Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Built for Comfort


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. On the raw numbers, it's 7d, 3k (surprisingly small WPian turnout here) with the struck-through comments discounted. I have, however, read the debate and clearly the deleters are not persuaded by the keepers, and the restatement of the arguments does not appear to have changed anyone's mind. I'm satisfied that there is a consensus to delete here among those who did not edit blatantly in response to the messages on websites. And to those who mentioned the point: Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Splash talk 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Built for Comfort
'''Due to links posted on both of the artist's websites, this Article for Deletion debate has been rendered rather confusing. For concise arguments from both sides of the debate, please see the section below entitled: RESTATING THE ARGUMENTS.''' (added by --Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Nomination: Totally non notable webcomic, have a look at it's website here and its forums here here. This is a very very minor webcomic, with hardly any readers. A quick glance at the Alexa rank will tell you this. Too many webcomics are being allowed to onto wikipedia without anyone challenging them, due to overly lax guidelines on WP:COMIC, if anyone has time, have a look through List of webcomics, I'm sure many do no warrant an article. - Hahnchen 01:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete webcomic vanity, based on links provided by nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete based on low alexa rank. --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk ·· · 16:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Stu 17:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete low alexa &hearts; purplefeltangel ( talk ) &hearts; ( contribs ) 17:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep From comic author - I resent this post. It was not webcomic vanity as this was posted by an established wikipedia member who isn't me!   What's more, it is not a 'very very minor' webcomic, I am linked from the homepage of a 'Dayfree Press' member, get an average 1000 page views a day, and has been mentioned on Phil Kahn's site, which I'm told is great.  There are so many poorly written or insulting articles you could be deleting.  Leave me alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijamiefans (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - from BFC fan Steven McG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.8.140 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - David Mooney... daily reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.160 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Dave - It's not a minor minor webcomic as the person has suggested, with over 1000 hits per day (tested using traffic-master) which is a lot for a webcomic. Also it fulfils the requirements in the Alternate Proposal.  With over 500 comics in the archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.50.175 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Tim - Listen you, this is the bestest webcomic around, and just because it doesnt get the "required" hits means nothing. I want to see you produce a comic 3 times a week and go to school, an have an active social life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.158.200 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Very cool comic, very cool indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.133.152 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - My vote is not based on being a fan of BFC. I wrote this article and I have written articles about many other comics (Sam and Fuzzy, Her! Girl vs Pig etc).  It should be noted that this article survived a previous battle with the VfD page, so I'm wondering why it's up for deletion again[?].  Anyways, the linked to forums aren't active, but that's mostly because the artist doesn't push them at all.  The artist has an active readership (numbers mentioned) and holds contests every week that have active participation.  A rather minor comic, I agree, but one that is mentioned on enough other sites (Phil Kahn, plus this author is the co/guest-author for No 4th Wall to Break) that it warrants an entry simply to avoid having dead links all around wikipedia.  For this reason, and the webcomic readership numbers, and its clear fulfillment of webcomic alternate proposal (over 500 comics in archive since 2003, including LunchBreakToons comics) I vote for keep. --Tedzsee 22:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a good comic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.143.180 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - from N4WTB and now Jamie McGarry fan. Great Stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.119.129 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - From Virgin Snake. I think the comics funny, and don'y quite understand why it's being deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.15.126 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - From Justin. There's no reason to delete this from wikipedia just cause you're on a power trip. leave the guy alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.55.58 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - From Anonymous. This comic does have a readership. i feel it has been proven. we just happen to be the many who are devoted.
 * Keep Great comic, don't be jackasses.- Rachel(remember to edit the page, not delete and replace it with your own message)
 * Comment The webcomic has a feature on its site encouraging people to come here and vote. That is the cause of all of these IP address votes. --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk ·· · 02:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * SOCKPUPPET INVASION - Yep, the front page of the comic now tells people to spam the wiki. A link straight here telling every reader to do the spam.  Please, the place for minor webcomics is Comixpedia, where an article for your page already exists.  Wikipedia is not a repository for internet links.  And yes, there are rubbish and insulting articles on wikipedia, and yes they will get deleted over time.  I still maintain that your webcomic is not notable and the nomination still stands. - Hahnchen 03:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.I agree with part of the above statement. Discount the IP Address votes, but I would still vote Keep.  As for this article being an internet link, I take offense to that as I worked rather hard to write it from a neutral viewpoint and include information the way I would on any of the many webcomic articles that I've written.  Calling the article rubbish is not only unneccessary, it is also innaccurate, considering that the article is written in the same way any other Wikipedia webcomic article is written.  If you're going to VfD the article on the basis that it is non-notable (in your opinion), that's one thing.  But starting a flame-war and questioning the authenticity of the article in the first place is not only innaccurate, it's unnecessary and insulting.--Tedzsee 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply - Please re read my comment, I did not mean to imply that your article was rubbish. It was a reply to the webcomic author, who claimed we should be deleting other insulting articles.  The reply was to the webcomic author and his remarks.  I was considering replying to your comment up top earlier, but didn't.  I respect your say Tedzsee, and I understand that you were just filling in redlinks.  But the trouble is, those redlinks should not be there in the first place, I think in future, they will probably be removed. WP:COMIC is clearly way too lax, please compare it with WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO.  The place for these articles is on ComixPedia, not wikipedia. - Hahnchen 04:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Reply: - Under the Alexa rating section of the WP:COMIC page it says the following: "Alexa [1] will be used to determine traffic for any webcomic with its own domain name. If the webcomic has a 3-month average traffic better than 200,000, it can be considered to be an entry that could be allowed in Wikipedia.


 * Exceptions to this guideline would include web sites that are currently in transition (from one site to another or one domain to another) or new webcomics authored by creators of an existing webcomic that meets the above criteria. Webcomics that have since retired (and thus are not receiving new, regular traffic) may also remain in Wikipedia.


 * Personally, I've never really been a fan of the Alexa rating system because of its flaws (only counting Alexa users for traffic makes little sense to me), but that aside, this comic meets the second condition, as its creator is now a certified co-creator of the comic No 4th Wall to Break, which was a webcartooning pioneer-type comic, a member of Dayfree Press, and has had an article on Wikipedia for a long time.


 * Secondly, it should be noted that even No 4th Wall to Break has a less-than-stellar Alexa rating (662,339), most likely due to its author's constant hiatus and then sudden outbursts of creativity (which is why I'm really against the whole Alexa thing).


 * Thirdly, as for removing redlinks, that seems pretty ridiculous to me personally, and further lessens this encyclopedia's role as a knowledge-gathering forum. That you have a red-link leading to an article about something that several people seem to have a valid interest in, and that that redlink gets followed and a new article gets created, seems to me a good thing, not the evil thing you seem to make it out to be.  I'm not proposing that every webcomic get added to Wikipedia.  But if IndieTits can get added after scarcly 2 months of publishing (and a long hiatus to boot, AND a current series of sporatic updates) and use the above-mentioned clause as its excuse, I think this comic qualifies at least by that much (it should be noted that the alexa rating for indietits is also under the 200,000 mark). PS: thank you for linking to the WP:COMIC page, but I am familiar with it as well as the music and bio pages. --Tedzsee 04:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep it is so punny it must be kept if they want it here!


 * Reply The front page did NOT tell people to 'spam the wiki.' It called for a show of readers, and was only up for a few hours.  I reckon that the moderator here is biased against the comic.  --Hijamiefans
 * Reply - A call to arms kind of post, telling people to keep isn't really a great way to try and keep an article. I really have nothing against your comic, only on account of its non notability for inclusion here.  If the comic manages to attract more widespread popularity, I would welcome it onto the wiki.  Please, this is not a bad faith nomination. - Hahnchen 14:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply Well how do we decide whether it stays or goes? --Hijamiefans
 * ReplyWikipedia has a vote system, Jamie. Currently, with the non-sockpuppet votes alone, your comic will likely be either deleted or found to be "unsure" and kept.  However, the turnout for voting so far is rather small.
 * As for process, Wikipedia follows something called the "AfD" process which is basically a fair democratic vote system by wikipedians. More on the process can be found here. As Hahnchen said, a call to arms post really isn't the best way to keep your article on Wikipedia.--Tedzsee 18:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Reply Sock puppets? Not only is that's a ridiculous term, but a casual glance at the explanation page says that it refers to multiple accounts, which this lot are defintley not.  Every one a different IP, every one a different individual person.  Now that's what I call a fair vote.

P.S. In my opinion, the fact that it caused this much debate alone means the article is worth keeping! It's so much easier just to leave it on! --Hijamiefans


 * Considing WP:COMIC BFC has over 500 comics stored in it's archieve because it followed on from Lunch Break Toons. Which fulfils the Alternate Alternate proposal.  I wrote the orginal article on BFC, and I am not the author, so that is point 3 taken care off (do an IP check if you must with me against HiJamieFans), and for point 2, it has been going on for over 2 years.  So according to the Alternate Proposal, this comic deserves a place on BFC.  Alexa is unrealiable because it only deals with IE users and not users of other browsers (such as Opera and Firefox) and if you check the bbc homepage link in it's search it returns less than 20000 hits per day when the bbc website gets well over 5 million hits per day from within the UK.


 * Keep Too funny to remove. And ^, are there still people using Internet Explorer?


 * Reply At the end of the day, I feel all the mods comments regarding BFC have been proved innaccurate, and it has also been shown that the comic does fulfil not just one but several of the proposed conditions on WP:COMIC. As such, there can be no possible way it can still be considered for deletion.
 * Keep-Dudtz [[Image:Kardos.jpg|20px]] 9/29/05 6:38 PM EST


 * Delete. Wow, this AFD is a mess. This webcomic has little influence on the webcomic community, and its only claim to notability seems to be that it's a webcomic by the same author as another webcomic of very questionable notability. This surely isn't Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, or User Friendly, and it isn't even 1/0 or Framed!. If you're coming here from the BfC site to vote, please, don't bother. Anonymous votes from people with no investment or history on Wikipedia will be disregarded, particularly if they have no argument other than "It's funny!" or "Why not?" - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A webcomic does not have to have influence in the Webcomic community in order to be worthy of documenting. BFC has a huge archive and a dedicated readership, which is more than I can say for some of the webcomics listed on the Wikipedia. How petty this whole debate has become. --Squirminator2k 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply - Why is it that you have treated a webcomic in a totally different perspective to a none webcomic website? You've stated that BFC has a dedicated readership so deserves an article.  What about blogs?  They have dedicated readerships, so do forums, so do porn sites, but they'd be deleted if they didn't have any sort of popularity or notability.  Webcomics need more than a core bunch of readers to be noted.  The ones that don't should be deleted. - Hahnchen 23:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, if only to punish the writer for trying to flood us with socks and unfairly stack the voting process. Broken S 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

RESTATING THE ARGUMENTS
As the above debate has skewed this Articles for Deletion page, the following arguments should be considered when voting. Please do not add to this section unless entirely relevant (this section created by --Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

For deletion

 * Comment from nominator (Hahnchen) - I think my arguments for deletion may have been lost somewhat in the puppeteering above, and would just like to restate this as well as some others. Firstly, if a webcomic is notable, it would not require calls to arms on both the webcomic site PLUS the no 4th wall to break site (which I only just spotted).  People above have been stressing the notability of this comic because the comic author also helped on No 4th wall to break.  Is no 4th wall to break that popular?  Alexa says 600k+, so it's not a definite yes.  And this argument seems to fall flat, when we note that the author already has his own wikipedia entry at Jamie McGarry!  Is Jamie McGarry notable?  Having made half a dozen websites?  I'm not so sure, but I don't think his webcomic is. - Hahnchen 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Against deletion

 * Comment from author of the article (Tedzsee) -
 * Reply: - Under the Alexa rating section of the WP:COMIC page it says the following: "Alexa [1] will be used to determine traffic for any webcomic with its own domain name. If the webcomic has a 3-month average traffic better than 200,000, it can be considered to be an entry that could be allowed in Wikipedia.


 * Exceptions to this guideline would include web sites that are currently in transition (from one site to another or one domain to another) or new webcomics authored by creators of an existing webcomic that meets the above criteria. Webcomics that have since retired (and thus are not receiving new, regular traffic) may also remain in Wikipedia.


 * Personally, I've never really been a fan of the Alexa rating system because of its flaws (only counting Alexa users for traffic makes little sense to me New as this system discounts firefox users and non-alexa-registered users), but that aside, this comic meets the second condition, as its creator is now a certified co-creator of the comic No 4th Wall to Break, which was a webcartooning pioneer-type comic, a member of Dayfree Press, and has had an article on Wikipedia for a long time.


 * Secondly, it should be noted that even No 4th Wall to Break has a less-than-stellar Alexa rating (662,339), most likely due to its author's constant hiatus and then sudden outbursts of creativity (which is why I'm really against the whole Alexa thing). NEW: ie. At one point, N4W was an extremely popular webcomic (in terms of Alexa rating, since that's all we can use to judge according to this site), and the WP:COMIC page has guidelines stating that for this reason, the article about N4W should not be considered for deletion.


 * (Irrelevant text deleted). I'm not proposing that every webcomic get added to Wikipedia.  But if IndieTits can get added after scarcely 2 months of publishing (and a long hiatus to boot, AND a current series of sporatic updates) and use the above-mentioned clause as its excuse, I think this comic qualifies at least by that much (it should be noted that the alexa rating for indietits is also under the 200,000 mark). (Irrelevant text deleted)


 * New:As for the "Call to Arms" found on both the N4W page and the comic artist's website, I would suggest that these have to do more with the ignorance of Built For Comfort's author, Jamie McGarry/Hijamiefans, towards the purpose of Wikipedia. This is also evident in the creation of the Jamie McGarry article (which should not be considered in this debate, in my opinion, although I also believe the McGarry bio article to be rather unneccessary... for the record I didn't write that one).  No doubt the links and subsequent responses of Jamie McGarry's readers do great detriment to the non-deletion argument in the eye of the nominator.  However, I would urge potential voters to consider both the arguments found in this section on their own merits, extranious comments aside.--Tedzsee 04:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Reply I find the use of the term 'sock puppets' in a negative way to be very demeaning to me and my socky brethren. It really is the most blatant racism. - Mr. Sock


 * Reply As a long time reader, I am totally against the deletion of the Built For Comfort article. It is as entertaining (if not more) than most webcomics. You can clearly see -by the number of votes- that the majority of people want the article to stay. The fact that Jamie is regularly keeping his comic up to date as well as doing his A-Level studies and having a wild social life is astonishing. I also find it totally insulting that you now seem to be slagging off the webcomic author himself. I think you should reconsider your argument and offer Jamie McGarry an apology.


 * Reply I'm a fairly new reader of the comic, having only put it on my daily list a week or so ago - anyway. Bias aside, I don't think this should be deleted, for pretty much all the reasons under the 'against deletion' section of this restatement. After all, consider that the people coming to vote before the restatement were from the BfC site. The author, Jamie, didn't specifically say to vote 'keep', merely thanked those who did. Point is, the 'sockpuppets' are just readers from the comic, but I don't see why their votes worthless. After all, isn't this supposed to be a democracy? I don't see it's that relevant that a lot were from the comic as long as people aren't voting twice. --Snuffkin 14:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just discovered something very interesting. The [|wiki logs] say that all of Hahnchen's recent edits have been, rather than webcomic articles, articles about towns in Yorkshire - in fact, mostly in EAST YORKSHIRE.  I myself am from East Yorkshire, and BFC itself is actually set there.  This is too big a coincidence to ignore - I think this (and the insulting tone of the mods comments throughout) suggest that this is some sort of personal vendetta against me from the real world, rather than one brought on by any knowledge of what makes a worthy webcomic article.
 * Totally False - I do live in East Yorkshire during the summer, yes. I have however, never seen or heard of you.  My recent edits have been to do with deletion of non notable webcomics.  I have a personal venetta against each and every creator?  No, I just think that there are many non notable webcomics listed on Wikipedia. Thinking that I may hold some sort of grudge against you seems to be very egotistical. - Hahnchen 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - You've been looking at my "move" logs and not my contributions. That was when I was maintaining title consistency.  I was searching for placenames followed by Yorkshire, and instead moved them to specify county as the consensus seems to show.  I have made numerous stubs for villages and towns in east riding however, the East Riding of Yorkshire page looks kinda stark. - Hahnchen 23:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would also like a link to the discussion last time BFC was nominated, if anyone has one. --Jamie McGarry
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.