Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Days (webcomic) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. mostly due to the lack of coverage from reliable sources JForget  15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Better Days (webcomic)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think this webcomic lacks the significant coverage by independent, reliable sources which would establish the topic's notability per the primary notability guideline or provide the basis for a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article free of original research. Whilst the article appears to give many sources the majority are primary - the comic itself, the author's website and their LiveJournal postings. The remaining sources are mostly unreliable and should not be used as sources at all. One source, Crush Yiff Destroy, describes itself as "created for our own amusement, to document the more outstandingly bizarre aspects of the furry fandom, and with no particular agenda or program in mind". It gives no indication of any editorial policy and appears to effectively a private blog for a few individuals with a forum attached. The Webcomic Overlook is a blog, with no indication that the author is considered an expert in their field. The Webcomic Book Club gives several reviews but it part of a defunct website and again gives no indication of any kind of editorial policy or why it should be considered a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. One of the reviews simply reads "Best. Comic. Ever. Further details at 1am." (since it was posted in 2004 I don't think further details are forthcoming) and the other reviews don't indicate that the site is anything more than what it says on the tin - a book club. Both the Crush Yiff Destroy and Webcomic Book Club coverage were mentioned in the previous AfD which ended as a near unanimous delete. The remainder of the sources given are trivial coverage by a website reporting web traffic statistics, a listing on a non-notable web comic index and advertising for a 1999 Off-Broadway play. Since the previous discussion I do not think that any new sources that would establish the comic's notability have come to light - most of the sources being used in the article pre-date the last discussion - and without the unreliable sources that are currently being used the article would be nothing more than plot detail and a basic description of the website's content and services - not an encyclopaedia article. It has still not been demonstrated that reliable, third party sources exist and per Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Guest9999 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — A member of the GOCE who worked on the article described it as well-sourced and written. The heavy site traffic and popularity show clear notability. (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * No, pageview stats do not establish notability, see WP:POPULARPAGE.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 15:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the number of page views was a good indication of notability - which it is generally accepted not to be - it is unlikely that a comic with this level of traffic would qualify [edit on that basis]. The website that hosts the comic (along with the artist's other projects) has an Alexa ranking of 61,029 . At Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del, a webcomic with the considerably higher ranking of 6,586 and around ten times the traffic was deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems to have recieved more third-party coverage in the past four years. --Carnildo (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only third party coverage that's in the article which occurred in the past four years is the blog The Webcomic Overlook, as a blog it is not reliable and should not be used as a source at all. Guest9999 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When I ran all of these sources by the RS noticeboard, all of them seemed to pass without any objection. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * If you are referring to the discussion here then you yourself seem to give reasons the sources shouldn't be considered to be reliable: "Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author", "this is essentially a forum. Reviews are user submitted. It's essentially like citing "some guy". This wouldn't fly in a review of a print comic". Guest9999 (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I appear to be wrong there. Being that no one objected to these sources, and they are still used in the article that I first came across them, Jack (webcomic), without objection, they don't seem as I first viewed them. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Weak Delete. If there was mainstream criticism of the comic for racist overtones, as the article seems to indicate (the hyena thing), then an article might be warranted. But I can't find proper Reliable Sources that so indicate. I also see a lot of livejournal links in the sources, none of which are likely to pass muster. For now, I would suggest merging what sourced content there is to the author's article. I'm happy to keep if sources are found, but I haven't had any luck. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article about the author was deleted following Articles for deletion/Jay Naylor in 2005. Guest9999 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:RECREATE. It doesn't seem to have gained much notability since the last AfD and does not have many reliable outside references in any case. Howan (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Not only is this completely non-notable, but it is a horrible a violation of the spirit of Biographies of living persons to use unreliable sources like the author "The New Meat" writing in "Crush! Yiff! Destroy!" and the writer "El Santo" of "The Webcomic Overlook" to label a living person "racist". So I am removing the worst parts of this until we can delete the rest. I'm looking forward to  someone trying to make the compelling argument that pseudonymous authors of webcomic furry fan blogs have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so we're going to let them call people "racist" on Wikipedia. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The intention wasn't to call the author racist. The original was written in neutral terms to state that some reviewers are of the opinion that the author was racist. I make it a point to present all points of view, even those that conflict with my own. Secondly, this is not a biography. This is an article about a comic strip. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Yeah, no. Pseudonymous writers of unreliable, self-published blogs are not going to be used as sources to call living people "racist" on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit to the article. If you feel really strongly that we need to use Wikipedia to document when pseudonymous bloggers call living people "racist," you could try to build a consensus for changing Wikipedia policy on that before adding any more poorly-sourced "racist" accusations to this or any other article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you, but I don't believe that the point the reviewers were trying to make was that the author was racist, but that they were exaggerating the content of the comic to make a point. There is a storyline in the comic which deals with racism, and the comments of the reviewers appear to be an overtly emotional response to that, or the idea of using race in an anthropomorphic comic (which is not a new concept, but the reviewers seem to be entirely unaware of Maus or Fritz the Cat). I'm going to leave the reviewers' accusations out, but I restored the rest of the text you deleted, which wasn't inflammatory. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Strong delete per nominator's thorough analysis of the sources. What isn't primary is trivial or unreliable or both. Sharks also makes a valid argument in that some of the content was BLP violation. (Note: I quick-failed a GA nomination.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guest's excellent leg-work chasing the sourcing issue. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete- the citations do look very poor, a lot of links to live journal chats? Weakly cited article with subject of doubtful notability. Recent assertions through these citations that the writer was/is a racist just attract attention to the citing issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourced mostly to livejournal? Delete with extreme prejudice. Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.