Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NatalieDee


 * 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   merge to Married to the Sea.  kur  ykh   08:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

NatalieDee

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

Non-notable webcomic, drawn by a cartoonist whose own article was AfD'ed and deleted as NN. The comic has a sibling, Married to the Sea, whose assertion of notability and continued survival on Wikipedia seem to rest on having ended up in the "Brilliant"/"Lowbrow" corner of New York Magazine's Approval Matrix at some point back in 2006. There doesn't seem to be any sustainable claim to real notability for this article's webcomic per Notability (web), other than that it's big -- or at least not small -- on Facebook. --Dynaflow  babble  15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   — --Dynaflow   babble  18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.   — --Dynaflow   babble  18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge this and Married to the Sea with the article Drew (webcomic artist), and rename that article to Drew and Natalie Dee. There's enough content and notability for the aggregate of the three, but I agree, they make poor individual articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a decent idea. We could also conceivably DRV the deleted Natalie Dee article to immediately merge its content, however substantial it may have been, into the new, amalgamated article and then redirect its title there.   --Dynaflow   babble  19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am, as a rule, willing to undelete articles for userfication or merging without a DRV, so if we go this route, drop a note on my talk page and I'll undelete the article and make a redirect for you. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; let's see how this AfD pans out first. If a clear consensus develops for a merger, I'd be glad to Frankenstein everything together.   --Dynaflow   babble  20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't blieve that NatalieDee.com should be merged with Drew's article. Should we merge Hillary and Bill Clinton too? Saying that though, it'd be better than nothing.
 * For one, this article is not about the arguably non-notable Natalie Dee, it is about NatalieDee.com. Also, bearing in mind that Married to the Sea very rightly already has a Wikipedia page and that NatalieDee.com has a circulation that is not only much greater than Married to the Sea, but Natalie Dee (56,900,000 per month) is near equal to Married to the Sea (32.1million) and Toothpaste for Dinner (36.2million) added together! (To put this in to perspective; an average of 22 people look at a NatalieDee.com comic every second.
 * I would say that Natalie Dee is indeed notable and far more notable than many other pages that have survived AfD. IMO the deletion Nazis need to let go of the 'training wheels' style rules and make a decision based on reason, common sense and the plain facts rather than whether or not it has been in print (shall we delete the article for Wikipedia while we're at it?).
 * Either way, what does it hurt to leave a page that is already created and which many people wish to read? And what does it gain to delete it? Shane.Bell (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "what does it hurt" question is addressed at WP:NOHARM; as far as the statistics on hits you give, if there are reliable, verifiable sources that show those numbers, they should be added to the article to establish notability. As the article currently exists, however, I think there are valid questions about notability and there should be a merge as discussed above. Rnb (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, at least, the merge makes sense - they're an art team. They work as a team on a comic, and have solo projects as well. There's clearly a single, coherent topic to the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have researched the number of unique hits. Here are my findings comparing webcomics already on Wikipedia compared to NalatieDee.com. Compare.com Site Analytics.As you can see, I believe there is a strong case that this website is notable in its own right.Spastic on elastic (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep-- if we're going to have any webcomics here NatalieDee probably passes the the ol' notability threshold. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dynaflow and Phil Sandifer above. Not enough reputable independent sources for individual articles. --Dragonfiend (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge, but only her and her comic, no need to merge her info with her hubby's. -Yupik (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of the "references" cited by the article, three of them are Wikipedia mirrors, two are Facebook (hardly a reliable source), and only one might be a reliable source, thus it appears to fall short on WP:RS and WP:N (possibly also WP:V). Also, Notability is not inherited, and merging the article about one woman's webcomic to her husband's biography (or, worse, an article on her husband's webcomic) seems inappropriate as well. In addition, this article appears slightly spammy to me. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 25 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.