Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey and Andy (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Casey and Andy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Dubious notability. Not a single secondary source, just primary sources and forums. The fact that it had an RPG based on it isn't an assertation of notability, nor is its longevity (in webcomic terms). There are absolutely no secondary sources to be found anywhere. Last AFD was in 2005; I think this is long overdue for another look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Summarizing the previous AfD debate: a blatant spammy article was stubbed out, that was challenged. The creator of the comic apologized for a fan making the original spammy article. The debate was low-level with KEEP votes, when they bothered to list a rationale at all, opining that the article would be eventually developed by fans. A KEEP result was recorded. In the interim the article was indeed fleshed out by fans. I can see where my friend Mr. Hammer is coming from here, the sourcing still sucks. I have no personal opinion about the inclusion-worthiness or lack thereof of this article. I'm tagging for the Rescue Squadron and we'll see if any sourcing materializes sufficient to save this very extensive, fanziney page. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single reliable secondary source. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per sourcing concerns above. Snotty Wong   chat 18:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviewed on Websnark and it won their 2004 Shortbread award(see links in previous AFD). Also seen on Sequential Tart reviewed at  and then the creator interviewed at  where this webcomic is mentioned in several places throughout the interview.  Note: Sequential Tart is quoted in a 183 Wikipedia articles as a reliable source, but doesn't have its own article yet.   D r e a m Focus  04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep the sources found by Dream Focus aren't the best (coverage only in the context of other comics and not too in-depth) but probably hits the bottom bar of WP:N.  is the Websnark article/award.   Hobit (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete. I'm usually an inclusionist, but this article is very borderline when it comes to notability. Yes, it's been mentioned by Websnark and has won an award on that site, but WP:WEB states that a website requires multiple reliable sources for notability, not just two non-trivial mentions. And seeing as there's zero results from mainstream media outlets, leads me to support deletion.--hkr Laozi speak  05:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mainstream media outlets don't cover most/any webcomics, regular comics, certain genres of novels even if they become bestsellers, the vast majority of manga, etc. Horrible system to rely on.  Fortunately the guidelines are just suggestions, not absolute law like the policies are.   D r e a m Focus  05:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that, although it's true in some cases. Notable webcomics usually are covered in the media.--hkr Laozi speak  21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Undecided. There are a small number of independent sources provided, but the vast majority of the article consists of descriptions of the characters, sourced to the comic itself. It would be best to edit this article to focus on the evidence of its notability and its reception on the Internet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Few secondary sources found. TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  08:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It has been over 5 years since the last nomination, and still not a single significant reliable secondary source has been found for this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? I think that's blatantly untrue.  Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I wrote "It has been over 5 years since the last nomination" because the last nomination was from February of 2005 and it is now October of 2010. I wrote "not a single significant reliable secondary source has been found for this topic" because the only sources mentioned here or used in the article (other than the website itself) are interviews (primary sources) or a few paragraphs (insignificant coverage) on self-published blogs (unreliable sources). Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 22:05, 24 October 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.