Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinfest


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sinfest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability. Cites consist of passing mentions in articles about many webcomics, or pages created by the webcomic's author. Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - There are many passing mentions here and there (beyond the references listed), and the deepest coverage I have found online is this PC MAG entry. Looking for the author (Tatsuya Ishida) instead, I also got this coverage by Publishers Weekly. The article itself needs some trimming though.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per WP:WEB. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards winner.  Powers T 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources provided by 70.80.234.163 and sources already included in article (Salon, sfgate.com) more than establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY Keep Nominator is correct that things like the Salon and San Francisco Chronicle/Gate sources are trivial one sentence mentions and do not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Powers is incorrect in thinking that notability is inherited from something like the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. PC Mag coverage is pretty trivial, however this Library Journal review and this Publishers Weekly source suggest this topic does have the significant coverage in multiple independent sources that we need. Article does need a major rewrite. Rangoondispenser (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I said nothing about notability being inherited.  The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards win is an indicator of notability.  WP:WEB is quite clear that such award winners are likely to be notable.  Powers T 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "Keep, All XXXXX are notable" argument is a classic example of a WP:INHERITED argument. And, no, some minor online award is not an indicator of WP:Notability. WP:WEB is quite clear that winning a well-known award is likely to result in notability, but of course not little-known awards.  Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again you mischaracterize my argument. Cease setting up straw men for you to knock down and address what I actually wrote.  Powers T 12:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What was your argument then? It looked to me like you were saying "Keep, All Web Cartoonists' Choice Award winners are notable." Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WEB, subjects that have "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" are highly likely to be notable enough for an article. That's not the same as "all award winners are notable".  Powers T 13:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, one of the few webcomics to get published in print, among other notable accomplishments. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are far more than a few webcomics in print -- see Category:Webcomics_in_print or List_of_webcomics_in_print for over a hundred others. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Sinfest in print" section of the article is especially problematic. With one exception, it only lists books published by the author of the webcomic. The one exception claims that "Sinfest has appeared in the comic magazine Nemi" but the link to Nemi is to a comic strip, not a publication. Does anyone have any acytual evidence that Sinfest has ever been in print? Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at which ones were non-self-published, you can slash that number in half or more. I think the article already has a suitable citation showing that his anthologies have been picked up by Dark Horse. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Powers. Article needs improvement; the Overview section in particular is oddly organized. Is there any problem with updating the article during an RfD? rewinn (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Improving an article is never a problem. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: If I see the above-mentioned indications of notability incorporated into the article (especially the "published in print" claim), I will withdraw my nomination for deletion. Far better to improve an article rather than deleting it. Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While it does happen that a bunch of keep votes alone is enough to save an article, it is far more certain to be retained if the evidence of notability is incorporated into the article rather than just discussed on the talk page. I would encourage those who have voted to keep this page to take the next step and improve the article with some citations. Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here's another non-trivial source: a Publishers' Weekly interview with Ishida on the release of his 2nd book.  Jpatokal (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

One could only hope that some of the effort that is going into the above keep votes would go into actually improving the Sinfest Wikipedia page. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (Responding to your suggestion of withdrawal) Are you trying to make some kind of point here? It's fair if you don't feel like improving an article you sent to AFD, but why don't you just withdraw the nom now? It looks basically like SNOW keep already. I don't see the point to you sitting here with your hands in the air, trying to get drive-by commenters to incorporate stuff into the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * When making such decisions, I always make the choice that is most likely to benefit Wikipedia. I have no expertise in the area of web comics, but clearly many of the commenters do.  Waiting a couple more days may result in one of them improving the article. Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sourcing indicates notability. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup, first of all. You don't nominate something for deletion unless you believe the article's subject isn't notable.  Reliable sources have been found that give adequate coverage of this webcomic.  Also if you want something added to the article, such as the sources found, then do it yourself.   D r e a m Focus  10:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At the time I nominated it I did not see any indications of notability. Please assume good faith. I would attempt to make the improvements myself, but somehow I suspect that someone who has actually read at least one SinFest webcomic might be better qualified to do that. AFD is not cleanup, but it is never wrong to encourage people to improve an article. Guy Macon (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've updated my original comment above to "Speedy Keep." See Speedy keep -- Nominator has effectively withdrawn their "No evidence of notability" nomination when they write "it appears to me that notability has been established by the publishers weekly citation" that was provide 6 days ago. They've also said that "If I see the above-mentioned indications of notability incorporated into the article (especially the "published in print" claim), I will withdraw my nomination for deletion." Of course, the article has for over a year and a half had the "published in print claim" with attribution that "Dark Horse Comics republished in June 2009 the first volume of compiled strips". Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have "effectively withdrawn" nothing. There is nothing wrong with choosing to let an AfD run it's course. You are on the verge of bullying here. Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if quoting your contradictions exactly hurts your feelings. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/16-026/Sinfest-Volume-1 says:
 * Web traffic on Sinfest.net averages 1.7 million unique visitors per month and 300,000 page hits per day.
 * "After seven years and counting, Tatsuya Ishida shows every indication of maturing into a cartoonist on the level of Bill Watterson and Walt Kelly." -The Comics Journal, "50 Excellent Comics from 2007"
 * "The best webcomic out there." -comicsworthreading.com
 * " . . . Sinfest offers many laughs; it may be brutally funny, but it is dead honest and refreshing." -Publisher's Weekly
 * http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/16-570/Sinfest-Viva-La-Resistance
 * Widely acclaimed for both style and content, Sinfest is a frequent entry in critics' "Best Comics of the Year" lists (The Comics Journal, MTV, Comics Reporter, Comics Worth Reading) and just hit its tenth year of serialization. Don't miss it!
 * Web traffic on sinfest.net averages 2.3 million unique visitors per month!
 * If you ever doubt something is notable, look on the official site that publishes it.  D r e a m Focus  19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * DF, every now and then one of these gems comes out of your keyboard that so clearly show you have no clue whatsoever. Do you work on these, prepare them and tweak them, or do they come naturally? I'm going to find a place to have these words engraved. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sites that publish them always have reviews quoted from notable sources. So if you want to see if something was reviewed by a reliable source, a good place to look is there.  Also see Don't be a dick.   D r e a m Focus  01:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a "blurb" is? Are you aware that we don't cite blurbs? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If notable sites such as The Comics Journal and Publisher's Weekly have reviewed this, then that's notable and can be cited. Also you can check their sites and easily find the entire reviews.    D r e a m Focus  03:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon my French: NOT FROM THE FUCKING PUBLISHER'S SITE. It's the essence of RS. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2011 (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.