Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Only Inn (5th 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Elf Only Inn
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Webcomic which may fail WP:GNG. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are not really "significant" awards. Claritas § 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - most recent AFD discussion, at Articles for deletion/Elf Only Inn 4, lead to no consensus. Claritas § 12:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - proposers OPINION about the WCCA notwithstanding, this is a wonderful, groundbreaking webcomic that has specific importance to the webcomic community. I would have you note that this is the fourth attempt to remove this comic, why must people persist in futility? Timmccloud (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N. Strongly suggest that closing admin be on the lookout for any WP:ILIKEIT votes or anyone who wants to keep it just because it's been AFDed before. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why does it appear that personal opinion nominations like this only ever make it to four nominations on topics like webcomics? There's no grounds to be challenging notability again.  Also, the immediate accusation against anyone who votes "keep" is rather uncalled for. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Provide some significant coverage in reliable sources to support your claim of notability then. Claritas § 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Provide some significant coverage in reliable sources to support your claim that the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards was not "significant" for 2004. That is your own personal claim, and the only thing that you have new to bring to the table for a 4th nomination.  You want a 4th nomination?  I suggest you give better reasoning than use the word significant in quotation marks. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BURDEN. It is on those who support keeping or adding content which the burden of finding sources which indicate the notability of the subject (or the significance of the awards for that matter). I'm using the word "significant" in quotation marks, because I'm quoting policy blah which says that if awards are used as a justification of the notability on a subject, the award should be significant. Regards. Claritas §  16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to be more specific: what has changed to warrant another nomination? As far as I can tell, the only change is likely less current readers as well as less people watching the article.  Neither of which changes the notability of the comic, because the notability is not based on how many people are editing the article now.  All of this was brought up in the last nomination (including the "significance" of the WCCA), which obviously did not pass, so you're going to have to excuse me when I say that the burden of bringing something new to this discussion is up to you.  This is nothing but an absolutely frivolous nomination. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't closed as keep, it was closed as no consensus. And there are in my view inherent problems with the article which I outlined in my nomination. Please be civil, and contribute positively to the discussion. Claritas § 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You outline one, making claim against the WCAA as a valid award. A claim which I have pointed out was used in previous nominations (on this and other pages) and was refuted.  You wish for additional evidence to be used against additional unspecified claims of "inherent problems" which you will obviously get (when I have the time to gather them up, as I am currently doing).  Be civil in turn and elaborate more than the one point, otherwise I will be forced to assume that is your only claim. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The comic also fails WP:GNG, Claritas § 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Since this is basically a rehash of the previous nomination, I'll simply quote the most pertinent bit.
 * "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis not mine). One of those criteria is: "2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]" The footnote for this item is: "Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies, Webby Awards or Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards"

And as noted previously, this direct reference to WP:WEB covers both the validity of the award and that this award is sufficient to cover notability. In full disclosure, it should be noted that WP:WEB no longer lists specific examples like it did at the time of the previous nomination. This does not invalidate the WCCA, as it is not a specific removal of that award but a removal of all such awards. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We're dealing with the current policy, not the historic policy. Claritas § 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how policy has changed, as opposed to WP:WEB simply not listing any examples. There is a difference. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The examples were removed because articles on content which won those awards was being regularly deleted here on the grounds of notability. Claritas § 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - here's a precedent - Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic). Claritas § 20:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's on hiatus.RussianReversal (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N. No coverage at all in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" are neither 1) well-known nor 2) independent. They 1) are of questionable notability themselves and 2) are hosted by the same site that hosted this webcomic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Heather.RussianReversal (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The WCCA has been determined to be a significant award in its last two deletion discussions. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not anymore. See WP:Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic) for a precedent and WP:CCC because consensus can change and has changed since the last 2 DD's.RussianReversal (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion of Freefall was a mistake and against the rules. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't any "rules" on Wikipedia, per WP:IAR and WP:BURO. If you think that the decision was wrong, take it to deletion review. As it is, it stands as consensus. Claritas § 12:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This discussion seems to be entirely over whether the award is sufficiently notable or not, and no longer over specifically Elf Only Inn. I vote Keep this article until this discussion is resolved. I further vote that this discussion should be moved to a page related to WCCA (I don't know which one is relevant), and apply to ALL webcomics in similar circumstances (Since this discussion is no longer about EOI). Once this discussion is resolved, on THAT page, then this article can be deleted/kept without further reservation. -Terrafire123 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC) — Terrafire123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * (Incidently, I personally believe that the award IS sufficiently notable, for reasons listed by others earlier, and therefore this article should be kept. But that is irrelevent to my other motion.) -Terrafire123 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this is the fifth deletion discussion and still nobody has been able to identify any significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, the primary requirement of the general notability guideline. The nomination comes down to whether winning a single Web Cartoonists' Choice Award is enough to be the basis of an encyclopaedia article or meet the provision in specific notability guideline for web content which states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". Personally I do not think that one award of this type is enough when no reliable sources cover the fact that the award has been won. Effectively it means all the information in the article is sourced to primary sources - the information on the comic from the comic's website, the information on the award from the award's website. As a side note it has been four years since the last AfD (which ended in no consensus). Many things have changed on Wikipedia in that time, the consensus about this article could be one of them - I don't think the nominator deserves to be accused of any wrong doing for asking for the community's opinion on the matter. Guest9999 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because the WCCA is from the same company as EOI. That means that even if it is notable, you have to make sure it's not self-promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any third party coverage of this. Does not appear to meet the criteria.  Enigma msg  23:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article has existed for over 5 years, and still the only references for it are a 12-word blog post and a WCAA award site that simply lists the winners with no discussion about them? If there are any sources which are actually about the subject which might shed some light on why it's notable, then I think 5 years is a long enough time to find them.   Snotty Wong   talk 01:58, 14 June 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.