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. --bainer (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

I read and like this webcomic, but it fails WP:WEB: it has a single item of third-party coverage that may or may not be reliable, and that is also not specifically about the subject. Sandstein 07:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It only fails WP:WEB if you think the WCCA is a non-notable award. As a 2006 winner and a 2007 finalist, those two items by themselves establish notability. Add in some third-party coverage (Editor and Publisher may or may not be reliable? That would be news to the entire newspaper industry) and you have an article that should be kept. For reference, the sad AfD debate on the WCCA is here[1] with the result being seven votes to keep, three to delete and the final result being a delete. That's a sad abuse of consensus. Don't let this be another one. TMLutas 19:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is one of the better webcomics that deserves its own article. This isn't some random, poorly rendered Comic Genesis abomination. Mr. Southworth is a well established and accomplished web cartoonist whose influence is significant throughout the webcomics community. Deletion would be a mistake. LCARS 04:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the comic has a significant amount of traffic, the information in the article is fairly basic, and contains little that is not taken from the strip itself, is supported by multiple outside sources, and, most of all, quite clearly exists. Hence it having a site, and such. Traitorfish 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote... Passes guidelines for notability: It is an article about a webcomic that receives a non-trivial amount of traffic. The comic in question is being prepared for syndication and has won a non-trivial award (the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award). In addition, the article is about the subject, according to its introductory paragraph. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this entry in Wikipedia: As a professional designer and novelist I can clearly state that this is one of the better comics on the web. Clean, crisp, professional, with a visual depth and quality beyond most comics. It is unique in its design, humor, theme and array of interesting characters. It is definitely worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Grun4it 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — Grun4it (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep this entry in Wikipedia: Paul Southworth has been creating web entertainment for nearly a decade under the previous comic, "Krazy Larry". The comic is not fake, nor is the artist (I have signed artwork and I fed him once). This is art, this is good work and it should have an entry as any major web comic would. There is no formal peer review process here nor is there any special reason why web comics should be purged, so I can't even see the motivation. Save everybody! pseydtonne 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This stinks of personal vendetta. Someone seems to have decided that webcomics are not encyclopedic, period, but I don't see that published in any of the official rules. Can someone point me at the line where it says webcomics aren't allowed? Betsumei 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guidelines referenced above, this content is acceptable via the following passage:

• "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]
• 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.[7]"

Considering it need only meet one of those, yet meets two, fairly well nullifies the argument against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.35.34 (talk • contribs)

keep I think that considering that Ugly Hill meets the requirements of "notability" (in quotes because those requirements are incredibly open to intepretation and opinion) then the burdeon is on the nominating party to show why the comic was even nominated in the first place. Do they even do research here or just nominate and assume that no one is going to check to see if they actually did a fact check first? Lessthankate — Lessthankate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: If Wiki is what it CLAIMS to be, that is an Encyclopedia - it has no right to judge what is notable or not, since that is only an opinion. Webcomics are a phenomenon of this century and deserve to be noted as such. An editors opinion is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.201.64 (talk • contribs)

Keep Odd that this happens on the heels of Brad Giugar's deletion controversy as well. Mr. Southworth is, in fact, a published author and has been a web cartoonist for quite a while now. Editing an article for accuracy is one thing; deleting it for claims of it not meeting standards is another, especially when said criteria have been met. There's no way to prove a vendetta against Mr. Southworth, but it certainly smells of it. Agentx42 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Just because the comic isn't well-known to all doesn't mean that this entry isn't of significant value. The comic has won a major industry award, has been printed in a book, and is from a long-established artist who is known in the industry. introp 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC) – The preceding comment was added by 207.42.84.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[reply]

Keep - I dont understand any argument for removing the entry for Ugly Hill. People above have already cited WHY. This many "keeps" with only a single request for removal looks to me that it is indeed a personal vendetta against the webcomic or its author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmchale (talk • contribs) — Dmchale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - smells like personal matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.33.100 (talk • contribs)

• Delete fails WP:WEB...furthermore the attempted AFD gaming is disruptive and disturbing to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm hearing a lot of talk about how it fails WP:WEB. Ugly Hill is not a website, but rather, a comic featured on a website. The comic can also be found in printed form, in the book "Eyes of Liquid Rage." This is not an article about a website; it's an article about a webcomic. Runningonsunshine 19:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — Runningonsunshine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Ugly Hill is a notable work. It was recently picked up by a major comics publisher (Viper Comics) and will be distributed in print form internationally to comic book stores and larger book stores via Viper Comics and Diamond Comics Distributors. Official Press Release Toonhound 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I went over this with Evil Inc. Do i have to do it again? If it doesn't have enough sources, put a SOURCE tag on it. If you think it isn't notable enough CHECK! The Shroud 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personnaly I feel this is a mistake on behalf of whoever brought thsi topic up. Ugly Hill is a perfectly legitimate web-comic and has as much right to its own wikipedia entry as any other web-comic. As a fan of said comic I feel that deleteing the entry would be absurd. (Post by a concerned fan.)

• This is a summary reply to some of the less ridiculous of the above comments. WP:N requires substantial coverage by multiple reliable independent sources. None such are cited for most of the content, which means that WP:V and WP:NOR mandate deletion as well. It's incumbent on those wanting to keep the article to find sources, not on me, as noted in WP:V. Being published as a book is not sufficient for notability, or else every one of the gazillion books on Amazon.com would be notable as well, but we' re not an index of books. Neither does the "award" confer notability, as indicated by the fact that the article on the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards has itself been deleted for nonnotability. Finally, neither does publication by the apparently unremarkable publisher Viper Comics, whose article I will also presently nominate for deletion. Sandstein 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It should also be noted that the webcomic's author has posted the following on his website: "ATTENTION: Ugly Hill is about to be deleted from Wikipedia! Click here to add your voice to the protest!". This is disruptive behaviour and an incitement to meatpuppetry; the comments in this discussion not made by currently active Wikipedia editors ought, accordingly, to be disregarded. Sandstein 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that charges of "meatpuppetry," in a forum that encourages literally ANYONE to edit or comment, are an egregious case of the pot calling not only the kettle but the fine china black.Mzmadmike 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ah, the smell of deleting stubs in the morning. Joy. Y'know, before the web notability guidelines were turned into subjective mush, this article would have passed with flying colors. The comic is published and syndicated, and it is a siginificant search term on Google with over 81,000 hits. Certainly, you are correct in that if someone decided to make an article about one of the collections that have been published, it might not meet the notability requirements for published literature; however, a webcomic is most certainly a different medium.
  • It also is of interest to note the rather interesting bias of the administrator who deleted the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Among other things, he says that the Times is not a notable source?!? Well, now, I would hardly call that particular paper non-notable. Hmm. Of course, I would say that your conduct in this matter has not been perfect. I can excuse abuse of AfD; after all, older accounts than yours have been guilty of much worse. I am more than slightly annoyed that ((Comicscene)) and ((Webcomicepisode)) do not contain a satisfactory fair use for you; they are sufficient for all of the other comics on Wikipedia. (Of course, as it goes, this last point no longer matters; I have obtained a more permissive license for an updated image.)
  • Two wordy paragraphs full of ridiculous, half-baked, inscrutable text written by a slightly deranged man with a penchant for strange words should always merit a third such paragraph, which is the idea behind this particularly self-referential topic sentence. At any rate, although it would be my opinion that this article, and many like it, are worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, it obviously falls to the wielders of the almighty mop to make that decision, and my rantings are largely irrelevant because, as I stated before, I post under a declaration of No vote. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics are not special. They are subject to the ordinary notability criteria. Please state more clearly how I have supposedly abused process with this nomination. As regards the image, Image:Uglyhill.jpg, the copyright tag itself states clearly (at the bottom) that it is not a sufficient fair use rationale; see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. Sandstein 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. I was beaten to making this reply because I was distracted by shiny objects, but feel that I should still write it. The WCCA deletion is in no way uncontested. It was done on a single admin's not-all-that-convincing opinion after a 7-4 vote for keep, with all delete votes cast before the article was sourced further. I'm taking it to DRV as soon as I can get a full night of rest to ensure that I'm up for the task, and currently intend to do so tomorrow.
    Furthermore, even without an article the WCCA's significance is not null and void. They're still a prominent part of the field - a field that, as has often been noted in AfDs, by its very nature receives press in the older media, the traditional standard of notability. --Kizor 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I appear to have misread the log. I thought I saw your name next to some rather collusive deletions. Since that isn't the case, I will indeed believe that this nomination is good faith, even if I do not agree with the philosophy that spawned it. Also, Image:Uglyhill.jpg is obsolete, although not in a manner that permits me to tag it for speedy deletion, so further discussion on it is superfluous. It has been listed on IfD. Also, notability is inclusive, not exclusive. A webcomic should be held up against (the increasingly useless) WP:WEB, and also against WP:BK if it is in print; however, since the article's subject is the comic itself and not the website on which it is hosted, it logically follows that any comic that is distributed over the web but is notable only because of its appearance in print should still have an article. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails our WP:WEB guideline. The vote canvassing by the subject of the article is deplorable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I checked, AfD was not a ballot box. Pay attention to the words that people type and always assume good faith. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the unfortunately low the signal-to-noise ratio on this page, I'm going to say this loud to draw attention: The presence of meatpuppetry should not influence the decision one way or another. If we delete out of revenge for irritation, we childishly fail the goals of AfD and of the encyclopedia. That was rather strong, but I feel that this is a vital issue. --Kizor 02:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to our Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Meatpuppets policy, It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.... The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. What policy tolerating meatpuppetry are you referring to, Kizor and MostAwesomeDude? --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's my Yoda voice...ah! There. *ahem* Strong in the ways of the rhetoric, this one is. Careful we must be, mm, yes. Seriously, you can put away the flawed conclusions. It's better to be civil than to be accusatory.
    • The purpose of AfD is to reach a synthesis on the best course of action to take on an article which one person in the community thinks does not belong here. It is not a ballot box, and we are not voting, hence the name of this project (y'know, formerly "Votes for Deletion?") Do as you want with the meatpuppets and sockpuppets. I couldn't care less, either way, whether or not you block or ban them. But, do not simply discount someone's words, especially when they are acting in good faith. While it may indeed be inappropriate to endorse "stuffing the ballot box," as it were, it is even worse, especially for an established, seasoned editor, to forget to assume good faith on the part of newcomers. There's a reason we do not bite new editors, and that reason is that we must assume that they are here to help. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgive me for being irritated, but I said none of those things. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not state, imply, joke etc. etc. that I tolerated meatpuppetry beyond having a weaker negative reaction to it than you. Sure it sucks, but it's not relevant to the article and it should not be relevant to our decision. --Kizor 09:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep per Webcomic notability guidelines for Awarded or featured webcomics for the The 2007 Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Let's wait untill 19 February for that. Otherwise, merge with Viper Comics. JackSparrow Ninja 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted elsewhere, these are not Wikipedia guidelines, but an essay written by you some days ago. Sandstein 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as noted elsewhere, that's my reasoning. ;-) JackSparrow Ninja 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. JackSparrow Ninja doesn't seem to be trying to pass his essay off as policy, but simply linking to his detailed reasoning. With that said, the link should be less ambiguous. --Kizor 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Kizor, JackSparrow repeatedly refers to his essay as if it were a guideline. It is not -- and should not use the word guidelines, to be perfectly clear. At the most generous, one may say that he is being disingenuous, but if he were to start calling it his own essay or including his username in the link [[User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines]] (thus) then at least we could rule out being deliberately misleading. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough - though it's not like anyone would fall for it. He has to say it unambiguously. --Kizor

• Keep -- I don't have time to write a long paragraph justifying my vote, but this is my vote, and I insist you count it. That should be good enough. -- Ravenswood 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AfD is a debate, not a vote; so no, that's not good enough. —Dgies^t c 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ohhhh boy I like (read: hate) that any and all proof that Ugly Hill does meet notability requirements is then put up for deletion or just ignored. Hey Sandstein, if you have such a strong case then why not present it? Show us some non-subjective proof that Ugly Hill deserves to be deleted. As for the "meatpuppet" crap, how else would we know that the page is in trouble? Believe it or not not everyone feels the need to keep tabs on Wikipedia 24/7. Of course most of us got here from Ugly Hill's website. We read the COMIC for UH news, not it's wiki page. Lessthankate

• Keep -- Why should it be deleted? I thought the idea of an encyclopedia was to contain MORE knowledge, not to censor it based on the odd opinions of a few people with nothing more constructive to do with their time than quibble over the internet. I could point you to several articles about insignificant little towns with no information which is not available from the 2000 census-- a mere demographic sketch of a few score people, with no mention of any history, not local traditions, nor attractions, nor any other colorful information. So I must ask, why is something like that more notable than a comic read by thousands of people every day? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.194.74.227 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Although it may have a fan base, it really isn't notable. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory of web media which the author thinks of as "cool" or "entertaining". Every webcomic can be spun to notability, but only very few have an influence on culture as a whole. The amount of pro-keep puppetry here needs to be looked at. NetOracle 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: You've provided zero evidence to support your view. Why is Editor and Publisher, the bible of newspaper industry insiders talking about non-notable webcomics in your opinion? If you look for a few minutes through the 80k+ list of google hits, you'll find other 3rd party mentions like this Game Invasion News. Why does your comment rise above the quality of the pro-keep fanboys? Having an influence on the culture as a whole isn't part of WP:WEB and would eviscerate Wikipedia in general. Can we *not* move the goalposts for webcomics? All this double standards is making me feel dizzy. TMLutas 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to meet all the needed requirements of notability so it's a bit confusing to even see the article noted for deletion. Swizec 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as others have noted, Ugly Hill has been nominated for the Webcartoonists Choice Award twice, and has a book published by Lulu (a self-publishing company). [2] This (and many other webcomics) is no less notable than the many indie rock musicians listed on Wikipedia. To be consistent, if we're to scour Wikipedia of webcomics, we should also remove the indie bands that self-produce CDs. --zandperl 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Being published by a self-publishing company is not exactly impressive. I have had my master's thesis published by a bona fide scientific publisher, and I am still not notable for it. Yes, of course, we should get rid of no-name band articles, per WP:BAND. That we have other articles on nonnotable subjects is not a reason to keep this one. Sandstein 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you should probably nominate yourself for deletion. Though I assume you'll turn around and nominate the articles about myself, my characters and the universe created for them instead, based on your earlier comments. Very few artists in any medium are "notable" by your criteria.Mzmadmike 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Being mentioned in Editor and Publisher is impressive. Being invited into the creation of Blank Label Comics as a flagship strip is impressive. Being a WCCA winner (2006) and finalist (2007) is impressive. More importantly, these are notable accomplishments and justify the article. TMLutas 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominations and references above are sufficient notability, and even though I don't read the comic, nor most webcomics in general, I'm familiar with the name and artist (Yes, OR, I know). His presence and notability is obvious from a quick google.Mzmadmike 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Restating the reasons for this keep is pointless. There have been many reasons given in this article by both WP users and first-timers who still make valid points. All of these are ignored, and most likely will be ignored, by those who VfD. This is clearly starting to take the form of a vendetta of some sort. Dynamic1 03:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query Was the Ugly Hill Wikientry first given an opportunity to verify itself by placing the appropriate tags in the article itself? By this I mean, were the less drastic options of first demanding sourcing for the article, which by reference would then help prove if the comic constitutes Wikipedia's requirements for notability? I am not an established Wikieditor, and so am only posting this as an anonymous query out of curiosity. It seems to me that if there is this much backlash over webcomics, as has been the case for both Evil Inc. and Ugly Hill, then a more appropriate course of action would be to first allow editors an opportunity to prove notability by requesting additional verification for sources of the article. 72.178.166.5 Anonymous Me

• Well, the editors are aware of the sourcing problem now for sure, and they have the 5 days that this AfD will run to provide sources. Ample time. Sandstein 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Actually, some of us are aware of the problems on the page due to the note on Ugly Hill and the other rapidly gaining protest pages as webcomics get pushed out more and more from Wikipedia. What was supposed to be a two-stage process has been compressed down to one stage and that is marred with ugly accusations. Wikipedia should be able to do better. TMLutas 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. I have yet to see any convincing argument for why notable online phenomena like webcomics should not be included, and this is no exception. Skybright Daye 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On the grounds of its publications, nominations, and as a primary member of one of the most notable web comic collectives. I also agree that accusations (and even potential realities) of meat-puppetry should not be enough to automatically sway anyone to a "delete" vote. The members of this particular web comic community have had some justification in being slightly incensed, and while they might be emotional over the subject, that isn't a reason to condemn their cause. Icelight 05:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just semi-protected this afd until closing as this is becoming disruption from new users and IPs, also most of the keep votes above will likely be discounted by the closing as almost all of them doesn't have valid reasons of keeping, as for me No Vote Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've given reason plenty. It's the "editors" who continue to spin and talk of non-notability without ever giving a reason why UH is non-notable or without anything to back their claims up now that it has been nominated. We're passionate, not disruptive. And this isn't a vote, it says so at the top of the page. Lessthankate
    • Notability is something that must be proven, not disproven because you cannot disprove a negative. See also WP:NOTE. —Dgies^t c 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The more often these so-called "notability" guidelines are abused and shown for what they are, the sooner they will be rescinded. I the meantime, no permanent damage will be done by deleting this excellent article on a popular and well-known webcomic. --Turbothy 07:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No permanent damage except to Wikipedia's credibility. -- Jay Maynard 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What credibility? --Turbothy 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete self-publication is not a criterion of notability, anyone can pay their 500 bucks and get published via self-publishing, if I had the money I could publish 10 volumes consisting of nothing but the letter 'a', that doesn't make me a notable author. Nomination for awards is something, but if they didn't WIN any then that's not much to go on. I would also like to register a strong complaint against massive meatpuppetry here. In addition 90% of the 'keep' votes (yes, they're votes, they don't argue from Wiki policy for most of them) are along the lines of either "what harm does it do" (see WP:ILIKEIT) or "Wikipedia should have ALL human knowledge! All of it!" which blatently ignores the fact that WP:V WP:N and WP:NOT exist for very good reasons, to keep us from becoming innundated with the unsourced, unverifiable and non-notable. I'm not sure about this comic, it seems to be just shy of notability, but the arguments for 'keep' just aren't convincing me Wintermut3 08:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep legitimate webcomic - Skysmith 10:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Apart from the fact that the comic did indeed win an independent award of notice, it is definitely not a random, short-lived project. So on top of fulfilling at least one criteria for notability, there is also a strong interest in the user base. While I agree that sending hordes of people to mindlessly vote and create SPAs for it on top would not be acceptable, I can not see an interested party informing others about the AfD to be bad in any way. As Shuttleworth is pointing out, people do not check the Wikipedia article every day so how else should they know about the AfD in the first place? -- RichiH 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Keep I am insulted on some of the comments about meatpuppetry - if you need to inform people about impending deletions - it is a valid to put the word out. I have been an wikipedia editor for quite a while, and were it not for the notice on the comic's home page I would have missed this discussion. Ugly hill is notable for a) longevity, b) publication by a serious label, c) nomination for awards. What is this pogrom that some wikipedia editors have against webcomics? This is a legitimate, notable, webcomic. Timmccloud 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ugly Hill isn't my favorite, but I nonetheless must concede that it meets the notability standards. DS 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No "here" here, just character descriptions/plot summary without critical commentary, which is the sort of thing that Wikipedia is not for. The reason for WP:N's requirement for non-trivial third-party sources is that those are a necessary precondition to writing an encyclopedic article (see WP:FORGET). This one doesn't have those sources, and sure enough, the result is non-encyclopedic. Entirely fails to meet the basic requirement for inclusion: verifiability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT an internet guide. No sign of impact or historical significance, or Wikipedia:Notability's "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." -- Dragonfiend 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I had three things to contribute to the discussion on why this article should be kept, all under notability. First has to do with two guest apperances. Paul Southworth has been a speaker at two conventions. One this year at Vericon http://www.vericon.org/speakers.html and last year at the New York Comic Con. The 2006 information for New York has been taken down, though if you search google new york comic con paul southworth, the result will come back, but the page is empty. The reason that Paul Southworth was asked to be on a panel at NY and at Vericon is his webcomic work, which includes Ugly Hill. To me, that argues that both con organizations thought the work Paul Southworth was doing is notable. To me that means Ugly Hill is notable. The third piece of information is from a press release from Keenspot, the former web publisher of Ugly Hill. Keenspot had it's comics, including Ugly Hill, published in newspapers. Here is the press release http://www.keenspot.com/comicspage/. This was considered of significant note that newsarama, a well know comic site, did note this press release as well. JediAutobot 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome! I've integrated this information into the article since it reflects DIRECTLY on the notablity of the comic. Thanks for the info! Timmccloud 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Won the WCCA in 2006, was nominated again in 2007. WCCA in turn was featured in print, on TV and apparently on the radio (...even though I doubt that I can find an official link for a show that aired in 2005. But I assume that the post is true, and nobody seemed to argue against it). Additionally, this year's ceremony may very well receive some media attention since it will be held at Megacon. As such, the award is quite notable in my eyes. Thus: Web Notability rule is fulfilled. --Sid 3050 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I haven't ever read the comic, but winning a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award makes it clearly notable. Some seem to think the problem with the article is a lack of critical commentary in the article; this seems to be a reason to improve the article, not delete it. DanteComedy 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would suggest losing the lengthy character discriptions, thus leaving a smaller more concise entry, but this is notable enough to keep -- and on a personal note, I think WP:N is a little more anal retentive than it needs to be ;) Bob the Hamster 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No surprise for those who read my comments in this discussion that I think this page should be kept. It has been railroaded by going straight to deletion instead of asking for verifiability and notability nicely (why are those tags there if they're not to be used?) and the page is a headline entry in Blank Label Comics a well known syndicate (or is their page going to be next?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this webcomic deletion thing is getting ridiculous. This is a popular, long-running, award-winning web comic. Yes, there are fly-by-night webcomics whose authors write articles about them after the third posting. This is not one of them. If it fails "notability" guidelines (since when is non-notable a valid reason for deletion?), then the guidelines are wrong and need to be corrected. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article should never have been listed for deletion. It's about a notable Web comic, in the usual sense of the word here.--AlainV 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-I don't understand the animus against webcomics anyway, and Ugly Hill appears to meet the criteria for notability.--Dakiwiboid

• Keep- I'm not a huge fan of this webcomic, but as per the argument of the author being invited by major comic conventions to discuss webcomics, plus the WCCA award, plus the length of time that this comic has been around and PLUS the vast support from the webcomic community, I think this article should be kept. There is an obvious animosity and bias with some of the Wikipedia editors against webcomics. This concerns me. And as I read through the deletion article discussions, I find that it's the almost exact same few people vouching for these deletions. I won't name any names, but I feel that this wave of new deletions is the result of a small group of people with strong-headed views to a subjective guideline. There needs to be more serious discussion regarding the inclusion of webcomics into Wikipedia. Something has to change, I think. Having this bias toward webcomics isn't going to make Wikipedia more legitimate and it's only going to make people angrier. SS Slacker 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)   Note: This comment is the user's first edit. —Dgies^t c 07:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) - This is my first edit, but I've been registered for a while, so this is not a single purpose account. I just didn't have much to say/edit. SS Slacker 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Very clearly meets the standards for notability on account of publications, awards, and third party recognition. I will also second the above "SS Slacker"'s concern that there appear to be a small number of editors engaged in a personal vendetta against webcomics, e.g., NetOracle. In accordance with NetOracle's arguments for the deletion of various smaller webcomics, I will also point out that UglyHill's Alexa rank indicates a reasonable amount of traffic. I am particularly concerned in seeing that NetOracle has been invoking argument by Alexa only in such cases as it would seem to aid the cause of deleting webcomic articles, as this is one of several indications that leave me unable to credibly assume that NetOracle is acting in good faith. This is far from my first edit, and my contributions to Wikipedia have not included anything related to webcomics before this week. Balancer 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Easily meets notability standards. If anyone doubted the notability of this article, they should have checked before putting it on AfD. Putting an article up for AfD is no replacement for a source tag, especially with a subject that meets notability standards as easily as this one. Zaron 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Exceeds notability standards. I also think this debate should probably be closed. The evidence presented for notability is overwhelming. Holding this debate open seems to serve no purpose. --Steven Fisher 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, satisfies WP:WEB and is printed. —xyzzy_n 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of independent literature, from the blog interview to the award recognition, which is well-cited throughout the article. I don't see how this could fail WP:WEB. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. End the vendetta against webcomics before it permanently damages Wikipedia's perception and credibility in the community. -- Jay Maynard 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes and yes! I see too much of this outlash against what some people see as "cruftness" or whatever it is they wish to accuse the article of. In the end I can only see bad things coming from this line of thinking, and very little potential for good. I'm sure the drive against "funcruft" started with good intentions. But it is spinning out of control now. Mathmo ^Talk 10:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Create Paul Southworth and merge there, because I would rather focus on the man rather than merely his work. Nifboy 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Observation This AFD is getting a lot of attention. Any webcomic news site worth its salt is reporting this. Of course, that doesn't give much argument against the whole "meat-puppetry" chants, but it's not like they're saying "cast your vote!" because everybody knows it's not a democracy. At least it's not a democracy when there are more keep votes than delete votes. When there ARE more delete votes, it seems to be totally super democratic. The delete-prone editors need to be at least consistent with their arguments because the general outside observation is that those who have this vendetta against webcomics flip-flop their methods of determination.

This debate is such a big deal and this comic is so freaking notable that I think anybody notable in webcomics is watching this. This is not "fancruft", another term I see thrown around. I don't think even half the people here are real "fans". I mean, I like this comic, as probably a lot of people here do. But I think this AFD debate represents the last chance Wikipedia has for good faith regarding Webcomics, not just to save this article.

There are sources, editors. They're there. And they're reliable. It's all a matter of subjectivity at this point. Please don't be jerks about this. SS Slacker 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, based on awards, IGN article, and everything else mentioned here etc... Mathmo ^Talk 10:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, and nominate Wikipedia's FUBARed definition of "notability" for deletion. It's textbook non-notable! It's not verifiable, nobody's heard of it outside the small community of diehard Wiki-editors who invoke it at every opportunity to the consternation and mystification of everybody else. It's like jargon had sex with fancruft, and this is their baby: wikipedia "notability."

This sick, sad cycle of things being nominated for deletion based on lack of notability... and somebody sees it and then attempts to establish notability (which, in the real world, "having been noted by a large number of people" does establish), and then the mere fact that the rest of the world has a different (and more relevant) definition of notability than etymological abortion that wikipedia has adopted is used as an excuse to ignore actual attempts to provide verifiable "notability." The sickest part is, in the above debate, it looks (at a glance, anyway), as if the passage which mentions that "meatpuppetry" can't help but negate neutrality is being cited to excuse the fact that people are reacting vindictively to the "meatpuppetry". For the record: "meatpuppetry" is also mystifying jargon to people who aren't part of the die-hard wiki community, and it only makes the cycle worse when people who attempt to establish ACTUAL notability (not wikipedia's non-notable definition of notability), they're greeted with a word that can really only be taken as some sort of vague insult and words to the effect that their opinions don't matter.

What PURPOSE does it serve to say, about any topic, that "This doesn't look notable. Please show us that it is, or it'll be deleted."... and then acting surprised when you get flooded by people saying, "Uh, this is notable. I and many other people have noted it."... and then saying in response, "Sorry, you're just a meatpuppet. Doesn't count."? It's like this process is DESIGNED to create this kind of situation in order to create endorphins in the brains of the elitists who get off on the fact that they've spent so much time learning the jargon and policies and procedures of Wikipedia while the crude unwashed masses of "meatpuppets" haven't.

Jesus Dead Jew on a Stick Christ... Wikipedia at large should either come up with a word besides "notable" that means what is actually being asked for (or just drop the "notability" requirement and focus on verifiability, as after all, the requirement that things be "notable" just leads into the fact that such "notability" results in verifiable sources), or stop acting surprised when the public replies to questions of notability by showing that the subject actually is notable.

Wikipedia's quickly turning into every hilariously bad satire of an impenetrible bureaucracy whose rules have evolved completely out of touch with the public interest they're supposed to serve... Alexandra Erin 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OMG Alexandria, thank you for being eloquent and on the point. Timmccloud 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Alexandria, for saying what most of us are thinking. Dynamic1 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the E+P link is enough to establish notability, and as I've said on other occasions, I think the WCCAs qualify as a major award. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I also want to say that the external people who are coming here with little polemics about the nature of the deletion process are out of line. If you don't like the way things are here, well, there was nothing stopping you from taking an interest in the relevant policies and procedures months (or even years) ago. Hell, there's nothing stopping you now, if you're able to muster sufficient consensus in favor of your views. But to come here and act like you're Moses returned from the mountaintop, and we should just turn the entire project on a dime because you're personally displeased by the idea of your particular ox being gored... it's a non-starter. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thank you for illustrating my point, Hbws. Neither Ugly Hill nor webcomics are my particular ax to grind... not even that familiar with Ugly Hill (but then, anecdotal evidence about popularity's got nothing to do with notability, right?)... it's just an illustrative example of something I find to be badly wrong. I'm assuming I'm one of the "external people" you're referring to. Hey, you disagree with any one thing I said, feel free to speak up and dispute it... the rumor is, this is a place for discussion. :P I've read Wikipedia's policies. I've followed numerous AfD's. The problems I see aren't the procedures so much as how they are carried out, and how the use of jargon (or non-standard definitions of non-jargo words) by wikipedia at large guarantees the creation of situations like this. There's a school of thought which says the working definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The more "notability" wikipedia achieves in and of itself, the more often its peculiar jargon is going to create conflicts with "external people" (though the very idea that somebody can be "external" to public discourse on a resource that anybody can edit is strange to me.) Is it sensible to expect the entire world to bend to Wikipedia's linguistic quirks? Maybe this isn't the best ground on which to raise this particular issue, in your mind, but I find the deeper one gets into the policy discussion pages, the more one runs into the impenetrible bureaucratic entrenchment of "This is the way things are done, so this is the way things are done." and the "what Wikipedia is/is not" listings being invoked to shut down or shoot down any new ideas on handling these things regardless of their actual merit. Alexandra Erin 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- As repeatedly stated, this article meets WP:N. In addition I believe this AfD should be rescinded as Wikipedia is not a place to run a personal vendetta against webcomics, which appears to be the case. --Volkai 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I should also add wild accusations about some kind of a "conspiracy against webcomics" to the pile of things that aren't really helpful here. Articles get deleted from Wikipedia for not meeting policies/guidelines on notability/verifiability every day. Today, one guy decided to go through the category for webcomics, and tag the stuff that stuck out. Tomorrow, it'll be the category on egyptologists, or voice regognition software, or cross-bred dogs. You just don't know that because a) you aren't interested in egyptologists/voice recognition programs/dog breeding, and thus won't notice when someone decides to take a look at that category and b) you haven't done much of anything on the site before, and thus don't have enough experience with the deletion process as a whole to recognize the difference between the usual order of business and an honest-to-God conspiracy. This is one of the reasons why !votes from anonymous users and single-purpose accounts aren't usually given much weight in deletion debates: You aren't an impartial participant, and you don't understand the rules of the game. If you want to have the article kept, the best thing you can do is improve it. Are the sources good? Great. Make them EVEN BETTER. Make it so good that the mere suggestion that it should be deleted will produce gales of laughter from here to Timbuktu, and that Pete Abrams cries himself to sleep at night because Sluggy's page can't hold a candle to this one. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It passes the duck test for a conspiracy. (Oops. Guess that means Sheldon (comic) will be next.) The problem is that, by the time people come to Wikipedia, discover just what the notability test means in reality, dig up reliable sources that aren't then immediately attacked as non-notable (the WCCA, anyone?), and then improve the article, it's too late: the AfD has un and the article's gone, gone, gone, and any attempt to recreate it with bettter sources is speedily deleted. There are too many folks around here too quick to say "I've never heard of it, therefore it must not be notable! Off with its head!" -- Jay Maynard 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. Nifboy 21:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even the most structured bureaucracy will give rise to narrow-mindedness and slant as long as there is a strict division in power which is insurmountable. On Wikipedia, the cabal is a group of administrators who share a set of traits: Failure to assume good faith, emphasis on power, belief in irredeemable vandals, overly broad categorization of non-vandal edits into the umbrella of vandalism, overwhelmingly deletionist feelings, and failure to recognize bad faith in other administrators. These administrators, although they do not always act in concert, compose the cabal. Denial of this cabal does not negate its existence. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 06:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been noticing and been hearing of various webcomic's entries in Wikipedia being deleted over the past several weeks, not simply on one day. In addition, believe it or not but this is NOT the only wiki website with a deletion process. I may not have contributed much on Wikipedia but that is because my primary focus concerning the internet is the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI, and there is a separate wiki (FFXIclopedia) created explicitly for it. Thus I do not generally have anything of worthy input to contribute to Wikipedia, unless for some reason Wikipedia feels a need to request the level of detail and thoroughness concerning Final Fantasy XI as is provided by FFXIclopedia. In addition I am not adding to the page because I do not read the webomic in question, nor do I have any meaningful input on the article itself. As I have stated I DO belive that it meets criterion for notability, as has been stated by others on this AfD page. Finally, I have made no claims or accusations -or wild accusations for that matter- about conspiracy. There does seem to be something of a vendetta, though. And as a personal note, this is not a single-purpose account and I feel a bit put off by insinuations that it is. They seem rather like active editors saying to occaisional editors "go away, this is our club." I make no claim of knowing your mind, Hit bull, but that is how it comes across. --Volkai 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I can't believe this is even an issue. - QuestionMark 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm a relative newcomer to editing WP but have been using it as a source for a couple of years. This is the first place I look for information about any subject. As a user, I expect to be able to find information about the things that interest me as well as a wonderful springboard for discovering things I didn't realise would interest me (the front page article on a professional wrestler last week introduced me to a whole world I knew nothing about). Web comics are a remarkable "new" (say, 10 years old or so) cultural phenomenon and it seems from the discussion above that the definition of Notability needs to be reviewed as regards online phenomena. I understand the comic has many thousands of readers and a quick Google search shows tens of thousands of references to Ugly Hill. Many of these are obviously incidental but there are numerous reviews by people who are part of the webcomics community and the comic received an award from that community (and has been nominated again). I think there needs to be some serious re-thinking of the notability criteria if Ugly Hill does not fit. From a user's point of view, I want the encyclopedia to help me explore this emerging cultural phenomenon in the same way that it helps me discover information about other things I know nothing about. Fergusmaximus 07:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One of the main reasons I've seen mentioned not to keep the article is because it lacks "notability." Notability can be roughly defined as significant. So, a quality production with thousands of fans of devoted fans is insignificant? That assertion is laughable at best, and libelous at worst. Shivore 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, E&P doesn't seem to say much about the comic itself and none of the other sources are independent. WP:N requires reliable independent sources, and this just doesn't have it. If the creator had told his readers "go out and find sources!" I'd welcome that, but piling on keep votes that show a gross misunderstanding of how wikipedia decides what to include is not helpful. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither is the ongoing vendetta against webcomics. -- Jay Maynard 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no vendetta about it; most webcomics are just self-published operations that don't meet our basic standards but have had lax rules in the past. It's the same thing that would happen if we finally got around to deleting local garage bands after letting them make articles for a while. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The only problem with this explanation is that the vendetta is sweeping up major webcomics with huge followings. Those here should not be surprised at all there's a revolt brewing. -- Jay Maynard 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The internet tends to amplify and distort things, since all the regular readers can be sent here with a click, but they lose sight of the fact that we simply need sources, and as much as they like the comic, that's not enough for an article. Yielding to this kind of revolt would just set a bad precendent that wikipedia's for what's popular, not what's sourceable.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The comic has been picked up by a publisher. I don't see what the problem is. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I really don't know what's is going on on Wikipedia, but when 75% of articles I like to keep up with get deleted because is "not up our standards," calling it the "Free" encyclopedia is now a bad misnomer and a untruthful statement Xp Spirou 12:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: For the reasons repeatedly stated above. Note that this is not a comic that I read or am a fan of. Also note that the reason for the concern in the Webcomics community is not that Webcomic entries are being deleted. It is that entries for comics that are relitively well respected, well established and/or influential are being deleted, often in circumstabces where other articles would get tagged as lacking sources instead.--BoatThing 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have read this and know itSlideAndSlip 21:13, 13 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.