Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Rest for the Wicked (webcomic)


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No Rest for the Wicked (webcomic)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks any reliable third-party sources, so fails WP:NOR and WP:V (the comic itself is not a permissible primary source for most of the content). Due to lack of multiple coverage in reliable sources - and because it did not actually win any award - it also fails WP:WEB. Sandstein 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A useful analogy might be an excellent but obscure fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm, such as Der Gevatter Tod.  There would no question of the notability of an article on such a story, even if no external source could be found that discussed that story specifically, right?  Here we have an ongoing story told in fairy-tale form, a story that has engrossed the loyalty and affections of many people across the Internet.  This comic has been nominated repeatedly for awards, and was selected as a "presenter" of an award in 2005; hence, it is clearly one of the most notable web-comics and there are reliable external sources citing it.  Indeed, more people probably know of Andrea Peterson's story than know of Der Gevatter Tod, although that too is an excellent and engrossing tale.  Willow 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the Grimms are very notable, but the author of this comic is rather less so. The artistic merits of the comic are irrelevant for the purposes of its inclusion in Wikipedia. You mention reliable external sources citing it; what are they? Sandstein 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, you seem to have missed my point, so I'll clarify. I did not claim that Andrea Peterson is more notable than the Grimm brothers, nor did I claim that her story was "art".  Rather, I argued that her story was better known and, hence, more notable than many analogous stories that would reasonably be considered notable, such as Der Gevatter Tod.  Two external sites that reference her work are here and here.  She has been interviewed several times, which were published externally, such as  here, and here.  The story has been favorably reviewed by several external sites as well, such as  here and here.  These external sites are independent and therefore cannot be considered as "advertising".  Hoping that this clarifies your question, Willow 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the sources. It's not unusual for a webcomic to be well covered online, but the sources you cite do not appear to be reliable - i.e., sources with a reputation for fact-checking and serious research. Although Sequential Tart, which looks to be fairly professional, might qualify, the others appear to be blogs, forums and other enthusiast-run projects. Sandstein 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. From what I've learned in the recent flurry of AfDs, Comixpedia is an online magazine. The site readily agrees, and has such things as monthly articles, issue archives and cover art, with the more modern blog, forum and wiki elements on top of that base. (Sure, it looks rather ugly, but so do I and the site at least works.) Apparently it actually pays writers, and while the amounts are symbolic that sets it well apart from the usual enthusiast work. I think it should count. --Kizor 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but at any rate its coverage is trivial, which does not count under WP:WEB - the webcomic is mentioned once, in passing. Sandstein 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The comic has actually won the 2007 WCCA in the fantasy genre, which was awarded this weekend. Epameinondas 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be true. It's not mentioned on the results page. According to that page, the fantasy webcomic winner is Sorcery 101. Sandstein 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're reading it wrong, sorry. :-) Click on the link, and you'll see that the "ceremony" is hosted by Sorcery 101, where it awards No Rest For The Wicked. --Kizor 06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one børked award. On the results page, it says "Scroll down for the winner!", but I don't see who the winner is. The space below is empty, at least in my browser. Sandstein 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd, works fine on my Firefox. There was some kind of problem a moment ago, you could try again. In any case, there's this. --Kizor 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that I actually read what my mind, assuming it to be an advertising banner at the bottom of an empty page, was filtering out... yes, I see. Lousy layout, this. Anyway, while I'd not have nominated this article under these circumstances, I'm not withdrawing the nomination, because I'm not convinced of all this underground-flavoured notability. Marginal coverage by subculture publications and receiving a marginally notable subculture award (itself still up for AfD) is less than impressive in my view – and I am a regular reader of webcomics! – but I'm aware that many other editors may feel differently. Sandstein 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a spoiler warning and the spatial equivalent of opening the envelope. Still looks unwieldy, though. --Kizor 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Truth be told, I asked you to consider it in large part because of weariness. I'm here to make contributions, this recent flurry of webcomic deletions that had just been abating has been increasingly grinding. Oh well. Too late for that. Also, the WCCA vote ended with keep consensus. -Kizor 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep because of Sequential Tart and Comixpedia being independent sources, and the just won WCCA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. 217.91.57.33 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT an internet guide, no multiple non-trivial sources, let alone any suggesting impact or historical significiance. Fails WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."-- Dragonfiend 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions.   -- Sid 3050 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:WEB with outside award (WCCA). -- Ben 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB uses as a guideline "has won a well-known and independent award." This is in no way a well-known award. In seven years it has barely managed to attract the notice of third-party reputable sources. These exceedingly minor awards were given away again this past weekend, with no sign that any news organization noticed. --Dragonfiend 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I have pointed out, it is undeniably a well-known and independent award. As I have also pointed out, WP:V is trivially satisfied for content about a webcomic itself. Balancer 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well reviewed and awarded comic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:49, 23 February 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.