Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits


 * 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 of the debate was delete. The number of new voters here is so high that I cannot count them. Arguments presented regarding notability revolve around the Alexa rank which is below 3 million. If people are interested in a wiki for webcomics, I suggest you go to Comixpedia. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits
A webcomic, which can be found here on a website with no Alexa rank. Is this website notable? I tried various Google searches, "Eight Easy Bits" brings back 40 hits and so does "8 Easy Bits". Is this website notable? Is it influential in the webcomic world? Signs say it isn't. - Hahnchen 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * UPDATE - Currently the website is unavailable due to Domain name expiration. So the link above won't work for for a while. - Hahnch  e  n 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -Check the date. April 1st. I'm betting it's a joke, not Domain name expiration, unless there is something big I'm missing, which I may.Pariochial
 * Comment - If it is an April Fool's joke (which I doubt) then it's pretty realistic. Because the entire site and forums are down and the whole thing has been replaced by a placeholder advertising portal you see at "parked" domains.  The webmaster has still got the domain reserved, only the former webmaster may renew it for the time being. - Hahnch  e  n 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, yet another non-notable webcomic. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom L e idiot 02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Con  Dem Talk 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete Keep : This should be put in the transwiki for wikibooks sections how to's. --CyclePat 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) After reading the comment below I realized this is not a how to book. My modo is in this instance is to delete articles that don't have proper citations as per WP:CITE. --CyclePat 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please take a look at the article and at my nomination, this is not a howto. The article can also be found at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to give the article the proper citations? Mind you, in the case of webcomics, most if not all citations will direct to single episodes. If that's okay, expect citations once the site is back up. No problem there. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep 11,100 hits for "8 easy bits" and seems to have a following of sorts plus positive reviews. Reasonably good article. ProhibitOnions 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete For the obvious reasons, delete, but weak only because it's a very well-written article. I don't quite understand CyclePat's transwiki proposal... this isn't a how-to, but a sprite comic. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The reason it generates 11,000 links is because roughly 11,000 or so of those links are from one source, Buzzcomix.net. Every single entry portal into Buzzcomix contains the phrase "8 easy bits". - Hahnchen 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Hahnchen is right about this, drops below the notability threshold. ProhibitOnions 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Unique story perspective. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete agreeing with the little hen. Eusebeus 13:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - "unique story perspective" does not warrant WP-ness. No traffic rank data on this website from Alexa.com, no it is definitely not a notable website. Wickethewok 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this Alexa rate only numbers? Since when is pure traffic important when it comes o determining things like artistic merit? --R. Wolff 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete too crufty by half. Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly. This is not cruft, it's a concise, encyclopædic article about a meritorious work.  I, for one, have visited the article independently before it came up for deletion.  Leave it alone.  There's real cruft and real advertising on wikipedia. Lebob


 * Delete most web comic articles should be deleted on sight. There have been quite a few of late. -- Jay  (Reply)  23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: As an example that a sprite comic can be more than a poorly put together rip-off and can be, dare I say it, original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.51.18 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete No assertion of notability. Google search doesn't suggest notability either. Fagstein 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Alexa statistics found here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=8easybits.tk and comic is inventive in contrast to its competing sprite comics 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A rank of 3,721,599 hardly makes a website notable. The Google test recommends it be 100,000 or less (even though it says it shouldn't be a criteria for notability). Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: even after the Alexa it still looks nn. --Hetar 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Is the Alexa rating important for determining relevance or isn't it, now? --R. Wolff 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See Google test. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As that paragraph clearyl states that "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites", I must ask why they were brought up in the first place. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: 8 Easy Bits has a fundamental uniqueness to it. So far as I know, no other webcomic shares its premise or style.  Some might say it is similar to Captain SNES, but 8 Easy Bits is definitely its own comic and not a clone of another as so many are these days.
 * Keep and I know my vote won't count. 8 Easy Bits is literate, topical and funny.  There's nothing else to say: the comic has artistic merit and Wiki is not paper.  The fact of the matter is that there are people who care enough about this comic to have the article kept, and there is nobody who cares enough about twenty kilobytes on Wikimedia's servers to have the article deleted.  Or nobody who should care enough, at any rate.  Honestly, this is a good article, and deleting it isn't worth the effort of voting. 05:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See What Wikipedia is Not. It's not about the 20kb. It's about the fact that it doesn't belong here. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: For a very well written and highly underrated webcomic. 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Under-rated, eh? That explains why the evidence of notability is lacking I guess. What a pity that WP:NOT for promoting things. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This is this user's only edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: unlike any other webcomic. Really good and original.  linked to by VG Cats, so you can't really just dismiss it as unknown.
 * Keep: Because it's still one of the best webcomics I've read, quantity of readers regardless.
 * Note: User's only contributions are to this AfD. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Original, clever, and frankly one of the few comics left that can make me laugh. I encourage anyone whom has voted to delete it to take the time and read through the archives.  Destroying a sensible article on an exceptional source of entertainment makes little sense.
 * Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Alexa rating is obviously there (albeit for the older domain), so that argument is invalid. Apart from that, it's a higly original comic in its genre and does things very few others do (reference the use of sprites, not just rehash the game's story etc.) -- 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Added later: It was linked in the article on sprite comics even prior to creation, so it has to have some significance, no? Actually, that's what prompted me to create it in the first place. --R. Wolff 11:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It really shouldn't have been linked from the sprite comic article. I mean, Cheesy comics was originally linked from there until it was deleted, and if I see redlinked webcomics in see also sections, I normally delete them. - Hahnchen 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it have been linked? To me, a redlink indicates someone saw the need for an article. --R. Wolff 16:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the article can still be found at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: One of the best web comics I've read, Im always checking for updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.249.1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, March 30, 2006
 * Please Sign your entries --SirAPKered 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Keep: I have little experience with Wikipedia itself, but I have helped work on other Wikis. I feel that a Wiki is for informational purposes about everything, no matter how mundane.  I have found other articles in Wikipedia that had less of a reason to be here than this, and they're not being discussed for information.  Why? Because it's handy.  Give this webcomic a chance, and spread the word rather than pushing it back into oblivion. -- 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review this policy, and this guideline, which indicate that your ideas of what a wiki is for do not necessarily apply to this wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, and I'll keep that in mind. Vote changed from "Keep" to "Week Keep".  I still believe it has some merits. --SirAPKered 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. As others have said, this clearly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for website notability. RaelImperialAerosolKid 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)  I changed my mind.  Weak Keep.  As others have said, this does seem to be fairly unique and somewhat popular in the webcomics community.  When you factor in its longevity, I think that gives it enough notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, but only just.  RaelImperialAerosolKid 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: It's been around since 2003 (ancient history in terms of a webcomic) and I 4,700+ google hits even ignoring the wikipedia and buzzcomics entries. Stev0 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you take a look at "eight easy bits" on Google now, it only gives back 45 unique hits and about 300 in total. The reason for the high amount of links beforehand was because Google was indexing roughly 3000 links for a forum user with "eight easy bits" in his signiture. I do disagree with the synopsis that being launched in 2003 makes for a long running webcomic, it has only managed 97 strips and if you look at List of webcomics, you'll find many more webcomics which have lasted much longer. - Hahnchen 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Eight Easy Bits comics tend to be at least three to four times as long as typical webcomics, and have exceeded seventy panels on a single page. Not to mention that it's a very sprite-intensive comic, with sprites and graphics extracted from many different NES games.  You can't dismiss it out of hand based on the "97 strips" criterion. Lebob
 * keep For reasons listed above. it is notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia.  05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep The Wikipedia policy says nothing about notability. It merely states that it isn't a dumping ground for random information, and with the organization and content in the article, it isn't random information. 07:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the comic is often linked by other webcomic authors, and thus seems to be somewhat notable, at least in the webcomic community. "Notability" is such a fuzzy criteria anyway, and there's little to no mention of it in Wikipedia policies.  This does not seem to be a vanity or advertising page, and that's the closest thing on WP:NOT to a "notability" requirement that I can find.  --HBK|Talk 16:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nifboy 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn-webcomic. Stifle 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Due to the fact that Hannchann's own links link to 916 and 11,600 sites respectively, I find the statement to have little merit. It is linked to by VG cats, whose author is himself quite notable, giving it plenty of merit in the webcomic world. Beyond that, several of the comics written are four or five pages long, giving the sparse updates a good reason. --Funk Masta K 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While I personally don't hold any strong like or dislike of this webcomic, and I'm sure that my opinion isn't as valid or accepted as some more established members, it seems that it has some notable points. The comic is linked by VGCats, it has been online for something like three years. It's fans seemed to believe that it was worthy of an entry, which show's that people feel strongly about the influence of the comic. The entry seemed somewhat well written and I don't actually see any reason for the entry to be deleted, though I don't see much of a reason for it to remain either. -- Moggy 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As the "ATTENTION" template clearly states: "You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines." So how is it important whether it's someone's first or only contribution? The arguments are still the same. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment/New Proposal: I nominate User:Hahnchen for banning from the articles for deletion category by method one in section two outlined under Banning_policy. I believe that he should be allowed to continue to contribute to other areas of the project, but he has shown vast amounts of immaturity in regards to deletion in his defense, nomination, and support of deletion of articles.  Additionally, he appears to nurse a vendetta of some sort against webcomics in general, and has been problematic enough to incite multiple users to vandalize his page with such things as putting a request for deletion* on his user page, or stating that the only thing in his vocabulary was "please delete". 64.72.87.113 13:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One which did not follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia, but this seems to show that it was meant as a sarcastic attack against the user rather than an actual request for deletion.
 * Considering the number of delete votes above, I would say these nominations have merit. Please don't engage in personal attacks. Thank you. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As stated by User:Hahnchen, the domain name has expired, it is apparent by navigating the site that this is not an April Fool's Joke. If the domain name remains expired, the terms of this entry deletion might be different. (Ex - Votes to keep to preserve the history of the comic.) Perhaps it would be best to make sure if the domain will be renewed before continuing with the discussion of deleting this entry. Maybe someone could contact the author of the webcomic to get some insight on this? -- Moggy 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Kurt Cobain and Tupac Shakur notwithstanding, things don't become notable after they cease to exist, and non-notable webcomics shouldn't be kept just because they don't exist anymore. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words, you think we shouldn't preserve history? Then just vote to delete it, don't criticize another users comments just because you don't agree. Besides, I was stating the possibility that others may feel that way, I don't particularly feel that it's disappearance merits it a free ride here. Moggy 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Moot point since the site is back up. --R. Wolff 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It does have a proper citation. "How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits" is the entire name of the webcomic. How else would you put it? And why doesn't it belong here? It's not advertising, as the author of the comic was unaware of its creation until someone pointed it out to him (or so he claims), and it's well written. A bit more professionalism would be good, but other than that, it's quite descriptive and is up to date. Besides, plenty of comics, especially webcomics, don't become famous from the get-go. It's a well written comic, one that lies under the shadow of its crude presentation (the website, which is just the comic, is pretty ugly). I'd be willing to bet that if the site were to get a complete makeover, it'd receive a lot more traffic.206.248.72.52 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Ipsum


 * 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.