Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) (3rd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Strong consensus that this fails WP:WEB. Nandesuka 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Outsider (comic)
This is a long nomination, but please, I ask you to read on as I would like some participation from the wider Wikipedia community. This comic was previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) and was nominated for a second time at Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) (2nd nomination) where it ended as a no consensus. I am nominating again because I feel that the outcome of the second discussion was erronomous. Although the second nomination had such great keep votes such as "I masturbated into a sock last night" and general ILIKEIT style comments, I really do not think that their arguments hold much weight. They claim that this webcomic, seen here is notable because it was nominated for the 2002 outstanding sci-fi Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. This however, is not a notable award, the WCCA's have more categories than the Oscars (really), and so many are nominated every year, it's meaningless. Just because it was nominated once for a web award with no ceremony (they just gather up votes in an online poll then post the results) doesn't mean that it's more notable/popular/better sourced than Encyclopedia Dramatica. Having one nomination puts it up with those big hitting websites such as Psychic Dyslexia Institute, Bikeeni 2000 and The Tenth Life of Pishio the Cat. This comic has no other reliable third party sources, has not achieved great popularity as seen by its Alexa rank and pretty much all the information is sourced from the website itself. We should not have slacker inclusion guidelines for webcomics over other web content. - Hahnch e  n 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nominating this for a third time is a completely pointless waste of energy and time.  Folks who vote to keep don't need "arguments that ... hold much weight"; you're the one making the affirmative attempt to delete it so it's you that has to convince everyone else. Xihr 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The last nomination ended up a no consensus with the one before that being to delete. I don't think it'll hurt bringing the article through another AFD, especially if it gets a wider participation. The last AFD was pretty close and the closing admin was asked for a closer look. - Hahnch  e  n 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Folks that vote to keep don't need arguments"? Sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to reply to that without violating WP:NPA.  Folks that vote to keep damn well need to explain why they believe the article meets Wikipedia policy. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haelth, I think we can agree that the article is quite good. The subject itself seems to be the problem. I also think that the value of the very first nomination Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) has been quite exagerated don't you agree? There were only five users interrested at that time and the article was nominated just 14 days ! after being created, it never had enough time to evolve yet. Flamarande 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep well done article on a webcomic which seems notable to me (from reading the prior nominations). And I didn't masturbate into a sock last night! InvictaHOG 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Good article, it looks like a good comic, but can someone explain to me how this comic meets WP:WEB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:DejahThoris (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - I don't think the case has been adequately made that the Alexa rankings for Outsider don't demonstrate a notable webcomic. I have not seen any guidelines that quantify what sort of traffic ranking qualifies as notable. Previous comparisons with traffic rankings for Penny Arcade and Megatokyo don't seem very appropriate; I don't know whether a webcomic must be among the four or five most popular in the world to be considered "notable", but in any event comparing the traffic numbers of a daily or thrice-weekly comic strip with those of a weekly (or less) long form comic doesn't seem to be a very good basis for judgment. An informal survey of long-form, weekly-or-less updated comics with current Wikipedia articles produced this general range of Alexa numbers:
 * Errant Story: 70,000
 * Flipside: 74,000
 * Demonology 101: 103,000
 * Alpha Shade: 116,000
 * ModernTales (anthology): 250,000
 * Outsider: 371,000
 * 9th Elsewhere: 411,000
 * Girlamatic (anthology): 476,381
 * Polymer City Chronicles: 493,000
 * Lowbright/Derek Kirk Kim: 614,000
 * Return to Sender: 625,000
 * Nowhere Girl: 834,000
 * Leisure Town: 870,000
 * This list is by no means exhaustive. (As a disclaimer, I am the author of the comic in question.) - AriochIV 02:57 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have always maintained that the standards for webcomic inclusion have been incredibly lax, and that they seem to be treated through rose tinted spectacles in comparison to other websites. There is an absolute shedload of webcomics on my watchlist which have Alexa ranks like the ones you quote and should be deleted. Encyclopedia Dramatica had a rank of around 8000 I think, Final Fantasy Shrine has a rank in the top 10,000 also. They were both deleted. Barring the sci-fi web cartoonist's choice award nomination, there have been no reliable sources or professional third party reviews or critical commentary on your work. I cannot imagine any other set of websites outside of webcomics in which the claim that an Alexa rank of 370,000 makes it notable would be used as an argument for keep. The Alexa rank wasn't even the main point of this nomination. - Hahnch  e  n 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have made no claim of any kind as to the notability of the comic, only questioned your criteria on the judgement of traffic rankings. I thank you for your clarification. - AriochIV 03:42 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the main point of the nomination but you sure had to use it, conselour. What rank would be acceptable? If you use it against it, there surely exist a rank which satisfies you. Flamarande 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

. Quite frankly, I think it's notable simple because it very deliberately exists (as can be seen in the effort of world and art creation), and has existed for a long enough time that I'm very certain it will continue to exist for a good long time. Summarize: Information is usefull; content has deliberatly existed and shows all signs that it will continue to do so. Narfanator 3:26 AM EST August 23 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.93.7 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong delete - No reliable secondary sources of information regarding the notability of this. Doesn't meet WP:WEB at all.  For what its worth, I would've closed the previous AFD as delete, due to complete lack of arguments based on WP policy/guidelines and instead stuff like "the comic clearly exists and has some history".  I'm actually busting out the "strong" delete on this one, which I haven't done in awhile.  Wickethewok 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I find the fact that the WP:WEB classifications as being incredibly short sighted and that such criteria will create false positives and false negatives all over the place if used as criteria for deletion in the particular case of webcomics. If a webcomic publishes their material in paperback form, and opens their own personal bookshop out of their garage, they immediately qualify as they have an outside source(their publisher).  Why should a site suddenly be better because the owner decides to shell out money to publish?  A webcomic is a peice of fiction, not fact, and I think after scrutinizing the INTENT of the rules in question, that this webcomic is sufficient to warrent a wiki article.  I do agree that webcomics are a dime a dozen, but *any* award from any organization (whether web derived or not) therefore implies quality of work simply because winners had to compete against hundreds or thousands of similarly themed works.  Just troll through the latest comic ranking sites like buzzcomics and see how many exist.  But I ask you to think, go wiki some webcomics like inverloch, earthsong, no need for bushido, look at their pages, and think about why all of these shouldn't deserve to have a wiki page.  If you think that they shouldn't, than why are ANY fictional works presented herein?  I think the time has long passed that having a paperback published copy of your fictional work somehow makes the work more immortal.  I'll finish up with some counterpoint aimed at Hahnchen.  Reliable sources I quote : "Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them."  This is a work of fiction, the author's word is final, hence it is no different than the lord of the rings or any other published non-fiction work.  Another point, because we are to consider this source just as we would if it were published in another medium, why are we even talking about alexa rankings as we certainly do not consider how many copies were printed, or how widly circulated or translated a particular book is.  Addiitonally I would  question your criteria for "well known" award, as I think it is very well known within the commuity it serves (i.e. those who read webcomics).  The point of the rules is to keep fradulent works out, to keep facts close to reality etc.  That is the spirit I see behind the rules being sited, and that is why I find that works such as webcomics break that mold.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs)
 * Do you even know what a reliable source is? The difference between this webcomic and Lord of the Rings is that in one case, we are taking the author's word for every claim, and in the other case, there are thousands of other people who have intently scrutinised every claim, checked every fact, and published their own findings independently!  A reliable source, whether online or offline is necessarily and inherently a secondary source, and that completely and utterly rules out any author whatsoever as a reliable source on their own work. If Shakespeare himself had a website about his plays, we would not be able to cite it as a source! How much less, then, can we have an article about a lesser author that doesn't cite adequate sources? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is the "reliability" even in question, it is a work of FICTION the author is the sole person responsible for it. Are we going to eliminate Lucas's early Star Wars films because the commentary on it by people before the rereleases are now moot as he changed things around?  I fail to see how external commentary makes a work of fiction any more or less reasonable as a wikipedia article.
 * Strong Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, right? And it's the only encyclopedia that 'records' the Internet. This is information about a lasting place on the Internet. More, it's about a carefully, extensively and deliberatly crafted place on the Internet. I would love for, one day, to have Wikipedia have an entry for /every/ Webcomic; atleast enough to know what it is and some review quotations. Why? Because it's information. Usefull information
 * Delete: This is a signed "vote."  The comic does not pass WEB.  The presence of a Wikipedia article does not make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad.  This is a question about how likely it is that an educated but casual web user will have heard of this comic and need it explained to him or her.  No outside references or external contexts.  Geogre 12:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the purpose were to explain things that casual web users will have heard of, explain to me why you bother to have a page for CVD? I highly doubt that anyone without a degree in materials engineering (or related fields) would care at all about such a specific materials processing method.  I also put forth that such a specific subset of the industrially competent enough nations to actually have CVD technologies hardly qualifies as a casual web user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong delete per Geogre and Wickethewok. The simple fact is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of websites or comics, and as such synopses of webcomics - completely regardless of their popularity or "notability" - fall outside our scope, and should not be included.  Comixpedia exists for a reason, folks. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that wikipedia should use external reasons such as "comixpedia exists for a 'reason'" as why even have wikipedia exist. There are encyclopedia, and countless volumes of books that contain the same information, and some would say more accurately. I'd say keep your arguments germane, I don't think the existance of external information sources for the same material is relevant, as such an argument nullifies all that wikipedia stands for.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. This isn't a directory of comics. Not every comic deserves a page on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This kind of synopsis / treatment is outside the scope of wikipedia. Delete as per above and WEB --Amists 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources, no credible evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Let's try to be honest. The article by itself is fine, but the subject fails at WP:WEB which seems to be the main argument against it. WP:WEB is a notability criteria guideline, reading Notability I found the following: "There is no official policy on notability". This seems to be a little akward to me. If there is no official notabilty policy how can you use it as your main argument for the deletion of this article? Flamarande 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It at least earned some minor award. Leuko 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just a clarification, it didn't actually win any minor award, but was nominated for one, the WCCA online poll. - Hahnch e  n 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable comic. WP standards of encyclopedic notability are ill-defined at best, and at worst are meaninglessly applied at random. RedPenguin 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there are well-defined standards at WP:WEB. These are objective standards that apply to all website related articles, including web comics.  Wickethewok 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A notable comic. Bibliomaniac15 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This webcomic does not satisify WP:WEB, which is the guidelines many editors here agree on a notability for websites. That means, somewhere in the article must provide citations to reliable sources which have already discussed and verified this webcomic.  It could be a traditional media outlet, or a well known web award, or other standards as detailed in WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources and per excellent argument by danntm. Zunaid 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If any webcomic is allowed to be showed on the wikipedia then there is no reason that Outsider or any other webcomic should not be showed as well. 82.48.77.128 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per danntm, unfortunately. The comic itself is very pretty, and the article is well written. However, no published sources have written about it. Bring it back when it's famous. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete echoing the various points made above. Eusebeus 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being nominated for an obscure award (and not winning) does not make something notable. Fails WP:WEB. Kafziel 15:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:WEB per Wickthewok. Sandstein 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:WEB. Bring it back when there's indpendent coverage of it as per AnonEMouse. Fairsing 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per danntm: WP:WEB might be a guideline but WP:V is policy. Until someone who might be considered a reliable source writes about this, it has no place on Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how WP:V has any application to a work of fiction, particularly one which exists in its entirety on the web page in question. I don't think the issue is about the accuracy of the information in the article. Ariochiv 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't you notice that the same person nominated this article for deletion 3 separate times? This WP:WEB argument appeared only in this nomination, and I am even unsure if it is truly legit: There is no official policy on notability (somehow noone is willing to explain it above). Flamarande 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seriously, I thought the whole point of wikipedia was that if you want to know something, you go to wikipedia to get infomation on it. If some guy hears about a webcomic called Outsider but is worried it might be about Furry Satanic Porn, shouldn't he be able to just read the wikipedia article to learn about it? Heck, a wikipedia article could lead to it growing in popularity.--65.9.140.240 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a very common misconception, but no - that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is meant to collect information from secondary sources about notable topics. There are standards for inclusion as well as standards for sources. If a subject isn't notable, it's not Wikipedia's job to try to make it notable. Kafziel 00:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This has survived two AfDs, that should be reason enough. There are proper channels to go down to overturn a delete decision. Re-AfDing isn't it. Abstain I stand corrected. Mallanox 19:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. The consensus of the first one was to delete, and the second one was no consensus. There has never been a consensus to keep this. That's all beside the point anyway, since the results of previous AfDs don't have any bearing on the previous one as long as it was nominated in good faith. More than a month has passed since the last one closed; there's nothing wrong with re-nominating it now. Kafziel 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of fairness please notice that the "mighty" consensus of the first nomination was achieved with 5 users, two deletes, one abstained, and the other two users didn't vote at all. Flamarande 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said "mighty"? I just said that there has never been a consensus to keep this article, so this discussion is valid and the nomination was made in good faith. I didn't mean that this should be deleted because of past votes any more than it should be kept because of past votes. Past results shouldn't be used as footing for current debates; an AfD should be based on the article, not the article's history. Kafziel 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Also, per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This article is not supported by reputable third-party sources, nor does it assert any historical significance for its topic, therefore it does not meet our official content policies. -- Dragonfiend 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. The subject of the article is a webcomic. If someone links the statements of the article to the proper page of the comic will that be considered a proper source? Flamarande 23:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with the folks here who try to use WP:V on AfD. Verifiability, while an official policy, doesn't really matter in this case. We all know the comic exists. The question is whether or not it is notable enough for inclusion, the standards for which are only guidelines. This discussion is intended to decide its notability, not its verifiability. The information is obviously verifiable, but if consensus holds that the subject is non-notable then it's pointless to add sources. Kafziel 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Flamarande, no, linking to the website will not satisfy our content policies. First, per Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but a website is not a third-party source for an encyclopedia article about itself. Second, WP:NOT requires website articles contain info on "achievements, impact or historical significance," not simply descriptions of the website. Anything that is actually an achievement or of historical significance will be covered by third-party sources. To Kafziel, I'll point out that that this article is not "obviously verifiable" in the sense of our Verifiability policy. That is, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Nothing in this article has been published by a reliable and reputable source. -- Dragonfiend 01:52, 28 August 2006 (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.