Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozy and Millie (2nd 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   no consensus. There is no consensus on whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice and Col. Warden's source are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Obviously, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, and WP:NOTAGAIN on the "keep" side, and WP:PERNOM and WP:ALLCAPS on the "delete" side do nothing to help their respective cases. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ozy and Millie
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Doesn't seem notable. All sources are comixtalk (deemed unreliable in the past), personal blogs or the comic itself. Claims to awards are sourced, but the Web Cartoonist's Choice award is generally deemed insufficient (see Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures). The fact that it was printed in book form doesn't convey notability, nor does the fact that it lasted for 10 years, nor does the fact that it's hosted on Keenspot. Notability is not inherited from Keenspot.

A search on Gnews found only four hits, none of which amount to non-trivial coverage: in fact, one just mentions that the cartoonist will be at a convention. On plain Google, the first hits are its website, this article, TV Tropes, WikiFur, Cafepress, Deviantart, Comixpedia and the comic's forum. Also listing the author's article for similar lack of notability.

Yes, I know it has a green disc in the corner, but don't let that stop you. Zig Zag (character) was somehow ranked as a GA only months before its deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. So wait, winning three separate awards - the last on three separate occasions - isn't enough? Didn't the discussion in April settle this? And for the artist, winning a publishers' comics competition adjudicated by a juried panel is "a similar lack of notability"? Moreover, you didn't add the deletion template to the article about the artist. Filing multiple deletion requests in a topic area in a single day is a recipe for mistakes. You need to slow down. You also keep trotting out a deletion discussion referencing the WCCAs from 2008 when there is a far more recent and more relevant discussion indicating its notability. You should know that one very well because you were the nominiator. GreenReaper (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. On a more general note - and perhaps this needs to be raised elsewhere - I think you should seriously consider whether your actions are actually improving Wikipedia. When you're not filing deletions on often questionable grounds, a large portion of your edits appear to consist of changing articles into redirects (without putting the content anywhere), then removing the links to the articles, causing them to become orphans even if the change is reverted. This concerns others, and it concerns me. GreenReaper (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see nothing seriously wrong with this article, and I don't see any reason to delete it. It contains good and useful information and is well-sourced. The only objection you have against it is that it's not notable, but I disagree with that for the same reasons noted above. Beside that, it's a very weak reason to delete an otherwise good article. CodeCat (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those arguments aren't any less subjective than notability, so I don't see what the issue is. I'm staying with my position. CodeCat (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, does not appear to pass WP:WEB at this time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  —-- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The notability of this webcomic has already been established by a vast majority in the last deletion discussion. This is therefore a bad-faith nomination since the nominator is the same one as in the first discussion. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still not answering one thing: WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCES?!??!?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TPH: putting comments in large text does not increase the strength of your arguments. Instead, it usually tends to weaken them. --Elonka 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the clear consensus established in the prior AFD, which the nomination provides no reasons to reject. Posting one's opinions in oversized type is not a substitute for reasoned discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Award-winning comics are notable, by definition, and this one has won in categories for both the Ursa Major Awards and the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. I'm a bit disappointed by the AfD nomination here, which is bringing up a very old discussion from 2007 as though it set a permanent consensus on the notability of webcomic awards.  In actuality, consensus can change, and has. As this April 2010 discussion shows, the award is notable. --Elonka 19:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple award winning comic, this is notable. VikÞor |  Talk 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you guys just ignoring me or what? I see almost nothing in the way of reliable sources. You can tell me these awards are notable until you're blue in the freaking face, but I still don't buy it. WHERE. ARE. THE. SECONDARY. SOURCES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, no secondary sources to back up claim of notability fails WP:WEB Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, a logical response. I think everyone else who !voted here has been replaced by sheep who blindly follow "award of any kind = notable" thinking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TPH, Wiki is supposed to be a NEUTRAL site, so I would recommend getting off your high horse and stop critizing those that don't agree with your childish tantrums here. TyVulpine (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki. Given sites such as Wikia, where any person can create a more specialized wiki, it can be transferred to another site where notability is much less of an issue.  --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not promotional in nature, comic's run has terminated. Useful historic information would be lost with no corresponding benefit to the Wikipedia project. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are printed, mainstream, secondary sources the slightest bit important in documenting the history of a no-longer-extant web comic? It seems like common sense, eh? Carrite (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * HERE'S the question: Is Wikipedia better off with or without this article? Carrite (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I had no trouble finding a source: Attitude 3: the new subversive online cartoonists. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden. The April 2010 debate doesn't automatically add that award to the "Webcomics are automatically notable if they won this" list, but it helps to show some additional notability here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This AfD seems nothing more than trolling and gives extremely weak "evidence" as to why it should be deleted. TyVulpine (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no meaningful (i.e. non-trivial) secondary sources, what exists appears to fail WP:V / WP:RS, and thus serious questions exist as to its notability. I think Sigma 7's solution of making it available for transwikiing would be good - this is a well written article suited to another publication without Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Orderinchaos 00:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator and Orderinchaos. I don't see notability and significant reliable sources. --KFP (contact | edits) 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I do agree that this article would be useful on some other wiki, even though it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --KFP (contact | edits) 00:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources. Colonel Warden's source is helpful, but as it is an interview it does not appear to constitute the secondary coverage that is needed to establish notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Col. W's source is adequate to provide WP:V for the award. Comics that win  such awards are notable, and the inability to find more or better references is irrelevant. The source is not by itself enough to provide for meeting the GNG, but it's enough to establish meeting other criteria such as awards.   DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Meets neither WP:WEB nor WP:GNG. Lack of coverage for the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and Ursa Major Awards show they are extremely minor awards that are not indicators of notability. They do not meet the "well-known and independent award" standard of WP:WEB. The only nearly good source with any significant coverage for this article is the interview in Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists. Interviews are primary sources, and sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources per WP:GNG. Also, it is a single source. We do not have the multiple reliable secondary sources that are needed to meet article standards. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (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.