Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlock Mercenary


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Schlock Mercenary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nearly every source is the comic itself. The only good source is an interview with the author. WCCA and Hugo Award are not sufficient to carry a webcomic — several WCCA winners have been deleted anyway. I couldn't find any sources about this that weren't primary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 11:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep a Hugo award nomination is indeed sufficient, and if you follow the links to the Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, you'll find multiple nominations listed there, with inline citations for each. Those multiple major award nominations would be sufficient for a personal article under WP:ANYBIO. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hugo Award nom: . The comic was a finalist in the Washington Post's Best Webcomic poll. . The comic itself has also been quoted by the Nyasa Times. . Even Wikipedia related:, . Reviewed by the University Press of North Georgia: . Cited in a book printed by the Institute of International Visual Arts: . Also: , , , , . "Couldn't find any sources that weren't primary" translates to "failure of WP:BEFORE" here. TPH, noms like this are why you keep drawing the ire of the community. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding #1: The Hugo Award is not inherently notable. #2: Reader polls are not sufficient. #3: Do you really think being quoted in passing is a reliable non-trivial coverage? #4 and #5 are trivial too. #6 is a college paper. #7 is only a directory listing which says nothing about the strip, just names it. #8 is also a reader poll and therefore not reliable, significant coverage. #9 is a name-drop in reference to something else entirely — all it says is that the writer reads it. #10 and #11 are also name-drops. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here is that the notability guidelines are badly broken when it comes to webcomics. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing "keep" even though you know the notability guidelines are broken? That makes absolutely zero goddamn sense. It's been my experiences that the notability bar is pretty high for webcomics — and that WCCA and Hugo are not sufficient. Nor is being printed. Nor is being name dropped here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm arguing "keep" because the notability guidelines are broken. By a strict interpretation of the guidelines, this is, by your argument, not notable. WP:COMMONSENSE, however, says that it is, and this is hardly the first time that a very "notable" by the standards of being well-known, widely-recognised, and likely-to-be-saught-information-on webcomic has been rung up on deletion charges because of being "not notable". Webcomics get generally ignored by most 'sources' because they're webcomics and, thus, not worthy of mention in their minds. The notability bar is, as you say, high - too high, in my observation. While it's true we can't have a page on every penne-ante comic out there, some of the ones that get nomiated and/or deleted beggar belief. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Which still makes no bleeding sense to me. You don't have to argue on the side of the rules if you feel the rules are broken. If you think the bar is too high, do you also think that name-dropping it in the context of something else makes other works notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with The Bushranger concerning notability and guidelines here (though I'd say a Hugo nomination can mean more or less depending on the type of work), but even so, we demand reliable third-party sources, because even more important than notability is verifiability. The article has plenty of footnotes but little in the way of reliable sources not connected to the creator. Can that be improved? /Julle (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep on WP:COMMONSENSE if nothing else (and I am NOT saying that's the only reason to keep it). I find it interesting that as an online encyclopedia we still basically demand that an article's subject get featured in the (paper) New York Times or similar before some will accept it as a "safe to retain" item. If Schlock Mercenary can be deleted as non-notable on the "letter of the law", then deletionists have won, and we might as well close Wikipedia down and hand it other arbiters than the public and the users (i.e. give it to media corporations like everything else). 125.236.217.145 (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Some more references for you to disagree about  and one mentioning the specific type of discussion here   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.217.145 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links; I added the 1st two to the article since their content establishes that the work is notable and their publishers are reliable. rewinn (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not notable? Is it April Fool's Day? htom (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. 1. If the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to add sources, not to argue non-notability.
 * 2. Notability factors are considered in toto, not in isolation; otherwise you must agree that because each atom of your body is practically nothing at all, you do not exist. The Hugos, length of publication, size of readership ( I'd bet cash money Schlock Mercenary has more readers than stuff like Sinestro Corps War or probably most single Marvel or DC titles), hardcopy compilations, boardgame etc etc .... accepting the argument that any single one of those factors might not make the subject matter notable, the combination of them make it notable by any rational standard. rewinn (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How can I add sources if all the ones I found are shit? Do you suggest I add someone mentioning it on their blogspot? Name-dropping it in the context of something else? HOW are any of the sources that were found reliable, significant third party coverage? Little tiny dribs and drabs here and there don't cut it. It has to be specifically about the strip. Why is this so fucking hard to grasp? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Potty words don't help your case.
 * 2. Please use tabs (colons) so the thread can be easily read
 * 3. I just added a source. It didn't take long to find.
 * 4. It appears that you are confusing sourcing with notability. These are two entirely different things. Sourcing webcomics and other web phenomena can be difficult if one insists upon using only printed media, but that does not mean they are not notable. The notability criteria to which you keep referring address only presumption of notability and not notability itself. As extensively evidenced above, there is able evidence of notability for this article to overcome its putative failure to satisfy the presumption.
 * 5. Your analysis of notability rests entirely upon isolating individual factors, assessing each as insignificant, and concluding that the entire bundle of evidence is insignificant. This is an incorrect procedure; the evidence is to be considered in toto.
 * 6. With your "grasp" remark, you seem to be laboring under the impression that you have "grasp"ed something that everyone else on the planet is too stupid to understand. This is entirely possible, of course, but an alternative explanation is that the rest of us see something that you do not. Why are you bothering? Wiki Is Not Paper and there is no harm to anyone done by this article. rewinn (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:PAPER and WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments. Where is the notability for this strip? That's the issue you keep dodging. How does it meet WP:WEB? Where are the multiple reliable sources? You only found one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)
 * Asked and answered. Come up with something new or move on. rewinn (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as being nominated multiple years in a row for the Hugo Award (which is a major literary award, btw, for science fiction and fantasy, despite what you claim, TPH) is definitely notable. That, combined with winning a WCCA award twice ("The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.") and being nominated two other times and the coverage in Analog, certainly meets the various notability guidelines. The multiple reliable sources not directly connected to the creator of the comic are refs 47-55 and 61 (which while not terribly notable by itself is fine supporting all the others in the notability arena). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep' - Schlock Mercenary was pointed out YEARS ago for numerous Hugo nominations, and a little more importantly, this isn't their first rodeo with Wikipedia, including this WikiNews article. Whoever nominated this for deletion (who has been, by the way, on a webcomics deletion spree for months) is playing with fire. Notable then, notable now. Veled (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, attacking my Twitter account with harassing tweets? Not cool, guys. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Hugo nominations if nothing else. I'm wondering, based on the lack of any rationale for PFD, what the proposer's issue is. chrylis (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2013 (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.