Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Dark


 * 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. --Core desat  04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Crimson Dark

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Fails WP:NOTE. No claims to notability made in the article, none found via a Google search. 151 distinct google hits looks reasonable, but when you browse through them, they are almost all linked to the author (davidcsimon.com), the host (nightgig, the gigcast), the advertising site project wonderful, and / or comixpedia. No independent reliable sources showing any notability where found in this search. Fram 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; unsourced and unencyclopedic in its current form – Qxz 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; If its unencylopedic, it can be fixed. We can source it too. Zaphael 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is fixed and sourced, feel free to consider my "delete" retracted, but I don't think it should be kept in its current state – Qxz 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not a substitute for {cleanup} and {source} tags. Balancer 02:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, how can you say it needs cleanup as justification for deletion? Zaphael 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that you can't simply say the article needs cleanup as a justification for deletion. Balancer 12:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as per nom, it's on the web but mostly promotional blogs. Currently article does not assert notability, but if the above editor who is a contributor to this article can demonstrate notability, or how it stand out from any number of other web comics, then I'm willing to change my vote. Khu  kri  21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been nominated for "Outstanding Sci-Fi Webcomic" in the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (with only three others). It has reviews on Spacesuits and Sixguns and the creator has been interviewed by Fleen (, and currently ranks 47 on Top Webcomics List . I'm just throwing everything I can find out there. I'm not really sure what makes an article "notable", so I'll leave that to someone else. Also, why is the article unencylopedic? I'll fix it if you tell me.Zaphael 08:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes an article notable is explained in WP:NOTE (WP:V and WP:RS may come in handy as well). A blog (like Fleen) does not count, a new webzine like Spacesuits and Sixguns does in my opinion not count in most cases either. The WCCA awards have recently been deleted from Wikipedia as being non notable on their own (but this may well be overturned at deletion review), but a nomination is not enough to make a comic notable anyway. The Top Webcomics list is a popularity contest, not a notability contest. Many popular websites, online games, ... have been deleted because they lacked the necessary reliable sources. Basically, while it is clear that the webcomic exists, has a following, has admirers, ..., it isn't notable yet (in the Wikipedia sense). It may become notable, but it can only have an article after that happens. For an idea of what would indicate notability, take a look at this New York Times article, the main reason the WCCA article may be kept after all. A comic that gets a paragraph in such an article (be it favourable or not), like Narbonic and The Perry Bible Fellowship, has a clear indication of notability. This is the kind of thing we are looking for, not blogs, fansites, fora, ... Of course, the problem lies with the borderline cases, sources which may be reliable and independent enough for one person, but too much like a fanzine for someone else. I haven't seen any sources yet which are good enough for my interpretation of WP:NOTE, but other editors and the closing admin may of course disagree. Fram 09:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on, WP:NOTE doesn't apply to web-only content. WP:WEB does. But you're probably right anyway. And what about getting nominated for WCCA? Zaphael 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting a few nominations, or actually winning a WCCA, would qualify under (2) Awards. Also, "multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" would work. Alternatively, being "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." Balancer 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions.   -- Sid 3050 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete no sign of reputable sources or importance. -- Dragonfiend 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. Fails to adhere to policies governing notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. The only source is the author, and the vast majority of the article is cruft anyway. Google shows little recognition out of blogs and other social spaces. NetOracle 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Borderline delete based on current available evidence. Note for the record that this comic may easily meet WP:N in the fairly near future, and that as current WCCA nominee, it may in fact meet WP:WEB's awards clause in a couple days, so this AFD should not be taken as a bar to re-creating the article, and also should be kept open until after the WCCA results come in (and extended by several days if necessary should this comic win) to avoid an immediate DRV. Balancer 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it you've changed your mind since you wrote, "Speculation as to whether or not a topic may be written about in the future is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not the topic is notable." --Dragonfiend 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but am I supposed to leave the article be whilst this debate is going on? Because I realise it is mostly fancruft, and I plan to change it should it survive. It might help the case if it were in a better form. Zaphael 14:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It might. You might stick a copy on your userpage, too, so you can save your work for later and just re-post it once the comic has become notable (as seems likely to happen in the not-too-distant future). Fram, I haven't changed my mind as to whether or not speculation about the future is relevant to notability. IMO, it isn't notable now, but the timing of the AFD is such that without an extension, there's something like a 1 in 4 shot of an immediate DRV based on it having suddenly become notable per Balancer 06:22, 18 February 2007 (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.