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. The article was significantly expanded from when it was first listed to address concerns regarding references and validation of notability. However, the consesus on notability is still not established either way, so I'm closing this now as no consensus. If the nominator or others wish, they may relist this after a reasonable period. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The noob[edit]

The article makes no claims of notability for this comic, which fails WP:WEB as far as I can tell. Contested prod. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the speedy deletion nomination.

I agree that the article is worthy of discussion for inclustion/exclusion, but by adding the "speedy" deletion, you eliminate a significant amount of the time for other authors on the subject to weigh in and work on the article enough to meet the requirements for inclusion to wikipedia. IMHO

I also belive that deleting this article contradicts the effort to "...an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. " Timmccloud 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"I am Gianna Masetti, the author of the webcomic. As the copyright holder of The Noob, I give Wikipedia editors permission to use text or image material from the comic for the purpose of updating its Wikipedia entry. My only request to the authors and editors of the entry is that it should be strictly informational and it should respect the guidelines of the website."

I have included this item in this discussion as some of the images I am trying to upload to support my position are being deleted. Timmccloud 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on references to prove notability of the article. However I do have a real job, and research like this takes time. I request a suspension of the speedy deletion for at least 2 weeks, while I work with the author and other sources to refine the article.

Why did this get deleted?? We were working on the content, providing valueable infomrmation to make it meet the noteworthyness of wikipedia!! I thought wikipedia gave discussions on articles, not just carte blanch deletions?? (edited into sentance case, as I'm less hysterical about this now... Timmccloud 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your own policy states "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus" It's been a total of 5 hours - that's not FIVE DAYS. How do I contest this? (edit: less hysteria) Timmccloud 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tim, that was my fault. I didn't spot the article was at AFD, and speedy tagging it was not a great idea. I have already restored it so the discussion can take place. Delete is my vote, by the way, as the article fails both WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Proto::type 15:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Proto. The speedy tagging was not my idea, it was MER-C and BradBeattie who added that tag. I tried to remove it, but they put it back, so I figured I had to leave it. The author is working on trying to comply with the copyright restrictions on images so I hope to upload the image a thrid time with an appropriate permission.
- Comment. I'd like to clarify that at no point did I flag this article for speedy deletion. I prodded the article, yes, but that is by no means a speedy delete. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clairfication. Yes, now that the history is restored, I can see that the speedy was entirely MER-C, yours was just the basic tag for AFD. I stand humbly corrected Timmccloud 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem with getting the external references... in the authors own words... "Ah well, unfortunately when someone asked me for an image or two for magazine articles I never thought of asking them for a link or a reference - I'm absent minded" Timmccloud 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable article, because it presents some facets of the current MMORPG culture in a humourous way, and funny to people who are not into these games too. With the recent attention in the popular media to MMORPG games I think that it would be worthwile to keep an article on this comic on Wikipedia. The article itself is still a stub, and should be expanded. Keep. --Krator 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added external reference and quote from outside reviewer as to this comics unique place in the webcomic genre - btw, as the proponent of the article (and apparently current author) can I vote Keep too? Timmccloud 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article NOW makes claims of notability

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - this has been shown, specifically a review in http://comixpedia.com

The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. - this has been demonstrated, winning an honorable mention at the Web Cartoonist choice awards in 2005

The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. this is being done by mmorpg.com on their comics page.

- Friends, please review in light of the current edits. Can I change your mind? Timmccloud 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is now well on its way to being a very nice article that should serve as an example for our webcomics stubs. Un focused 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but it still gives no indication of meeting WP:WEB, or of being in any other way notable. Hilariously funny, yes, but that's not a criterion for having an article in an encyclopedia. If it had actually won a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award, that would presumably be enough to pass the inclusion guidelines (though, given the number of those awards given out each year, I'd call that a technicality at best), but I don't think honorable mentions count. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails WP:WEB (which is a touch policy) -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification It does not fail WP:WEB, as it meets #3 of that policy. The Noob is published on mmorpg.com which is a well-known site independent of the creator of the comic. One could argue that it meets #1 too, but I won't. --Krator 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Even though Krator wont, I will assert that it does not fail WP:WEB, as it meets #1 of that policy being reviewed to critical acclaim by http://comixpedia.com, a consortium of webcomic peers that has been around for three years, and includes more than 90 constant contributors on a daily baisis. That means it meets TWO criteria of WP:WEB, when in many articles on wikipedia, it only meets one, yet the articles have remained. Timmccloud 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anomo 04:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Comixpedia reviews and WCCAs are trivial. -- Dragonfiend 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto Dragonfiend. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This is from Gianna Masetti, the author of the comic in question. I didn't write the article on Wikipedia (it's the work of readers) and didn't mind either way if it was deleted or not because I am happy to abide to Wikipedia's self-policing by its users - if the entry about my work breaks any rules, then it shouldn't be here. However it seems to me that this objectivity doesn't really exist - after reading that "Comixpedia reviews and WCCAs are trivial", I checked several articles that were created or edited by Dragonfiend (who made that statement) - and their only references (and therefore claims to presence on Wikipedia, according to the notability rules) are sites like Comixpedia and WCCA. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding on my part, but I don't see how these sites can be trivial in my case and non-trivial in the case of the entries written by Dragonfiend - forgive me if I feel insulted.
- Comment: Hi Gianna, I certainly don't mean to insult you. Which articles were you looking at before you made your comment that several articles I've created and/or edited have their only references as sites like Comixpedia and those Web Cartoonist Awards? Check the references of the webcomics related articles I've created, including Amy Kim Ganter, Dicebox, Drew Weing, Gene Yang, Lea Hernandez, Metaphrog, Nowhere Girl, Raina Telgemeier, Svetlana Chmakova, Tom Hart (comics), and When I Am King. I don't think I've ever created a stub article that didn't have a reference section with multiple non-trivial sources. The webcomics-related articles I've editd generally do as well, like Fetus-X, Get Your War On, Girlamatic, Joe Zabel, Leisure Town, Narbonic, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Sluggy Freelance, etc. I take it you were looking at some webcomics articles I've made minor edits to that are currently poorly sourced and need to be either deleted or improved? Which ones were you looking at? Dragonfiend 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If you list also pages where you did minor edits I stand corrected. It was an entry that you had edited which had Webcomic Examiner reviews and WCCA as references. An entry that you created (you will know which one but I won't name it because I don't want to start witch hunts resulting in the deletion of more webcomic articles), has as notability references just one paragraph on The Village Voice lamenting an omission of it from some previous article and a review on the Daily Oklahoman. Now, the D.O. may be a daily newspaper, but how are Comixpedia, a news website specifically dedicated to webcomics, or the WCCA, more trivial or less reputable than D.O. where webcomics are concerned?

Keep - Large, developed, sourced and accurate. There are some issues with tone of voice, but those can be overcome. If notability is the concern, do I need to refer to the dreaded Pokémon test? Seriously, less notable articles than this have been kept before. It'd be a travesty to see the article go. –Xoid 04:07, 1 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.