Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid Friction Comics


 * 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 No consensus The argument that it is written as an advertisement is an issue that can be fixed by editing the article a bit, which one contributor here has volunteered to do. The only other issue on the table is notability, and there is not a convincing argument one way or the other on that point, defaulting to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fluid Friction Comics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:CORP. no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and any other notability guideline which may or may not apply. Additionally, violates WP:ARTSPAM; the only content contributor is User:SpencerDouglass (talk), who is listed as the company's Business Development Manager. This user has a history of creating non-notable articles including a biography of himself. Twice. Wine Guy   Talk  09:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - it does need a hefty rewrite but there is a list of their coverage at the end of the article (I have been keeping an eye on this for a while and don't feel notability is a problem). My worry is they seem to have gone awfully quiet leaving one edition of DevShard (from a proposed 15) although there is still some activity and the movie adaptation is ongoing - it seems like they have got wrapped up in other projects but Kevin Grevioux has got involved with them so they haven't vanished (not that'd necessarily be a grounds for deletion but it does mean we can't rule out more in addition to what is already there). (Emperor (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Delete written like an advertisement, no indication of notability and a possible CoI for a major editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - concerns over advertising can be easily addressed (which I'd be happy to do myself). Notability might be borderline, but enough sourcing seems to exist to validate an article.  Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:56, 20 January 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.