Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drowtales (3rd 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.  Sandstein  18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Drowtales
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely fails WP:GNG. Three hits on google news- one, an article from 2015 where it's mentioned in the comments. One, a completely routine listing of comic books for sale from 2012. The biggest mention is a paragraph long description in Comics Alliance from 2012, alongside many other comics. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing but a WP:plot dump. Every source is from the Drowtales website and useless for establishing notability. Previous discussions centered on WP:other stuff and ILIKEIT arguments. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, for the same reasons I listed last month(?). I personally believe that the no-consensus of the last AfD was improper, as I've yet to see enough sources to be able to write an article with. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and administratively close as too soon following previous discussion. The proper venue for contesting a recent AfD outcome with which one disagrees is WP:DRV.  All the arguments from the previous AfD still apply, do they not? Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy does not specify a time period outside of "to give editors the time to improve the page." In the 42 days since the previous nomination, there have been exactly 2 edits. One was a bot, the other changed 1 character in a reference name. This hardly seems "too soon" to me. As for the previous arguments, they still amount to nothing but WP:other stuff and ILIKEIT. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not a good encyclopedic article I'll agree, I'm somewhat biased as I contributed some to it in early days as a fan. I tend to believe the web-comic is notable, though the article does completely fail to establish this. Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics, though it certainly doesn't have the same level as cultural impact as for example XKCD, so yeah not a lot of 3. party sources. Ultimately I would not be hugely bothered if it was deleted, but maybe just re-writing the first section a bit and deleting everything below that would do the job? Certainly excessive amounts of fancruft in the current form. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - There don't seem to be any proper sources providing critical reviews or commenting on the cultural impact of the topic, so it currently has no need to exist. Examples provided in the previous AfD do not at all appear to be reliable or relevant. TTN (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly referenced. I can't find any reliable sources that help prove notability.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, re "Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics", please see WP:OLDSUBJECT. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2016 (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.