Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red String (webcomic) (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Red String (webcomic)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * There is no significant coverage asserted. It is on its own website and its publisher's website, and nothing else; it is totally self-contained within the company.
 * There are no reliable references to the source material. There is the author, and that is it. This is clearly not reliable, given how we are naturally driven to portray ourselves and our work as more important than we are or it is.
 * There are no secondary sources. The author and the publisher's sources make it entirely in-house and primary.
 * No source is separate from the author or publisher.
 * Given these failures of notability, there is no reason to keep it. It is fancruft. Octane (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per apparent lack of third party sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Raziel teatime  22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Emperor (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question http://redstring.strawberrycomics.com/info.html Are none of those interviews valid? What about the awards it was nominated for?   D r e a m Focus  02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interviews aren't secondary sources... since they're almost entirely just the words of the creator. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But interviews do involve the editorial judgement of the journalist or writer involved. It is impossible to write something that is entirely independent from a subject because the information you use to write an article about a band is -- when you trace it back -- always from the subject in question. It's the only way for correct information to spread. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An interview is still just the raw, unverified words of the person being interviewed... it may be a useful source but it can't be the only source. It's true that on a philosophical level, all information about say, a band, traces back to the band... but secondary sources process that information to (hopefully) reduce the level of bias, so an encyclopedia article isn't merely repeating what the band says about themselves. For example, basing the Wikipedia article on say, KISS, solely on things the band members themselves said, would be a very poor way to write the article. Listen to Gene Simmons' famous interview on Fresh Air - can you imagine an article using his words there as reliable information on his career? Interviews are primary sources and have to be used very carefully, and can't be the only source. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The awards don't indicate why the people handing it out would be an authority in the field.. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The VAST majority of webcomics do not get published to print by a major comic published like Dark Horse, and will never be, no matter how long-lived they are. Surely that says SOMETHING to notability. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mgm makes a very good point about interviews. Now. One entry on the above list of mentions is Comixtalk (formerly Comixpedia), which pays its writers and has editors. It's more of an online magazine than a blog. (Or it was when the interview was made, I haven't kept up with these matters for a year or two.) I recall it being accepted in these discussions before, though abject laziness prevents me from trawling through an AfD pile. So that's at least one valid third-party source. The link page's out of date, though, the article's here. --Kiz o r  13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking into this further, one of the references given is Newtype USA, a magazine. That should be looked into further, of course - can anyone dig up a copy? - but with that and Comixpedia, I'm ready to support the article as the subject seems to have multiple reliable, third-party sources. Both should be integrated into the article properly, of course, but if we started nuking stuff for being in need of work instead of irredeemable, the next major change in standards would blow up the encyclopedia. :-) Now lessee here. The rule-of-thumb (also known as a "notability guideline") used for web content is WP:WEB, laboriously made to meet the unique position of online content. It requires the fulfillment of any of three criteria. Multiple non-trivial published works? That seems to be in order. Well-known independent award, or multiple nominations for such? There was a repeated wrangle over the state of the WCCAs. The decision was... well, mainly "NOT AGAIN," but they were accepted. This was a bit ago, though. A year or two. Distribution through a respected, non-trivial, independent medium? 159.182.1.4 points out that the strip is published by Dark Horse Comics, which is right behind Marvel Comics and DC Comics. Check. The article meets all reasonable standards for keeping. --Kiz o r  13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was notable enough to get published by a major company, and because, as listed above, one of those reviews was in a major magazine.  Anyone know how to get a clear and accurate count of how many hits a day a website gets? Alexa has confusing results  Something is notable if a large number of people read it everyday.   D r e a m Focus  14:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are notable and Sequential Tart has won an award or two. While interviews don't strictly count for notability being interviewed by folks like Newsarama shows it has got onto the radar of one of the highest profile of the comics websites. Getting picked up by Dark Horse is another shot in the arm. I think it is enough to suggest it is fine on the notability front - it needs work (reviews, circulation?, etc.) but it is a start. (Emperor (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That seems to take care of the grievances. Could we get opinions from the nominator and the "delete" !voters? --Kiz o r  10:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article still cites no third party sources at all. It lists 3 reviews but only gives 1 working link, and it appears it's from a site that will post reviews from anyone, and thus doesn't seem like a meaningful source. The only reliable source seems to be Comixpedia... and that's something. I guess the article probably needs editing more than deletion if more than just that one reliable source can be found. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 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.