Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcery 101


 * 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. Please note I considered the quality and substance to the arguments presented. This is not a vote counting exercise. Petros471 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorcery 101
Both the readers and The Author would like to know why it was suggested for deletion?

It doesn't fall into any category under the wikipedia Deletion Policy, so Why Has it been nominated? Churba 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the edit summary that added the deletion text, "nominated for deletion due to non-notability". I'm not sure I could agree with that since every other comic on KeenSpot has a page too, no matter how small. Maybe the content of the article needs refocused more towards a particular goal, but that's not qualification of a deletion in my eyes. --Zimzat 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - it doesn't seem especially notable. I say "weak" because I can't right now dig up a policy on Webcomic notability if there is such a thing. BigHaz 11:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination was from a drive-by anon who didn't even bother to complete the AfD. This comic was picked up by Keenspot, which is the major syndicate for webcomics, meeting WP:WEB 3. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:WEB 3 would require that Keenspot be "both well known and independent of the creators." Keenspot is not well-known in any sense outside of certain segments of webcomic fandom. I've also seen it, perhaps incorrectly, referred to as a "collective," which would make it less than independent of its artists. As it was founded by webcomics artists, it is certainly not independent of every creator under its umbrella. Finally, we can't use a notability guideline as a dodge around official content policies like WP:V and WP:NOT. -- Dragonfiend 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Keenspot is a syndicate, not a collective, so I won't accept the assertion it's not independent. As far as WP:V and WP:NOT are concerned, they are intentionally broad and quite frankly I find your reading of them too strict.  With the exception of WP:BLP, I am not inclined to immediately delete an article on what I feel to be a notable subject simply because it hasn't yet evolved into a well-sourced one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, we can't keep articles based on the idea that someday they may be covered by reliable sources; if we did we'd have to keep every article made up in school one day. Second, as I understand it, syndication, whether in print, television, radio or the web, involves licensing content to multiple providers. As Keenspot's goal is to "provid[e] one steady place for readers to find what we believe are some of the finest webcomics," and they "claim[] to be the largest publisher of exclusive webcomics," (emphasis mine) they sound like the exact opposite of a syndicate. As I said, I may have seen them incorrectly identified as a "collective," and it is entirely possible that they function as somewhat of an independent publisher to some or even many of their artists. They clearly aren't an independent publisher of all of their webcomics, however (take, for example, Chris Crosby's webcomics), and they're certainly not "well known" in any general sense. If you have verifiable information on Keenspot's business practices and decision-making which suggests that they are in most cases or in this case independent of the artists they publish, then I'd be interested in seeing that. But, as it stands, I am unsure if they are "independent," I am quite sure they are not "well known," and in either case we can't write articles on topics (even allegedly well-known and independent ones) without verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 17:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not advocating we keep every article. I think I've sent enough articles to AfD and prod to establish that.  However, if I believe a subject is sufficiently important for an article, I'm not going to advocate its deletion simply because it's not dotted its Is and crossed its Ts.  They are policies and guidelines, not dogma.  As far as Keenspot is concerned, I really don't think it's necessary to rehash this argument every time one of its comics is nominated for deletion.  Bring it up on WP:WEB instead.  From prior discussions held there it's my impression Keenspot is considered an indicator for item 3, but of course that can always change. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I know you're not advocating keeping every article; I just think that's what we open ourselves up to when we encourage an environment where we make judgments based on "I believe a subject is sufficiently important [and may someday be covered by reliabel sources]" rather than "reliable sources believe the subject is sufficiently important to cover." Requiring encyclopedia articles to be based on widely respected, fact-checked sources is fundamental to what we're doing. -- Dragonfiend 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep fairly notable web comic, as someone has sais all the other comics on the site get a page! Also there are plenty of google hits for the name - all of the first page links are related to the comic and they most arn't to the comic itself or the wiki article. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable webcomic, vanity. Other related webcomics should be deleted as well. wikipediatrix 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay this is the author of Sorcery 101 and I'm a bit unfamiliar with vanity but just read up to see what you mean. I don't really think it's vanity because I didn't make this site (I don't even have an account here) and didn't even know how to edit the link when it was moved to Keenspot. Also, to go against the nonnotable thing I was interveiwed at this url http://www.comicatalog.com/interview02112006.htm even though most people don't know about it. - Kell Hound


 * Keep The fact that the site is feature on KeenSpot is an indication that it is notable enough. --Marvin Monroe 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And why is that? wikipediatrix 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Keenspot was developed as an alternative to the print comic syndicates. It's not the only one, but by far it's the most successful.  For a webcomic to be invited by Keenspot, it has to have achieved a degree of success beforehand.  Among webcomic artists, to be "spotted" is like being asked to join the big leagues. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Among webcomic artists" sounds like Weasel words. As long as we're making assumptions about what other people think, let me say that I doubt actual big league webcomic artists, like the creators of Get Your War On, Megatokyo, American Elf, Penny Arcade or Copper (comic), are secretly dreaming of being published by Keenspot. -- Dragonfiend 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt. However, as in every medium, there are different levels of significance.  While the likes of Megatokyo and Penny Arcade have little use for Keenspot, there's also the second tier who aren't so dismissive.  I believe that second tier is Keenspot inclusive, and though they may not have the influence the biggest names do, they're considerably more important than the thousands on Comic Genesis, Smack Jeeves and the like that have yet to distinguish themselves.  Now, maybe you feel we should only have articles on the most significant webcomics, but that's not a sentiment I can support. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * DELETE per Non-notable and most likely vanity. --Bschott 14:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This does not meet our official content policies. Per Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." This article has no third party sources, let alone third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also, per What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ..." This article has none of that -- it is just a webcomic with a web site, a story, and some characters. -- Dragonfiend 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the WP:OR/WP:V combo WilyD 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Webcomics, again. Basically, "It doesn't meet official policy whatsoever (But wait! My sock puppet/friend/promoter says it's notable! Look at this Keenspot invite!), but some people really want it in Wikipedia, so it's going to stay." Don't bother fighting it. A lot of people really like these things, so why let them down? These things end up staying.  Cdcon   20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That argument is awful. People will ruin Wikipedia - we might as well let them is not a good guiding strategy for making a worthwhile encyclopaedia. WilyD 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. It's done by a third party - not Vanity. it's got reference links, research, so it's not just thrown together. it fits everything. I added some, someone else added some, it's all fitting, true, and valuable material. it's notable - i can name 4 people that read it that i know in PERSON. you show me another webcomic you can say that for. Keep it, the deletion discussion is weak and unintelligent. TopKnotticus 0:00 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I already cast my vote, but I wanted to include a link for a short blurb from Comixpedia - Kel McDonald brings popular webcomic Sorcery 101 to Keenspot! Opeative word being popular. I do believe Comixpedia is a reliable, independent source. --Marvin Monroe 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Comixpedia is definitely not a reliable, independent source. It is mainly a group blog where webcomics artists post about themselves. What you just linked to is basically a press release posted by the founder of Keenspot hyping the comics on his own site. -- Dragonfiend 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Keenspot is not well-known in any sense outside of certain segments of webcomic fandom." If that is the case, should not the Keenspot article itself be deleted? Boxjam 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. I don't see what's so notable about it. wikipediatrix 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So why don't we just delete every webcomic article on Wikipedia? Just because it's a niche market, that's far smaller than the traditional press comics, doesn't mean it's not significant enough. --Marvin Monroe 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason we don't delete every webcomic article is because notable webcomics have actually received sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (those are links to our official content policies). For example, you can find information on Nowhere Girl in the Village Voice, Sluggy Freelance in The Washington Post, Leisure Town on CNN, When I Am King in Wired, Fetus-X in The Detroit News, Get Your War On in Newsweek, Narbonic in Publishers Weekly, Drew Weing and Megatokyo in The New York Times, American Elf in The Boston Globe, and Svetlana Chmakova in USA Today. We will not delete every webcomic article after this one is deleted, just like we won't delete every article on every rock band just because we delete articles about minor bar bands with no reliable sources. We delete articles on topics with no reputable, reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy because an unreliable encyclopedia is useless. -- Dragonfiend 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 265 articles listed under Category:Webcomics, not including sub-categories. Even if we subtract from that articles such as List of self sufficient webcomics or Comixpedia (which isn't a reliable source, yet deserves its own entry) and webcomics collectives, we are still left with far more webcomics than 3rd party articles about them. How "notable" does a webcomic need to be to be assured it won't be considered for deletion? Are 10,000 unique hits per month enough? 50,000? 250,000? Does it have to have an article written about it? Or is it not about anything quantifiable but more of a "feeling"? Also, although I wasn't able to read the full Washington Post article about Sluggy Freelance, judging from the little I had I can safely say that it deals with its financial success, not its characters or storylines. How does that settle with "independent, reliable sources"? --Marvin Monroe 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, our three official content-guiding policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Yes, articles need reliable sources. No, there is no magical inclusion threshold of web site hits; if a web site gets only three hits ever but they happen to conicidently come from reporters at CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post while working on stories for the next day, then we can write an encyclopedia article because we have reliable sources in those stories that next day. On the other hand, if the entire population of planet Earth logs into a website but no reliable sources notice, then we can't write an encyclopedia article because we are trying to build a reliable encyclopedia. This is not a blog where we just write about neat stuff we found on the internet; we have standards for sourcing that are at least as high as a junior high school research paper. -- Dragonfiend 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how NPOV is relevant to this, because it's a description of the webcomic. If there are any superlatives in the article they should be deleted, but I haven't seen any. Also, you didn't answer me regarding all the two hundred plus webcomics that have no significance, and that have even less information written on them than Sorcery 101. For example The Karnak Hates Everything Show, Jazz Age Chronicles, Vigilante, Ho!, Ribald Youth. I'm sure we both could find many more. I think there should be a better policy regarding webcomics. I searched and still couldn't find a definition for "notable". Maybe I simply missed it, and if so, please show me where it is. --Marvin Monroe 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV: "Because [ WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV] are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. ... All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." In this article's case, there are absolutely no significant published points of view in reliable sources suggesting that this topic has reached any level of achievement, impact or historical significance. For Wikipedia editors themselves push their personal POV that this is a historically significant webcomic is counter to our content policies. And, yes, there are many other bad articles on Wikipedia besides this one. We consider deleting hundreds of articles per day. You have many options available to you for any problematic articles you find; see Deletion_policy and Deletion_policy . The best you will find on "notability" is Notability, which is a contentious essay, unike WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT, which are  long-standing official policies that all users should follow. -- Dragonfiend 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From Reliable_sources: "However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on." Yes, sources are still required, but they don't have to be as strict as in other subjects. This webcomic, like many others, is simply not notable enough to warrant an article about it. It has, however, been invited to a major webcomics collection that's invitation-only, and is featured today in the KeenSpot NewsBox (direct link to image). Although it is no longer relevant, Importance states that an article is important if "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject, and therefore shouldn't be deleted if is "of insufficient importance, fame or relevance". From WP:VAIN: "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous." Just because you don't know this webcomic doesn't mean that it's a vanity page. This articles violates none of the condition in What Wikipedia is not, and going by Wiki is not paper, there's no real reason to delete this article. You are not bound by page size, only by disk space. It seems to me that the reason for deleting this article stems from WP:HOLE and nothing else. WikiProject Webcomics refers back to WP:WEB for notablity, which I think is a mistake when the subject is webcomics. I really want to know why some webcomics are notable enough to remain, while this one isn't. --Marvin Monroe 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V alone. Sandstein 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a work of fiction, that's available online. How is it not verifiable? By that logic, we can also delete Much Ado About Nothing, because it's "not backed by any independent, verifiable sources", at least not as of writing this comment. --Marvin Monroe 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to read Verifiability more closely. For example, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Shakespeare's works have reputable, reliable, third-party sources. So do many webcomics. This article does not. If you'd like to improve our articles on Shakespeare-related topics, please do. -- Dragonfiend 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But that specific Shakespeare article has no sources listed, as opposed to many others. And I have yet to read an article from a third party about webcomics that dealt with their subject matter and not financial success or "Hey, look at this new-fangled thingamajig on the internet". --Marvin Monroe 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * . Feel free to go to your library and find some sources for unsourced articles. It is not revelatory news that Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress and that there are other articles which have flaws, some of which may require article deletion. If you can't see the distinctions between articles on major Shakespearean plays which could use better sourcing vs. articles on trivial webcomics which no reliable sources have ever covered, then maybe encyclopedia editing is not for you. -- Dragonfiend 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dragonfiend, thanks for making the argument I was too lazy to type in. I agree with you with respect to this article, but do please remember WP:NPA. You're not more likely to motivate your fellow editors to help source Shakespeare articles that way... Sandstein 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that we should delete this page, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Obviously Shakespeare is more significant than a webcomic, and I was pointing out the lack of sources in the article. I didn't think about this at the time, but I think it's quite fitting that the Shakespeare article I picked was "Much ado about nothing", because discussions about whether a page about a webcomic should stay or not are very minor in the large scheme of things. --Marvin Monroe 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I really don't see a reason for this entry to be deleted. The webcomic in question is viewed by albiet a small fanbase, but a fanbasenonetheless. Other Keenspot artists have their comics listed, such as Clan of the Cats. And there is no controversy over that. If the question of if entry is purely vanity is really that much of a difference, multiple fans of the comic have already come to edit it and prove that it means something to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tin-chan (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
 * A "small fanbase" does not mean notability on Wikipedia. And actually, I think Clan of the Cats is non-notable, crufty as hell ("Chocolate raspberry truffle ice cream is Chelsea’s absolutely favourite flavor") and needs to be deleted. wikipediatrix 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If "a small fanbase" does not mean notability on Wikipedia, then how do you explain other such articles like "Yiff" which does not list it's references or sources. It's not to my taste, I find it abhorable, and yet it's still on wiki. And no one has disputed it yet. While a "small fanbase" means nothing to you, or many users who have posted their tastes on this discussion, it means something to a different group of people. Sorcery101 has multiple visitors and daily readers, and it's wikipedia article is satisfactory to the comic and said readership. Just because it doesn't suit someone else's tastes does not make it wrong. (As for Clan of the Cats, at least someone listed detail on the matter of what Chealsea's favorite ice cream flavor actually WAS.) If we didn't care about small fanbases, we wouldn't be arguing over them on wikipedia in the first place. (Tin-chan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.247.177 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC).
 * . Yiffing has been the topic of news reports, including in Vanity Fair and on MTV, and has also been the topic of a C.S.I. episode. It took me less than an hour to find sources for this at my library. This discussion has been going on for almost a week, and nobody has been able to find any sources for this webcomic article. It may also be worth noting that I have absolutely zero interest in furry fandom, but am an avid reader of webcomics, yet I can still put my personal preferences aside and recognize which topics have enough reliable sources to allow us the possibility of writing an encyclopedia article from a neutral point of view without devolving into original research. -- Dragonfiend 17:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep : Notability is a highly relative issue. While an article in a national newspaper would make anything notable it is sadly not so with the media of the various subcultures. For example, While cart racing monthly may be "the" authority on cart racing among the cart racing subculture, it isn't to me ( I am no cart racer ). The same goes for webcomics. If you would judge the notability of wikipedia articles solely from the view of Your Average Idiot ( err.. Citizen )you could remove a sizable part of her content and whipe the list of webcomics ( nearly ) clean. -Arsenic- 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep : I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It was apparently written entirely independently of the author of the comic (thus not Vanity), and I feel that just because some people haven't heard of the comic, or don't like it, that it should be considered "non-notable".  The comic is well-written, has an interesting world-concept, and actually updates regularly.  And while I may not be reputable, I am reliable and a third party (not that this is verifiable as I have no Wiki account as yet) and I read the comic regularly and appreciate that there is another perspective published here in Wiki.  Thanks for listening; no attacks are meant; I am only expressing my opinion.  Light and laughter, SongCoyote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.118.113.10 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Keep : This comic is on Keenspot, and that requires it to be good. This comic is no less notable than many of the comics on here, and much more so than most of the articles in, say, Category: Star Wars (can't figure out how to link there).--Nick012000 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the three posts above appear to be made by the same person - not only do they each use the same peculiar indent of their vote, they're all first-time users. wikipediatrix 10:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know for sure if the three are one person or three, but it's possible that, since they're new users, they copied and pasted the above person's, for style, then changed the content. Boxjam 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per wikipediatrix and per WP:V and WP:RS. Unless somebody credible (and that doesn't necessarily mean a professor) writes about this, it's not suitable for inclusion. Notability is not subjective (to steal Uncle G's neato catchphrase). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Published on Keenspot, thus meets WP:WEB furthermore a declaration of "NN" is not a reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Keenspot is one of the major commercial webcomic sites. On of the requirements for a comic to be picked up by Keenspot is readership numbers and circulation. I believe this falls under point 3 of WP:WEB PaleAqua 10:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Keenspot is an invite-only commercial webcomic syndicate which meets meets WP:WEB. Formerly on Comicgenesis. 20/7866 for ComicGenesis PageRank, 1.00% of all ComicGenesis traffic. Notable ComicGenesis comics by traffic appear in the Top 25 or Next 26-50 --Kisai 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The words "invite," "commercial," and "syndicate" are not in WP:WEB. If this were a not-for-profit webcomic on a free host like geocities yet it had some reliable sources concerning its impact or historical significance then we would keep it. This comic has not been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works," has not "won a well known and independent award," and is not "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators," so therefore it does not meet the WP:WEB guideline, which can't supersede Verifiability anyway. .  -- Dragonfiend 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, Keenspot does not own the comics it hosts, the authors have only signed a hosting contract which gives rights to Keenspot to host, distribute, and advertise on it. Additional contracts may be signed giving exclusive merchandising rights to Keenspot which require minimum schedules to keep. News article on Keenspot listing Sorcery 101, Comic-con page listing date and time of announcements]. --Kisai 06:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can consider this publisher to be "well known." Generally, when a well-known publisher publishes something, reliable sources notice. And again, the WP:WEB guideline can't be stretched so far as to supersede WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 08:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This publisher is well known. Keenspot has been at ComicCon for numerous years, even hosting some of the Comic Genesis artists at certian events.  It has it's own syndicated comic page that has been printed in the Turlock Journal, a Californian newspaper.  Many Keenspot books have been published through Plan 9 Publishing.  I know of no other way of verifying Keenspot's status other than talking to tens of thousands of people who attended ComicCon and the 6000+ people who use their Comic Genesis service. (and yes, I do have a bias, being one of the Comic Genesis administrators and part of Keenspot Entertainment) -- STrRedWolf
 * I do think your association with Keenspot is clouding your judgment. Outside of Keenspot, being printed in The Turlock Journal, a tiny twice-weekly newspaper with a circulation of 6,000, is not a sign of being "well known." By this measure, each and every one of the completley unkown comics published by my college newspaper is about 5-10 times as "well known" as these comics. If the only possible method of verifying some possible historical significance of this comic (Sorcery 101) is by talking with its small readership, then we don't have the reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog; we write about topics with reliable sources, not just things we find on the internet. -- Dragonfiend 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do wish the same wikipedia editors that keep nominating webcomics indiscriminately for deletion would stick to their own WP:WEB and not keep using WP:V as the straw man for deletion. If WP:V is to be invoked to justify deletion of webcomic entries, then it should be invoked to delete every page in wikipedia as a whole, seeing how every suggestion of a verifiable third party presented gets refuted with another straw man argument discounting the verifiability. This is nonsense. I don't see anyone recommending copying or moving to comixpedia. The problem I see is the same people nominating webcomics for deletion are also in violation of WP:CIVIL everytime with comments like "death to webcomics!". How is it the same people are always nominating webcomics for deletion and the same people are voting for a delete all within a short period of time? Sorcery 101 is Keenspot, Keenspot picked up Sorcery 101 and announced it at ComicCon 2006, Comic-con is A big comicbook convention in the USA. --Kisai 21:55, 18 August 2006 (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.