Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Figures (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. The coverage in reliable sources appears to be insufficient. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dick Figures
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article was previously speedy deleted in the midst of its previous AfD. Since that time, there has been no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. There is a single blog mention from the LA times weekly.-- The Red Pen of Doom  02:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not establish notability. Sorry about accidentally reverting you (TheRedPenOfDoom) and creating a third nomination, I got really confused when the AfD notice linked me to the original nomination. OSbornarfcontribs. 03:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The one reliable source is recent and of good quality (although it's the LA Weekly, not the Los Angeles Times); if someone could find another one like that, the case for notability starts to become pretty good, but I looked and couldn't.  This may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This channel has over 2,500,000 views on many of their videos on Youtube and nearly 100,000 subscribers and has been listed on this animation site and this  major gaming site online . --User:Warrior777 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The gamespot is actually zero coverage about the topic, just a link to "an exclusive episode"-- The Red Pen of Doom  04:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * i think your first link meant to go to . If Animation Magazine.net is in fact a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, then I change my nomination to a weak keep. but our article on Animation Magazine is rather lacking in verification of the credentials of AM ( the sourcing consists of an announcement from a con) --  The Red Pen of Doom  13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good coverage in secondary sources, in searches for "dick figures" along with term, "skudder". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT that the hits are actual significant coverage about the subject of the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom  04:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete despite the award mentioned in the article text, no other secondary sourcing exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated above this is a well "Liked" series on YouTube. Also they are apart of Mondo Media a company that supports freelance artists. They also have a website and are on several social media sites. --ESF36 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — ESF46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Leaning toward delete... the award and distributor speak fairly well for it, but then again both are generally aimed at small things and small themselves. And this lacks much of anything else at this point.  — Isarra (talk)  08:33, 6 April 2012 (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.