Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looking for Group


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn. Per WP:WEB, an award allows it to pass the notability guideline and sources are established as reliable. The delete votes here are effectively nullified due to this fact. Drop me a line at my talk page if you think this close is improper. Thanks! (non-admin closure) D ARTH P ANDA duel &bull;  work 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for Group

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

Comic has absolutely no sources that are independent from the subject, and all other sources are the comic itself. The only two sources that are not the comic is a source relating to games, and a source relating to WoW. Per WP:N, for an article to have notability, it must have significant, reliable, 3rd party sources that are independent from the subject.

This article has none of these. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete- as Daedalus says, the sources provided are either primary or unreliable- useless for establishing notability. I've had a look on Google and can't find anything better. Also it's chock-a-block full of original research. Reyk  YO!  11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, Stratics is a reliable independent source (the real problem is that the link doesn't work right). Second, the comic has won a major industry award, one of the Joe Shuster Awards (or, more accurately, the creative team won the award for their work on this strip and Least I Could Do).  Agreed on the original research, but that's cause for paring, not deletion.  Powers T 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stratics is an Internet network of web sites and message boards focusing on massively multiplayer games. They are not independent from the subject.  It is stated right there, in their own article, that they cover the subject covered by the comics.  Same with the WoW source.  They have not shown themselves notable outside their genre, so please explain your comment, as it is not true given the above.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what "independent from the subject means". They don't mean "independent from the same topic area as the article's subject", because that would mean we couldn't use sources like Variety for entertainment articles, which is absurd.  It means the source must not have a business or operational association with the specific subject of the article, which is the case here.  Powers T 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.   —Powers T 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- Great comic, but I agree that it does not meet the notability standards of wikipedia yet. Yes, it did win that Joe Shuster award (http://joeshusterawards.com/2008-nominees-and-winners/, scroll to about halfway down) and it dit get a mentioning in stratics (http://ddo.stratics.com/content/news/archive/arc11-2006.php, at about one-third down, or do a quickfind on LFGComic), but that last one is only for a wallpaper they made. All other sources are either from worldofwarcraft.com (not a 3rd-party source, at best a 2nd-party source), LICD (other project by the same authors) or the lfg website itself. The only good source would be the Joe Shuster award one, which is not nearly enough to source the entire page. On the other hand, articles of this type do tend to gather quite a few sources from the comic website itself, mostly in support of short claims by 3rd-party sources. My stance: either delete or merge with Least I Could Do (which is, at a quick glance, also suffering from a shortage of 3rd-party references). That is, unless proper 3rd-party sourcing can be found. Fransw (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: here is a brief review of the comic, which might serve as an additional source. Powers T 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:WEB states The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization, which this meets by winning the JSA. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny how you don't state, the entire policy: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.. This is the number 5 cite, which what you stated above refers to, here, I bolded the relevant excrept.  As said, the sources must be independent, and they are not, thus, they cannot be used to establish notability.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it is not funny, because there are three criteria listed at WP:WEB. cite #5, which you are quoting above, applies to the first criterion, and is not cited as a requirement for the second criterion. Bolding is mine in this copy-paste of WP:WEB:

''Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.
 * The second, of three, criterion, which I am quoting above, meets the verbiage any one of the following criteria. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, what I quoted above is what is cited by the criterion you cite.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I shall copy-paste the entire subsection in question, and ask that you point to criteria #2, where your cited requirement is to apply? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * {edit conflict)I was striking some of my comments, as I mis-read something, but to the point, the criterion that you cite does still not meet the requirement, as it is a secondary source, it isn't third party, or independent from the subject. As you can see, I added a ref, or note list below, and for the second criterion, it gives several examples of sources which are clearly independent from the subject of that which the comic covers, eg, roll-playing games, mmorpgs, etc.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

''
 * I still beg to argue your reasoning. The awards organization is an independent body which is not associated with the subject matter in question. Taking WP:PSTS as a position on suitable sources, there are three levels of sources:
 * Primary sources are closely associated with the subject
 * Secondary sources are at least one step removed, and continues with Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Why does not an independent awards organization meet secondary source requires in this case?
 * Tertiary sources are those such as Wikipedia, which are not to be used to satisfy any policy or guideline requirements.
 * Your phrasing seems to confuse "third-party" with "tertiary sources". Also, the cited footnote for criterion #2, which I am using in my argument, is a partial list of awards; not exhaustive. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, my bad on that, and my above post was off too, I thought you were referring to the second cited object, now I realize you're referencing the awards section. All that aside, yes, it does have a notable award for comics, and not webcomics, which.. Well I'm just not sure about that, but as I was saying, I still do not believe this webcomic is notable because of a single award.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, even though the basis for your argument was proven wrong, you're sticking to your guns no matter what? Powers T 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The basis for my argument was not proven wrong, the article does not have any third party reliable sources that are independent from the subject, in order to vouch for nobility, and lastly, WP:WEB is a guideline for inclusion, as is WP:N, and I do not think that a single award, however notable, is enough to make this webcomic notable.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The awards body mentioned is independent of the subject matter, unless you can bring forth evidence that the awards body is somehow associated with the subject. Again, I think the phrasing independent is being misinterpreted, as Lt. Powers' above example of the Variety magazine exemplifies; under that kind of reasoning, what would Daedalus' consider of sourcing to the Emmys or the Oscars? Also, the statements at WP:WEB are singular in their requirements: any one of the criteria listed must be met; for the award, this is also singular in the policy, in that it says an award, not multiple awards. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you correct yourself, WP:WEB is not a policy, but a guideline, as I said above. Secondly, various actors that have won Oscars are not notable because they have won Oscars, but because they have significant coverage about that that is independent of the subject of the film industry.  Now, as to the award, it is not independent from the subject, the same as the Oscars, but again, I just said that in my reasoning, I do not believe that a single award makes an article subject notable.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Powers, Yngvarr. Winning a notable award shows notability and there are independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you please cite which sources are independent from the subject?  Also as to the meaning of independent, that refers to the subject which the source covers, because a source that covers a particular subject is obviously going to have a bias concerning that subject.  Hence, the two sources this article has are not independent from the subject.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not what "independent" means in this context, and I think you'll find broad agreement on that point among editors of the relevant guidelines. Powers T 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, for example, that WP:GNG says: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." "Subject" in this context means the subject of the article, not the general topic area.  Powers T 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note for yourself, that that particular sentence has a cite to a foot note, a foot note which reads Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations. I bolded the relevant part of the note.  The strong connection that exists between the two sources, and the subject matter, is that the subject matter is a webcomic concerning RPGs, and the two sources write about stuff RPG related.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to belabor this issue, but I need this stated in explicit terms: are you saying that, for instance, any industry magazine, regardless of the industry, is unsuitable for sourcing? That IGN is not to be used to source for video games; that CNet is not to be used to source for technology? The Oscars cannot be used to source an Oscar award? Those have a strong connection with the associated subjects. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to instances of rewards, I'm referring to sources which are used to determine nobility. They can be used as sources for material, but since they concern the subject material, they are obviously going to have a bias concerning the subject matter, but then again, I may be wrong, as what you indicate above may be different from another AfD I used this argument in.  To reference, the article for deletion was about a skateboarding dog.  Now, the sources for that article were, I believe a single publication that had to do with dog tricks.  Now, the AfD ended in a merge to a dog tricks article, but the dog originally mentioned in the article was removed, as there was no indication this dog was notable besides all the other dogs who could skateboard.
 * Now, now that I think about it a bit more, what you say is rather broad. Look at it this way.  Game publications, such as EGM review games.  Now say a game is reviewed by EGM, can this review be cited as a voucher for nobility?  No, as magazines about games review games, it isn't that much of an achievement to be reviewed, as it is something that every new game gets.  IGN can be viewed the same, as they review games as they come out, citing a review for a particular game as reason for notability is no big deal, or rather, wouldn't work.  Actors aren't notable because of a single reward they received, they're notable because they've been featured in many films and works, as per WP:ENTERTAINER.  Now reading your post again, I see that I made a small mistake in my response:  The Oscars can be used as a source, for an Oscar.  That's like asking if an award program can be sourced for the awards it gives out, but as I was saying, it's a different issue, as it is in regards to WP:ENTERTAINER.  To CNet, it would depend.  Do they review every single new tech product that comes out, or do they review tech products which are in a new field, or products which do something completely better than most products?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep From what I'm reading, I believe that Daedalus is mixing the notability argument with sourcing independant of the web comic (or at least the discussion has made it sufficiently confusing). I'll take the latter first. The Shuster Awards are independant of the comic itself (and I just fixed the link that went directly to the listing for the 2008 awards on the Shuster Awards website, but do have to scroll down to the pertinent award). It's not affiliated with the comic or the creators in any business sense, which goes to the heart of independance, which would be unbiased. I consider both Blizzard and Stratics to be independant. That said, more independant sources and real life commentary would definitely improve article, but deletion is not approrpriate.

As to notability, and particulary the last post, ONE award is enough for notability per the WP:WEB. That is the standard that applies for a web comic. Your discussion of IGN and game magazines that review games as they come out is not analogous- these are awards that are given out once a year, not reviews from every single web comic. IMHO (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And per this(^), I withdraw this AfD.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:29, 22 January 2009 (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.