Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel Sweeties


 * 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The result was withdrawn - appears to be notable after all. The article is highly dependent on primary sources, which is bad, but this can be resolved through the editing process. JBsupreme ( talk ) 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Diesel Sweeties

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete, this is a non-notable webcomic which fails GNG. The limited coverage it does have is superficial, such as appearing in a long list of names in the Editor & Publisher journal, the remainder of coverage coming from blogs and the like. JBsupreme ( talk ) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, probably Google Books reveals a few sources for this (in print, no less). This contains a lengthy interview with the cartoonist. Here is another shorter interview from Wired. This book published by the University of Michigan refers to the comic, but there's no preview; this one from Rough Guides has an entry for it. There are also a number of news sources of varying length and depth refering to it.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. This strip was nationally syndicated for a year, replacing Foxtrot.  If that doesn't meet notability requirements for a comic, then what does?  -lethe talk [ +] 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep specifically per lethe. thats it thats all. the rest is windowdressing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The webcomic has gone from web only to published in print, which is a vote of confidence in commercial terms. My vote is clear, but I would note that to properly argue "keep" or "delete" requires a degree of quantification: could someone kindly define the vague and subjective terms "non-notable" and "limited coverage"?  What are the exact cut off points?  The absence of definition gives an unfortunate impression of arbitrary decision, IMHO worth avoiding. Cheros (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep following lethe - national syndication is key here. The article could do with cleaning-up and more coverage that isn't just plot related. (Emperor (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep, even without newspaper publishing, this is a WP:NOTABLE webcomic with significant coverage in reliable sources. Ted Rall has a whole chapter in the book "Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists" dedicated to it, putting it on the level of other notable webcomics like The Perry Bible Fellowship, Eric Monster Millikin, and Dinosaur Comics. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:57, 3 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.