Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Lisst


 * 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. —Cleared as filed. 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Neil Lisst
Not notable webcomic, not meeting WP:COMIC standards. feydey 23:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a notable political cartoon, done by notable artists - a Texas writer and a Canadian Cartoonist. It's been read in over 75 countries, been translated and published in Israel and Germany, made editorial pages in the print media, and it is only two months old. It is read by thousands daily. Even a cursory search produces many hits.

It is political satire. It is not a Marvel comic, it's a political cartoon, not a webcomic of the variety to which Feydey refers.

It is widely republished daily throughout the world, and is the leading comic of over 400 worldwide comics hosted at a well-known site. Most of its reads are OUTSIDE the site. ---Neil Lisst, member
 * Delete. This webcomic debuted at the end of August, 2005. Most Google hits seem to be on webcomic sites. Notability not established. - Dalbury (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to read the comic, read its coverage, and if you want to read a print editorial from a newspaper, it's out there.
 * RETAIN

The two most dominant online sites regarding politics are the Democratic Underground and Free Republic, both places where the politics of America are born daily. Neil Lisst is well-known at both places. Cutting edge American politics is the topic.

Perhaps if you read the September 19, 2005 comic, you might feel differently, Dalbury.

--- Neil Lisst (This unsignedvote and comment is the only edit (actually, three edits on one comment) from (IP removed)(talk) 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did read a couple of the strips, and while I like the subject, that doesn't make this webcomic notable enough for Wikipedia. - Dalbury (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Correction. The note IS signed. I signed it. I'm a member and my member name is Neil Lisst. Thanks for the info regarding IP addresses. The gist of your comments seems to be that you want to be certain everyone knows that the comments are all mine except those made by you and the first gentleman. I don't think anyone should have a problem understanding that.
 * Comment. Please do not remove anything from another user's comments in deletion discussion pages. That can be regarded as vandalism, although I understand what you were trying to do. If you do not want your IP address exposed, then sign on to Wikipedia with your user name, and then sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ), as explained near the bottom of the edit screen. That will automatically mark your comments with your user name and hide your IP address.  By the way, anyone who clicks on the 'history' tab will see only your IP address, and not your user name, for your six out of your eight edits up to now. - Dalbury (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment

You seem to know a lot of rules. Perhaps you'll be kind enough to cite the standards which you use to determine Neil Lisst doesn't meet your perception of those standards. That way we can talk about the standards, and whether they're applicable to this political comic, or whether you're misconstruing them.

(Neil Lisst 22:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)) Did you note that the traffic on that site has increased dramatically since Neil Lisst debuted? That it has shot up from somewhere above 100,000 on Alexa to its current position? Did you pay any attention to my statement that the bulk of our views are offsite and are not recorded at the site to which you refer?
 * Comment. While it is not yet an official policy, we refer to the section on Web Comics in Websites for guidance on whether a Web comic strip is notable enough for an article. If you can document that you do meet any of the criteria given there, I will reconsider my vote. I did check Alexa, and the whole of webcomicsnation.com has an average traffic rank for the past three months of 72,847.  Since there are many other comics splitting that traffic with your comic, I have to assume that your Alexa score would be over 100,000. - Dalbury (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment

As I have noted, and as even the casual reader would note, our comic is political satire, the variety one finds on the EDITORIAL pages, not the comic pages. It is not a comic about superheroes or funky kids.

You say you refer to the guidelines, but you don't cite them. Instead, you vaguely refer to those guidelines, and conclude they are (1) applicable to this circumstance, and (2) you are properly interpreting them. That process begins with you citing the actual language and authority, and then our talking about it. When I ask you to cite authority, you do not.

(Neil Lisst 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

In other words, you feel badgered, in spite of the fact that this is the process set by Wikipedia, and you feel offended, therefore you vote Delete.
 * Delete- Suppose voters are badgered by candidates at the polls.  Davidrowe 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment

I've decided to ask that my submission be removed. I've always considered Wikipedia to be a joke, and my experiences with the amateurs of this board confirm that. It's being run by people who are not qualified to edit. There is an obvious error on one of the forms here, where a period is placed outside the quotation mark. Those kind of errors are not made by those of us who actually possess writing and editorial skills.

I've concluded that Wikipedia is not good enough to have a Neil Lisst entry, so let's do that.

(Neil Lisst 05:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Keep so the author won't think we're amateurish jokers, please please please. Seriously though, delete as nn and, of course, WP not being good enough lol. Dottore So 16:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete via WP:CSD G8; we're not worthy. --Stephen Deken 16:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's already non-notable in the first place. *drew 02:59, 17 November 2005 (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.