Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funny Farm (comic)


 * 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. A reasonable argument was made that this meets WP:WEB. Article should be pruned of OR and so on. W.marsh 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny Farm (comic)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural relisting from Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24 and undeletion. Originally deleted as an A7, but overturned at aforementioned DRV debate. Abstain as procedural. Daniel.Bryant 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say Weak Keep here. Keenspot gives it some exposure, Google turns up a number of links.  --Dennisthe2 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it does get some links LazyDaisy 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete aside from the dubious claim to notability that it is listed at Keenspot does not seem a particularly notable form of the genre. No reliable (e.g. non-blog) independent reviews or sources. - Francis Tyers · 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent published references provided It appears that the only references in the article are not independent published ones suitable for verification or notability. Delete unless such references provided. Dugwiki 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research with no independent sources at all, let alone reputable ones even suggesting notability. -- Dragonfiend 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity article for a seemingly non-notable webcomic. Krimpet 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A vanity accusation is a severe one. Please supply evidence that this entry was made with something other than earnest good intentions. --Kizor 09:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The comic in question is hosted by Keenspot (invitation only for it's featured content and unrelated to the author) and published by Keenspot press as well . Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Dread Lord CyberSkull does make a good point. That gives me reasonable confidence on a decent article being able to exist regardless of its current state. Mathmo Talk 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please the keenspot exposure makes this notable enough wiki is not paper yuckfoo 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also not an indiscriminate collection of (POV, original research) information on websites of no impact or historical significance. -- Dragonfiend
 * Keep per CyberSkull. Keenspot is a definite notable (and prominent) independent host. I believe WP:WEB's relevant criterion was first made with it specifically in mind. Dragonfiend's extremely strict interpretations of policy classify this as OR, but looking at that policy page, the article draws from the primary source - the comic - without "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories," without independent "analysis or synthesis" of material, without "advancing a position," without a "novel narrative interpretation." Aside from the brief fandom coverage, the facts in the article are unambiguously visible in the work itself. If we must blind ourselves to a work while making an article of it, then every plot description of every book, play, TV show or game on Wikipedia is immediately suspect. --Kizor 09:50, 6 February 2007 (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.