Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcery 101 (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. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorcery 101

 * — (View AfD)

I speedied this as a recreation of an already deleted page (see Articles for deletion/Sorcery 101) but the creating user argues that this is a revised and improved article and that reasons for the previous deletion are no longer valid. Relisting to see what consensus says. No stance Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - to any closing admin, please see my note on the discussion page. -Patstuarttalk 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - reads like an advert, no reliable sources provided, written largely from a non-real-world prospective which is banned per WP:FICT and WP:NOT, notability is not asserted and no important reliable sources support notability. Moreschi 11:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Moreschi. MER-C 12:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This comic is on Keenspot which is by invitation only. There are outside thrid party sources linked. If you need verification for information it's all in the comic it's self and is sited as such. And if the article reads badly then give this version more time to improve because this versions only been up for less than a weak. TheAmazingTick
 * Keep - Notable per WP:WEB criteria #3, published through a well-known/notable/whatever online publisher, Keenspot. References one independent third-party source, a review in a student newspaper. Content is verifiable as a reference to the fiction itself (see WT:V as support). An in-universe perspective is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to improve it. –  Anþony  talk  17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the consensus here is that the article is seriously flawed, I recommend stubbing it and starting over rather than deleting, as the subject is clearly notable. –  Anþony  talk  22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Everything else on Keenspot seems to have an article, why not this? It seems well written to me. --Phred Levi 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as both a recreation of previously deleted material as well as web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Moreschi is correct in all of their points as well. -- Dragonfiend 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Moreschi. Non-notable sub-culture webcomic. NeoFreak 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to vote delete "per nom" when the nomination is explicitly neutral. Since when is Keenspot a "sub-culture" in the context of webcomics? Henning Makholm 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has been revised and it includes external references now, the lack of which was, as far as I know, the main reason for deleting the previous article. And, as it has been said before, other Keenspot comics have entries, so why not this one? -- GabiAPF 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) — GabiAPF (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - With regards to my previous comment, I apologize for joining a deletion debate so soon after getting my Wikipedia account, action which I now realize is frowned upon. I will do my best to make contributions to other articles. What I said still stands, though. I think the arguments should be weighed by their content, rather than by how many edits the poster has made. Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this. As I said, I'm still new to this community. If I'm making a mistake please let me know, and I'll avoid repeating it. GabiAPF 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article seems rather crufty to me, but might be improved. Being on Keenspot is sufficient for a webcomic to be notable in my opinion. Henning Makholm 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

— Kaelan69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The author of this webcomic has asked that the readers revise the article, so it is constantly being improved and updated. The comic has a large following with a growing number of interested readers. Also - since other online webcomics from Keenspot have entries, this one should as well. I have been reading this comic for a little over a year and I have seen the transfer from ComicGenesis to Keenspot. Keenspot would not have invited Kel to host her comic on that server unless the comic had a large following. I see no reason to delete this entry in Wikipedia. Kaelan69 21:24, 09 December 2006 (Central Time)

— Modernknight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Keep". Does not read like an advert.  At present, the page is neutral and informative about the webcomic.  This webcomic is hosted on Keenspot, indicating that it has an established and significant community of readers.  I see no reason to delete.  modernknight 22:52, 09 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete notability is not subjective, significant reliable third-party reporting does not exist. Nothing much seems to have changed since the last AfD: a single piece in a student paper does nothing to demonstrate notability, nor does appearing on Keenspot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keenspot is notable as displayed at Talk:Keenspot. And because of that this webcomic passes the WP:WEBTheAmazingTick 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been accepted at WP:WEB; Talk:Keenspot is not a policy, or a guideline, or even a widely cited essay like User:Uncle G/On notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Notability (web) says, "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." In other words, even if a webcomic host is notable, each and every webcomic it hosts is not. Also, keep in mind that WP:WEB is only one guideline, and it should not be read in isolation in such a way that it contradicts official content policies like Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not. -- Dragonfiend 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But number 3 in the WP:WEB clearly says that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." And Keenspot is notable and indepedent of the creators of the comics that it publishes. Which makes all it's comics pass the WP:WEB, which should be enough to at least let the article remain for more than the week it has been up. So that it can be stub and be improved upon. TheAmazingTick 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keenspot is not "well-known" outside of its subculture. Note that the idea that "Wikipedia should have articles on every Keenspot comic" didn't work on the first AfD for this webcomic, or on any of the many other previous Keenspot-related AfDs that have resulted in deletion, so it's unlikely to be effectiv ein this "do-over." Again, this is because we can't stretch the WP:WEB guideline to the point that it lets us write about topics we personally feel are "notable" by resorting to original research, our own points of view, and other unreliable sources. As far as I can see, the only new information since the last AfD is that this comic was written about in the weekly student newspaper of a college with an enrollment of 2,200. This is not the type of multiple reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we, as an encyclopedia, require. If you'd like to write webcomics-related articles without the burden of our content policies, I suggest comixpedia.org. -- Dragonfiend 20:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V States that there is an exceptions for Self Publish/dubious reliabity sources if claims aren't contentious, it's obvious who wrote it, and it's not self serving. As for keenspot not being "well-known" in the outside world there are article about it in both the San Francisco Chronicle and Publisher's Weekly.TheAmazingTick 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim that this topic has had any great impact or is historically significant is not reliably sourced. That this article has already been deleted once would signify that such a claim is at best "contentious." Yes, I know that Keenspot has been written about in a few decent sources (I'm the one who added the two newspaper references to the Keenspot article). This does not make it generally well known outside of its subculture. For what it's worth, we've deleted articles on websites with much better sources and larger readership than Keenspot. This is getting really long. The basic idea here is that for encyclopedia articles we need sources that are at least as good as those we'd use for a junior high school research paper. We don't have those for this article. -- Dragonfiend 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB states only ONE of its criteria must be met. This article meets the letter of the rules under criteria 3 by being published by Keenspot, even if the talk page on it isn't gospel yet, that's no arguement for deletion- the WP:WEB does not say that notability has to be unanimous. While it needs to be improved and added to, historical significance (I don't see any claims to that?) and impact, claimed or otherwise, are irrelevant to the notability of this subject. It's fictional work published by a notable source independant of the author, therefore it is itself notable. Delete votes need to state clearly some reason why it's not meeting the third WP:WEB criteria. This shouldn't be an AfD until it's determined whether or not being hosted by Keenspot meets the notability requirement. (54x 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Strong Keep the rule is being applied mechanically and unfairly to an article which only needs a little condensation. Of course we should and often do apply the guidelines in the light of common sense; But it should be possible to get some 3rd party discussion from somewhere and solve the problem altogether. DGG 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Four days later, these 3rd party sources are still wanting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So let it be stubbed as opposed to having it be deleted. TheAmazingTick 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A little work, and the article can be brought up to Wiki standards. As it is, improvements have already been made to bring it up to standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobitha (talk • contribs).
 * 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.