Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Losers (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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexy Losers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Had a long reason typed out, but Twinkle ate it.

Anyway, a rundown of the sources shows a great deal of synthesis and primary sourcing, without any reliable secondary sources. The Maxim citation is only a comic that supposedly plagiarized this strip (with no mention anywhere of said strip anywhere in the pages of Maxim) and references 4 and 5 do not appear to be reliable sites. The supposed popularization of the term "fap" is synthesized through the strip itself (the strip itself doesn't mention the popularity of this term), and the fact that it appears in a non-notable magazine is not an indication of notability. A search for better sourcing turned up no reliable third party sources whatsoever. First AFD in 2007 was closed as keep due to a deluge of WP:ITSNOTABLEs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  --  Marcus   Qwertyus   21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  He  iro  19:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom and per WP:WEB. The article is carefully written so as to appear notable at first glance, but actually isn't.  Claims lots of hits (what, a sex cartoon on the web getting lots of hits? I'm shocked!) but the number given isn't especially impressive, claims to be the origin of an online slang word for masturbation but then a sentence later admits it really isn't, and so on. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Starblind is right. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources here are horrible: Livejournal, the website itself, and unreliable blogs like "Modern Humor Authority" which honestly appears to be a really clumsy hoax of a blog or a junior high school webcomics fan blog with pseudonymous or likely sock puppet contributors. This is a textbook example of why we shouldn't write encyclopedia articles sourced to any old crap we found on the internet. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 13:34, 28 October 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.