Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Owl


 * 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. Consensus is that there are no adequate sources yet  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Daisy Owl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet Notability guidelines ThomasLB (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It has a couple mentions on Wired, which helps the notability. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I definitely don't think it should be deleted. Daisy Owl is a supremely influential webcomic to people in the industry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.213.90 (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Funny it may be, but it is an entirely self-published cartoon and has only been online since July. I can't find any reliable independent articles or reviews online to show it has been widely noticed. Sionk (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable online comic. Best case for it is that it is WP:TOOSOON, but suspect it never will be sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article does not adequately assert subject's notability. I was not able to find reliable sources asserting subject's notability. Folgertat (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (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.