fan community habits, or anthropomorphic art in general. Deleting pages on that basis is illegitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. It's not a matter of liking or disliking the content of the comic strip in question... it is wether the subject meets the inclusion criteria established. In this case I am certain it does not. Jerry lavoie 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the well-articulated nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep, as with my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nip and Tuck about the deletion of the Ursa Major award. That deletion looks inappropriate to me, eliminate the content-free "I hate furries" delete votes and there's no consensus there. Given that, this comic is both published and an award-winner. Bryan Derksen 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Comment: The deletion log for the award contained very valid and substantial arguments from which the closing administrator could have easily referenced in deciding to delete the article. Some of the "I hate furries" comments that you are lumping together do not actually claim any bias against furries. 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. The arguments for keep did not address the problem of reliably sourced coverage of the awards outside of its community in order to meet the guidelines of the encyclopedia making them wholly unconvincing (keep 'because people need to find this info somewhere' or 'because another article mentions it' are not valid criteria). In fact, the second argument presents a "notability creep" problem. If a notable subject relates to a non-notable one but notability is transferred in this manner, then if in the non-notable article (like this one) another non-notable subject is related, then this third article gets written referencing the second's "notability". Nip and Tuck, also submitted for AfD, is an example of this "notability creep" which is deriving its notability because Tales of the Questor won a supposedly notable award and both were written by the same author. This webcomic fails WP:WEB due to non-notability. ju66l3r 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous arguments by other wikipedians. 70.43.138.74 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reputable third-party sources, WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 04:15, 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.