Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Planet Earth (and other tourist traps)

Planet Earth (and other tourist traps) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP.

Webcomic. Note that guidelines indicate a requirement of an Alexa rating of 200,000 or higher; this domain has a rating of nearly 2 million. I checked out the website to find, lo and behold, a petition from the author to make a Wikipedia article about his comic. Suggest deleting under webcomic guidelines. Well-intentioned but unencyclopedic fancruft. Ashibaka &#9998; 05:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Said petition is a reference to a desire for inclusion under Wikiproject Webcomics, which is specifically designed around this very concept. To categorize it as "fancruft" is erroneous, in this circumstance.--Eric Burns 06:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gamaliel 05:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the comic is significant enough to warrant an article. -Branddobbe 05:33, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those guidelines mentioned above are just that: guidelines.  They do not constitute requirements.  As stated on Web_comics: "These guidelines are primaily designed to prevent the multitude of new or unencyclopedic web comics from using Wikipedia as free promotion."  In other words, it doesn't apply to PE(aott). Factitious 06:31, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wait, this isn't a non-notable webcomic using Wikipedia as free promotion? You'd think if it were popular the Alexa rating would reflect that. Ashibaka &#9998; 06:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's notable enough that I've heard of it a few times, and recently added it to the list of webcomics I read. There's a brief essay on it over here, which shows it's been getting attention from other websites. Factitious 08:43, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those guidelines were never voted on and have no weight as policy. Furthermore, I think a persuasive case is made at for the inclusion of more webcomics. Snowspinner 07:01, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seven-digit Alexa ranks suggest a lack of notability. &mdash;tregoweth 07:19, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * The Alexa rank suggests that "popularity alone would not suffice to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia." (Alexa test) It does not suggest a lack of notability. Factitious 08:43, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 15:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. jni 17:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. As has already been said, the comic has been around for a long time and has an established fanbase. --Ciaran H 22:32, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Account created to vote on this VfD. No other edits apart from user page. --Improv 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I dispute this. I have been very interested in Wikipedia in general and am planning on being much more active in the future. I had an account on Wikipedia before this (User:Ciaran) but had forgotten the password, and evidently the email address I used to sign up. (Granted, that user doesn't have any edits either but it should show that I've at least been interested in editing at Wikipedia long before this VfD.) --Ciaran H 19:09, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Normally, it's best to contribute to wikipedia for a bit before becoming involved in policy areas. Why don't you work on articles for awhile, and if you're still interested, return to VfD then? --Improv 19:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I do plan to, and actually have done so for a couple of articles already (more to come, obviously). For the moment, though, I was just requesting that my vote could be counted. --Ciaran H 22:53, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am a big webcomic fan. I'm always looking for ones I haven't run across before. If I haven't heard of it and it's been around for five years...I am willing to be convinced but right now I just don't see it. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've developed something of a reputation as a Webcomics critic, and have a rather startling number of strips I read on a regular basis. I discover strips of significant fanbase and (perhaps more significantly) peer recognition that I've never heard of all the time. It's the nature of the beast. --Eric Burns 06:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Webcomics shouldn't need Wikipedia to gain their reputation. JFW | T@lk  03:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable webcomic. Advert.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Planet Earth has begun to attract critical commentary, is a keystone of the Nice collective of webcomics, and has shown both significant artistic growth and a clear evolution beyond the "vanity webcomic" stage. The guidelines, upon review, are not Wikipedia policy at this time and, at greater review, are needlessly strident. Planet Earth highlights the need for review and revision of that proposal, because it clearly has the depth for serious critical consideration. Quite honestly, obscure with depth would bring greater value to Wikipedia than well known and vapid, in my opinion. --Eric Burns 06:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Has edited 3 articles, very very young account, from someone who reviews webcomics. --Improv 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Who made you the election judge, Improv? Young acounts are still legitimate voters unless they are sock puppets and that is not an accustion made lightly. Just because he is new gives you no right to bite. --L33tminion | (talk) 18:43, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Where's the bite? I'm not insulting them, nor being overly rude. I'm simply noting that their votes might not be considered valid. It seems to me that you're abusing the "Don't bite the newbies" phrase, attempting to apply it in situations where it's pretty obviously not applicable. --Improv 20:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep seems in order here. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  20:43, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not going to vote either way on this issue as I'm the cartoonist, I'd just like to point out that PE(aott) is one of the top 15 comics at webcomics.com and is one of the more active members of The Nice. The comic strip can be viewed at these sites and both of these sites do pass the Alexa raking guideline. --Thomas
 * Keep . I didn't hear of Sluggy Freelance until a few years ago, but I doubt anyone would say that makes Sluggy insignificant. Pe(aott) may not be a giant, but neither is it insignificant. Plus, the reason for wanting it deleted seems, well, rather elitist. Pe(aott) updates regularly, has excellent storylines, and is on the whole, something that should be more well known.-jedi_lora
 * Votes without an account are typically not counted. --Improv 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not necessarily irrelevant enough to be deleted.   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  00:29, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Keep seems the obvious decision here. Codayus
 * User has three edits, none in the article namespace. --Improv 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep The bellman 21:25, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Keep Worthwhile and worthy. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 23:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 17:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As anyone who has the requisite artistic and computer skills and has the urge to do so can make a webcomic, I consider articles on such things to be nothing but vanity unless the Alexa rating or some other meter shows that they have gained an exceptional level of attention.  Indrian 17:34, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.  --L33tminion | (talk) 18:35, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I thought I already voted, but I guess that was on some other webcomic. - Lifefeed 18:38, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Much as it pains me, given the attempt at using Wikipedia for promotion, I'd have to vote keep - David Gerard 19:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 01:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)