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 no consensus, default to keep, with an expectation that more reliable sources will be added. Sandstein 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whiteboard[edit]

The Whiteboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article's closest assertion of notability is two published books, but I can't seem to locate them on the comic's website nor on Amazon. As far as I can tell, this comic fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• books are located at http://www.docsmachine.com/tees/Sniper1rfa 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would readership statistics be of any help? Is it relevant to compare the notability of this webcomic to the notability of other comics with Wikipedia entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.128.67 (talk • contribs)

• (Author) The direct link to the book sales (above) was temporarily removed from the main page when the latest preorder run was completed. The preorder included some 240 T-shirts and over 450 books, totalling some $14,500 in sales in one month. Over 900 books in total have been sold since Christmas of 2005. DocsMachine 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (Author) According to the page stats (Extremetracking link below comic) TWB receives over 110,000 unique visitors per month. DocsMachine 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided: It has been around for a while (2002/06/18) and has been mentioned on Websnark on one occasion February 25, 2005, although as a "Zapruder Kestrel". It been published but available through the parent site. The article does read a bit like a press release but that can be fixed. --Aclapton 11:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In light of the further the discussion on this page I have reconsidered my indecision and decided that this webcomic is worth the benefit of the doubt. --Aclapton 10:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:WEB - Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:

This comic has been reprinted in magazines relating to the sport with circulation numbers of over 1mil. How does one go about verification of this to Wiki, if the magazine does not publish online?--Nitehawk337 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — Nitehawk337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Heavy distribution in a magazine could qualify it under WP:WEB as long as it's WP:V verifiable. Could you provide references to this magazine? Thanks. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Paintball Games International editor Anthony Jones requested a special full-page TWB, which was then printed in the special annual issue What Paintball Gear? in 2003. The issue had a print run in excess of 150,000 in both the US and England.

• • • Five strips were translated and reprinted in Russia's largest-circulation paintball magazine (the name of which I'm unable to reproduce here) in 2004. Images of both magazines and the TWB strips therein can be viewed here. (Clicking the "O" under each photo brings up the full uncompressed 3.5mb photo.) It's my understanding that the combined circulation of the two magazines is in excess of 200,000 per month. DocsMachine 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Requiring paper sales or references would greatly handicap the ability to list any web-based medium...even Wikipedia...should we delete that, too? (/sarcasm). But seriously, Baen's Universe, SF.com and several other publications are web-based only. There are a number of other web-based comics listed here, including (forex) Schlock Mercenary. I agree the character backgrounds could be a bit less sales-y, but that's an easy fix. There's no direct marketing, and the strip does have a large international readership.209.43.8.126 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Z. Williamson[reply]

• Delete Fails WEB FirefoxMan 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is a good example of a failing in the WP:WEB current policy. This is a paintball-themed web comic, and is NOTABLE and WELL-KNOWN within the paintball community. The problem that WP:WEB fails to address is that even though 10 million people play paintball every year, the industry has underdeveloped traditional media outlets, so being well-known and notable does not transfer to being published due to a lack of traditional publishing outlets for paintball. Raehl 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hrm. That's an interesting point you raise there. I'm going to take the question over to the folks at the talk page of WP:WEB and see if they have any insight on this. Chances are it's been discussed in the past. One thing that just crossed my mind: how do we verify that any comic is notable within a subculture? --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to ask this, but feel I must. The books are clearly posted on the site and have legitimate ISBNs. Fan following is worldwide. References and reprints exist in industry magazines with large readership. Comic is highly ranked on multiple webcomic surveys and award lists. Has greater market penetration than (forex below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlock_Mercenary
  So the question is, since you make a point of claiming veganism, is this an attempt to delete a comic that just recently had an extended thread extolling the virtues of killing, cooking and eating animals in a vicarious fashion? Why no previous complaints, why only THIS comic at THIS time?209.43.8.126 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Z. Williamson[reply]
  • Comment. To be clear, my diet of choice really has no bearing on this AFD nor did I mention it in this discussion. This nomination is part of my effort to clean up the webcomic category. Please remember to assume good faith. Thank you. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the note of the example you gave, Schlock Mercenary won an award from the WCCA. If you can show that The Whiteboard meets one of the 3 criteria in WP:WEB, I'll gladly argue for keeping this article. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Whiteboard has been discussed numerous times on Schlock Mercenary and specifically on Howard Tayler's blog (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2006/08/16/this-run-of-the-whiteboard-needs-your-attention/). Also, Irregular Webcomic has noted The Whiteboard as well (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php?current=1300&dir=prev5). Additionally, while anecdotal and unverifiable, I can wear one of The Whiteboard's t-shirts to any paintball field in the country, and a majority there will know what it is, where it is from, and understand the reference. Nightfalke 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) — Nightfalke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet our content policies. No references to reliable sources, appears to be based completely on original research. -- Dragonfiend 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Is original research a problem? Seems to me that if you can't find the info compiled somewhere, you should find it and compile it. Is that not what wiki is all about, anyhow? Sniper1rfa 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I understand that I need to assume good faith, I find it hard to understand how you can edit the entry to move/remove the references and outside sources, then make a recommendation to delete the entry based on lack of references/sources. Nightfalke 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean -- I didn't remove any information. All I did was move the most important information (this comic's publishing history) from the bottom of the article to the top. See the diff here [1]. -- Dragonfiend 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And then you added the unreferenced tag after moving said references.Nightfalke 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreeing here - Based on WP:V there has been a citation of sources. This goes back to my original point - these magazines are worldwide distributed, but does not replicate all content online... how does one "prove" the citation other than mailing a copy of the said magazine to the person that tags the article as non-cited?--Nitehawk337 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • • The unreferenced tag leads you to Wikipedia:Citing_sources which explains citing sources. The short version is that it's done through standard footnotes (with issue numbers, dates of publication, page numbers, etc). Your idea of mailing physical copies of source material to every wikipedia editor seems impractical. -- Dragonfiend 04:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. I edited to cite page number's and publication dates.--Nitehawk337 14:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Weak Keep needs more info on magazines (if these magazines are that widely read and notable, maybe they need their own articles?), but that looks like an issue for clean-up and editing rather than deletion at this point. I'm willing to give this article more time. -- Dragonfiend 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep; magazine circulation is way better than most get, even if it doesn't have ZOMG NYTIMES. Nifboy 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If such info could be added to the article with a reference I'd probably agree with you. -- Dragonfiend 08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So noted. Info from above magazine reference listed on main page. DocsMachine 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is it important to have the magazine circulation at the top of the article? The main page is hardly so large that data is lost/buried at the very bottom.

• Because the most important information should be at the top. -- Dragonfiend 04:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Important to the article, or important as a reference for the article? As far as the average online reader is concerned, the publication or nonpublication is of lesser relevance than a description of the strip itself. The data is not irrelevant, and clearly satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, but in regards to the readability and clarity of the article, it probably doesn't necessarily need to be "above the fold". DocsMachine 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the reason this comic is important is that it has been published in these magazines, then that ought to be mentioned in the introduction. See Megatokyo -- a featured article on a webcomic -- and note how the intro talks about the reason why it's important (its popularity, its print publication by DC comics, its review by The New York Times, etc.) long before the characters and plots are described. Descriptions of real world impact and historical significance are more important than plot summaries and character descriptions. This has little to do with whether the article ought to be deleted, so let's continue this on the article's talk page if this needs to be continued. -- Dragonfiend 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the case, looking at the article for Sluggy Freelance, an obviously notable webcomic, nothing is stated at the top of the article about the notability and importance of the comic that The Whiteboard doesn't have (Readership statistics, longevity statements, publications, etc). So by that reasoning, either Sluggy Freelance is not a notable webcomic and fails WP:WEB, or The Whiteboard IS notable and passes WP:WEB. Nightfalke 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second sentence of Sluggy Freelance is sourced to the Washington Post. No sentence of The Whiteboard is sourced to The Washington Post or any other third-party source with a reputation similar to the Post. -- Dragonfiend 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As noted above, high-resolution snapshots of each magazine example can be found here. Clicking on the "O" under each image brings up the full uncompressed photo. DocsMachine 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Doc, you may want to put a copyright notice saying you release the photo of the book for use on this page.Sniper1rfa 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Noted. Actually, I'd prefer an image more representative of the strip, and less a "buy my book!" ad. I wasn't necessarily interested in a direct-to-the-sales-page link to the books, as I agree with Wikipedia in that this article isn't intended to be advertising. Though for notability discussion reasons, it's probably necessary for the moment. Could someone show me how to change the image, or where to upload a new image to? DocsMachine 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Query: Who decides a discussion is "closed"? As far as I can tell, this article meets Wikipedia standards for notability, at least for a webcomic, so who offically declares the Article for Deletion open, closed or kept or deleted? DocsMachine 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • About five days after the discussion is opened, a few more if there's a backlog. -- Dragonfiend 08:40, 17 December 2006 (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.