Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del


 * 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 to get rid of this article, but in light of the "support" !votes, and in the interest of preserving the work if future reliable sources show up, and per the obvious reason of this being a plausible search term, Redirect to Control-Alt-Delete. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable subject with only primary sources. Little information exists to replace primary sources, excepting a meme spawned at the comic's expense. Dudewhiterussian (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC) ugen64 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Only trivial mentions found, although it did win a supposedly notable webcomic award and has been published in book form. Delete No non-trivial mentions. Yahtzee DOES NOT count, nor does the award which is fan-voted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Taelus (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Control-Alt-Delete. If it is to stay, it should be disambiguated with a name like "Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)", because is commonly used for Control-Alt-Delete. &mdash; Sebastian 00:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Sebastian. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If redirected, protect to lessen the chance that someone creates another fanwank article of this ilk. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's only necessary if you assume bad faith, for which I see absolutely no reason here. &mdash; Sebastian 01:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If deleted, redirect per sebastian. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - The article has had several chances to sort itself out, with numerous editors attempting to fit anything other than weak 3rd party sources, and them being shot down. The comic itself is just not notable anymore, and if it ever was, remains to be seen, or validated - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that something cannot become less notable over time (according to Wikipedia's definition of "notable"), right?
 * Which is why I clarified what I was saying after that comment - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with impunity per everyone else. Suck it, Buckley. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. No good sources, no article. -Rmzy717 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per lack of third party sources. Outside of the criticism/meme, there seems to be a lack of good sources which has lasted a long time for this article. I don't think the criticism is enough to grant this topic notability by infamy however. --Taelus (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure I understand. Is the whole reception section filled with unreliable sources? I don't get it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I am uncertain about the quality of the "award" sources, as the webcomics name is spelt wrong on the first of them, and neither seem to really do much except list the fact it failed to win an award twice. The rest of the sources in the section are criticism or related to the 'meme' occurance, which don't strike me as establishing notability. I may be missing something with the two award citations however... But as this article has been sitting around for quite a long time with maintenance tags, and a few searches don't seem to yield much, I am dubious here. --Taelus (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well I would move it to Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) and then redirect that to List of webcomics. It looks like it has gone through a lot of work, and all of that shouldn't be lost. Also, I think if someone really wanted to, they could find reception for this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick comment about the WCCAs is that anyone with a webcomic can vote in them. I've voted in them, therefore I don't regard it as much of a reliable source. Your mileage etcetera etcetera. Nifboy (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on awards, but maybe move it to Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) and source it better. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - No opinion on deletion per se, but I hope the closing admin will take into account that the article is a magnet for BLP abuse, and err on the side of deletion if it's close. Steve Smith (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Did the deletes read the article at all? Check out the "Other publishing" section.  The comic strip is used in a Sid Meier's Civilization game, among elsewhere.  He has been mentioned by a guy notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, who published something about him in Zero Punctuation, as well as by the two guys(both have articles also) from Penny Arcade, both on their site, and in interviews.   D r e a m Focus  04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that mention by or tangential connection to otherwise notable sources does not grant notability. We do not have articles for more well known in-house artists at various game studios when they create comics as part of ad campaigns. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's not all primary sources, and is at least marginally notable. However, I'm not opposed to moving to a dab page, per the others above.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems to have enough independent coverage, not all of it positive. Pcap ping  12:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (and move to disambiguated title). Even bad webcomics can be notable.  The "reception" section is a strong core around which a neutral article can be written.  Powers T 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keepers: What sources are you talking about? There are almost no secondary sources at all, save for a non-notable award. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume they're referring to the 1UP web comics article, the Penny Arcade interview, and the multiple references to Ben Croshaw's views. Not all of it is significant coverage, but they are secondary sources. Not a lot, but I suspect there are quite a few more that aren't referenced in the article. I'll try to find some more if I have the time. Reach Out to the Truth 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think yahtzee counts as a reputable source in this case. It'd be like citing The Nostalgia Critic for that animated Titanic movie. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep very well known webcomic, sources appear to back that up. Artw (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, Zero Punctuation counts as a source. Artw (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Personal blogs don't count as sources, sorry. Ctrl-Alt-Delete hasn't really accomplished anything worth noting, even considering it's a webcomic and webcomics are by definition not notable. There's little you can say about Ctrl-Alt-Delete: it exists, it pumps out mediocre content on a regular basis and it has a readership of a few thousand. I can point you to any number of webcomics that meet those criteria and yet have also have no presence on Wikipedia. Just existing and doing things is not criteria for being on Wikipedia, otherwise I would have a 50,000 word article on myself. Not to mention that the article itself is either consistently vandalised by those who hate the webcomic, or consistently whitewashed. So what we have is an article that is either pointless, abusive, or fancruft. Doesn't seem worth it to me. --FuegoFish (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "webcomics are by definition not notable"? Powers T 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They never do anything of note. They start and they update. There's no news in that. Nobody writes articles, print or otherwise, about how a webcomic has continued to update after two long years of updating. Releasing print books of content is not notable, anyone can do it. Winning "webcomic awards" is not notable, because they are just pointless trinkets handed out by popular vote - and popularity isn't notability. I suggest you look at the long history of webcomic articles on Wikipedia and their habit of being deleted if you want to learn more. Less than 0.01% of all webcomics have a Wikipedia article, and even then not all of them actually even meet the requirements necessary for notability. That's how Wikipedia works, for good or bad, no exceptions. --FuegoFish (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, so are you saying that none of them are notable (as you imply in your first sentence and in your previous comment) or that most of them are not notable (as you imply by saying "not all of them actually even meet the requirements")? Powers T 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically, webcomics that manage to have articles are generally notable for reasons beyond them being a webcomic, like Penny Arcade's charity work and popular convention. The implication when I said "not all of them actually even meet the requirements" is that there are articles for webcomics here on Wikipedia that have been around for a long time without anybody actually noticing the subject isn't notable in any way. In any case, recently I have taken the opposite stance in a webcomic AfD discussion, arguing to keep a particular article. In that discussion, I was told (time and again) what was and was not grounds for an article, so it's been drilled into my head. That other webcomic has at least as many fans as this one, its article had at least as many independent sources as this one, and yet it was deleted for a lack of notability. I don't really see why this article should stick around when it also fails to meet the same criteria. I recommend taking a look at the notability guidelines for web content. --FuegoFish (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the guidelines, and I assure you that there are several webcomics which meet them as webcomics, Penny Arcade among them. PA would have an article regardless of Child's Play and PAX (which have their own articles anyway).  I believe CAD is among the group of webcomics that meet the guidelines, although I admit it's a borderline case.  I don't know what this other webcomic was whose article was deleted, but I likely would have opposed deletion in that case as well.  Powers T 13:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well nobody who voted and argued (at length) for that deletion seems to be interested in this particular one. Maybe it was less that it was a webcomic and more that it was a new article? Or maybe there's just cliques on Wikipedia when it comes to this sort of thing. I don't know. But I've learned a long time ago that when it comes to Wikipedia, you go with the flow, because there are people on here with more time and impatience than you - and they're the ones who make all the policies. --FuegoFish (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Primary sources abound. Kflester (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a general article on, or list of, webcomics; or weak delete if that helps meet a concensus. The only source coming close to satisfying notability guidelines (or verifiability, really), is the 1UP write-up. Other citations are either trivial, or not independent. Marasmusine (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to a list isn't a good solution in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Control-Alt-Delete. At best, keep this article as Ctrl+Alt+Del (Webcomic) or something similar. I can't imagine a reality where this webcomic is more significant than the three-finger salute. Mockingbus (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage found, , and . –MuZemike 17:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First one, what makes it notable? Other two, maybe. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or maybe redirect I'm not really sure how notable this is, and then people keep mentioning the problems with sources. This would probably be better on a webcomics list as mentioned before. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete In past AfD's I've believed this to be a non-notable webcomic. In the span of time since then, little has changed. This subject has not been reviewed or discussed by third parties (as far as the page suggests). I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here since we simply cannot include the work of just any freelance artist, be their work painting, scultpure, comic or otherwise. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, interesting. I agree that pages must meet verifiability (the ability to prove we know what we're talking about, vital to an open wiki) and notability (the ability to meet an arbitrary but popularly supported standard of worthiness, meant to keep the place maintainable (but which may be used to destroy unpleasant content rather than improve Wikipedia more often than not)). Other than those things, why can't we? --Kiz o r  20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note Will the closing admin please realize that the many "keep" !votes are claiming WP:ITSNOTABLE and saying "it just needs more sources" without WP:BURDENing themselves to hunt for said sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out here that in the past we have searched for sources, and following much discussion, have failed in finding any, apart from an unhealthy dose of primary sources. This article has seen much work done to it in an attempt to boost its validity, but there just aren't any particularly notable sources for it - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Will the closing admin please realize that 10#H's characterization is grossly flawed, at least in so far as it implies that all keep !votes follow the reasoning he specifies? My recommendation of keep, for example, is not based on that at all.  Powers T 20:27, 2 March 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.