Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lackadaisy


 * 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 per WP:WEB and WP:V. --Core desat  20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lackadaisy

 * — (View AfD)

Minor webcomic with no reliable sources. It's well drawn and rather unique, but it isn't very verifiable. Doesn't meet WP:WEB either. Nothing from Google. Wafulz 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. A unique style and good drawing do not make something notable. ~ Flameviper 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very cute, very well drawn, but not notable. It hasn't won any awards or received any press coverage, and doesn't meat WP:WEB. On a side note, visit the web site and scroll to the bottom. It pulls at the guilt strings.  Ultra-Loser [ T  ] [  C  ]  15:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable comic. Edison 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia seriously needs to change its policy in terms of web-based content.--Tenka Muteki 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Material must be verifiable and not original research. --Wafulz 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep Not a major webcomic, but brings up a number of Google hits. Probably doesn't meet the WP:WEB but I'm not sure what's meant by "verifiability" or "original research" in this case. Surely its existence and content is self-verifying? K e rowyn Leave a note 08:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Google hits are not relevant to determining anythin. By "verifiability" we mean multiple, independent reliable sources (ie something with an editorial process) have published material with Lackadaisy as the subject (so more than just a passing mention). My rule of thumb for "multiple" is at least three sources. If there are no secondary sources, then we would just be examining the subject itself through primary information. This is original research. --Wafulz 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll give you verifiability, and I only mentioned Google because it was in the original nomination. I'm still not seeing original research though. The comic itself and materials from the artist regarding the comic are the primary source. The article is based on that, which is not original research. K e rowyn Leave a note 06:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Google searches aren't meant to say "there are no hits"; instead, they're meant to say "I could not find sources on Google", which is pretty significant for a topic which is in the online world. We also can't base articles entirely on the only primary source- essentially we would be taking the author's original research and using it in the article, which is blatantly non-neutral. To correct this, we'd need more sources, and the only way to do that would be to find secondary sources (of which there are none), or to supplement it ourselves or use unpublished sources, which amounts to original research. --Wafulz 06:50, 14 January 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.