Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Freefall (webcomic)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Absolutely no reliable sources found. Freefall + webcomic on Gnews turns up absolutely nothing. Asserts notability with one Web Cartoonist's Choice award, but that alone is insufficient to carry the whole article, especially with no other secondary sources whatsoever. The rest of the article is in-universe and/or OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, article asserts notability and has references. I don't see very much in-universe material, on the contrary, a significant part of the article talks about the webcomic from an outside perspective. J I P  | Talk 06:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * weak delete. It does assert notability with that award, but I really just don't think it meets our standards. If it can be saved, I would strongly recommend stubbing it to only reliably-sourced content (if there is any to be found). In addition, I removed a paragraph that was sourced only to forum posts. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, poorly sourced. Neither the single blog source nor little-known "Web Cartoonist's Choice award" meet our standards. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The comic won a Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, which is enough to assert notability. The quality of the article is absolutely okay. --84.57.181.140 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per Sharksaredangerous. One extremely minor award just isn't enough, if it was an Eisner award it would be a whole different story. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep, I was awaiting the final choice on the "web cartoonist". Though it is a minor award it is notable within its community.  The Eisner award is also not well known outside its community I might note.  The award I believe is enough of a Peer review to establish notoriety, within a community.  That and the fact the comic has been in existence for over 10 years, and the article is likewise as old deserve consideration.  Furthermore I think I was finaly persuaded by the wikinews article .Baronger (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have edited your comment above to fix the syntax to the external link to Wikinews. J I P  | Talk 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Move This is perfect for wikifur which already has a nice article on the subject. I propose an inter-wiki merge.
 * Sure. That'd be a good idea no matter what the outcome, if the article here can aid the article there. However, what's out there elsewhere doesn't figure into decisions about what to have here. We could blow up the encyclopedia without reducing the sum total of human knowledge. --Kiz o r  16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly non-notable, no sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was a tremendous amount of bother about the WCCAs around the time of the Wikinews article Baronger mentioned. It resulted in a broad consensus among the webcomic project that the awards are sufficient to establish notability. They're well-known in their field, they're established, they're prestigious enough to be front page material for winners and nominees of the superlatively popular Hugo Awards and Eisner Award. (Even if the awards didn't establish notability, then notability would be in the wrong: notability, as you know, is not a goal in itself, but an arbitrary standard of significance to help us keep our coverage useful and maintainable. Any such standard that disqualified a work that's received major accolades in its field would be silly.) Eric Burns is fine as a secondary source. The link goes to a blog, sure. Blogs aren't categorically rejected as sources, they're only seldom used because the great majority of blogs are by pseudonymous writers whom we don't know from Adam. Experts' blogs like this one aren't. For instance, the video game wikiproject is actively using Greg Costikyan's contributions to Play This Thing! as a secondary source. OR and in-universe are editing matters and don't enter into this. --Kiz o r  16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly non-notable per WP:N, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A few paragraphs on a personal blog doesn't cut it. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The issue of notability aside, if a brief blog is all there is with respect to third party coverage, then there is simply not enough material to write a verifiable article about the topic.  Sandstein   12:20, 1 May 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.