Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghastly's Ghastly 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The result was withdrawn by the nominator. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghastly's Ghastly Comic


The notability of many web comics is up for debate, but I'm of the opinion that this one is not too verifiable in terms of webcomics. Delete (or, if that's too far, a list of web comics including some of the "notable" ones that just aren't notable enough to have articles). A Link to the Past (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination; although I would suggest that there be an article on a person instead of the webcomic. Withdrawn based on discussion at  - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep While his comic is not updating regularly, it is part of the history of webcomics. It should remain.
 * Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Missvain 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Delete - definitatly fails WP:WEB SkierRMH, 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, the usual bunch. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it does fail WP:WEB etc. It has a listing on comic-nation.com and comicalert.com as well as others found on a google search. Mallanox 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mallanox. Dionyseus 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User appears to be following me and voting opposite of what I vote on the AfD, never giving logic outside of "per (whomever)". User also rarely votes on the AfD with the exception of one he made out of bad faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unfortunately, WP:WEB contemplates coverage by somewhat reliable and trustworthy sources to establish the notability of the site, which, unfortuantely, this does not have.-- danntm T C 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very few webcomics have the widespread recognition required to belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia, and this appears not to be one of them. The place for information on webcomics that us uncultured Wikipedians refuse to admit are important is Comixpedia, where people who understand and appreciate webcomics get together and write great articles about them. It comes as no surprise to discover that Comixpedia already covers this webcomic, with an article that's basically a copy of an earlier version of this one. Therefore, transwiki-merge the additional information from our version, then delete the article here and let webcomic enthusiasts take care of their own. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's only edit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'The article does contain a lot of duplicated material that can easily be found on the comic's page itself. Considering that Ghastly writes several other comics, this page would probably be of better service amalgamated into an article relating to Ghastly's comic conglomerate, Tentacled Epics, to also include information about his other series, Apophenia 357 and his forthcoming works.
 * Keep Along with Sexy Losers, Ghastly's Ghastly Comic is representative of adult webcomics. The fact it isn't currently updating is without relevance.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never mentioned "not being currently updated" as a reason. Ghastly's Ghastly Comic failed WP:WEB. And don't claim bias, I knew of the comic before it went color.
 * Additionally: - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are tons of webcomic entries on wikipedia that nobody's ever heard of. The only reason this particular article is up for deletion is because it actually has gotten attention. Ghastly's Ghastly comic is popular and noteworthy compared to a lot of comic articles. Amongst all of them, it makes the cut just because there are so many less noteworthy here than it.209.86.72.159 09:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's only edit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * note: No, it's not. I just have a dynamic IP address, as a result of being a dial-up user. What would not being an active editor have anything to do with my opinion on the deletion, anyway? nowhere does it say only registered, veteran wikipedians get their opinion counted.209.86.72.159 09:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Users with low edit counts are often unfamiliar with our Policies and guidelines, and so unaware of what counts when it comes to encyclopaedia articles. Your argument is a case in point.  You make the fallacious "If article X them article Y." argument, and you make a bare asserting that the subject is popular and noteworthy, expecting that we will take you at your word.  We don't work on the basis of accepting personal testimony of Wikipedia editors.  We work on the basis of sources, sources, sources.  Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The comic is notable to me, but according to WP:WEB it seems that anything that spreads by word of mouth or personal recommendation fails the notability criteria (guides?). If notability is transitive, I came across Ghastly's comic through Sexy Losers through Stile Project.  Reluctant delete, since we're going by the rules.  --GargoyleMT 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT would suggest that there's no real point in getting rid of it, since it's not advertising or spamming, and it's a fairly well-written, informative, concise piece. There's no value given to wiki by getting rid of it, besides making the lists of wiki articles a bit smaller and neater, I suppose. I am liking the idea of a central Tentacle Epics article, however, since all of them together would be enough to pass the notability criteria, I would think. Can we reach an agreement that instead of deletion, it should be merged with the other works of Ghastly into a Tentacled Epics article? 209.86.74.146 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you cite sources to prove that there is a basis for having anything at all about this subject anywhere in Wikipedia, first. sources, sources, sources! Uncle G 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:WEB as above. Wickethewok 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is quite well known LazyDaisy 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - notable enough PTIuv777 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Both of the above users have made very few edits - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the green tentacle thing has become an often-posted humorous image on Fark.com discussions (image), so it is in effect a kind of meme nowadays. I didn't know that the image was based on a comic until now but, to quote another user on another deletion discussion, "I find it a vital service for Wikipedia to bring me information on life's obscure topics".  Esn 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP:WEB, as above (but only weak per Esn's comment - if there's more to say about this, I could be convinced to change) . Please note that there was apparently an entreaty on another website to readers of this comic to come over and "vote," which may explain the new users here (please see Link's link above for more details). Also a person claiming to be the author of the comic seems to have participated in the discussion over there, which brings up concerns about WP:AUTO (assuming he is who he says he is, of course).  So that should be kept in mind - those new user comments certainly "count" (to the extent anyone's counting), but may not be as unbiased as your average comment.  However, I'd also like to add that if you've just come to wikipedia for the first time to vote, we're glad you're here and encourage you to stay and explore and see how you can contribute. --TheOtherBob 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind - I see the nomination has been withdrawn on additional evidence of notability. --TheOtherBob 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The second post made by Ghastly seems to assert verifiability. Additionally, the Alexa ranking is around 180,000, an acceptable number for a webcomic, and with the evidence in Ghastly's second post, I think keeping would be a good idea. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2006 (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.