Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Blood


 * 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 Keep  (non-admin closure). The consensus below is that the press coverage of the article's subject rises above the level of trivial mention, so it is notable enough to meet the standard of WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Blood

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A webcomic which, while consuming about 30 minutes of my time (which was spent reading it; cool storyline), doesn't appear to have much notability. Only fan-site coverage and one small mention in a Variety Film. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)  04:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Response Perhaps I am wrong, but is there a specific policy that unequivocably states that mentions have to run X-number of words? If not, then the mentions in Variety and Salon are clearly notable for the fact that two highly influential and deeply respected media sources have taken notice of this endeavour. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment - Shouldn't the article be flagged as undergoing an AFD?  I would have to go with a Strong Keep solely on the basis no one has flagged the article as such. Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close - Step 1 of AfD process is "Put the deletion tag on the article." This has not been done, and as such, this AfD is invalid. Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So he forgot a step on an hours-old AFD. That doesn't automatically means it should be closed. Now if the the AFD had been running for five days and the AFD tag wasn't placed until that fifth day, you might have a point, but this is just a simple mistake. There's also nothing in policy that requires an AFD be automatically closed just because the AfD process wasn't followed in the correct order. Stop wikilawyering. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Since my concerns have been addressed, I am withdrawing the request for a speedy close. However, I would like to conduct further research before deciding if notability has been met or not. Unfortunately, this topic is blocked at work, so it will have to wait until I get home. With regards to the wikilawyering comment, I can only say that perhaps I should have just left my original comment in place instead of changing it to speedy close. My apologies for any confusion in that area. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I used Twinkle to create the AFD, and I have no idea why it didn't tag the article itself... weird. Well, that's cleared up now. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete . I did some extensive searching, and all I could come up with, aside from fansites, is a rotten review at salon.com. But there were such a lot of fansites mentioning this comic that it does appear to be notable within the genre. Find some recognition with reliable sources, and I'd love to change my opinion. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in Variety and Salon is fairly notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Two sources such as Variety and Salon does give a level of notability. Might be a weak keep, but a keep. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only small mentions. That doesn't establish much notability. We need a full-on, comprehensive source (or multiple sources). Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. This is the article from Variety, which is not my idea of a "small" mention: . Ecoleetage (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree that Variety and Salon make 2 good 3rd-party sources, and that was the only reason for my initially unfavorable comment. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2008 (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.