Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (fourth 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 of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja
A DRV consensus permitted this new recreation to replace an article previously deleted at this title. This article is referred to AfD for a determination of its encyclopedic suitability. As this recreation is new, no reference need be made to the previous AfD debate. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Dr McNinja
 * Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja
 * Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja 2


 * Keep Looks good. Matthew Fenton (  TALK - CONTRIBS ) 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. While Alexa ranking is not one of the WP:WEB criteria, the rank of 42,000 (trend seems to be increasing, today it is ~21,000) suggests we should take a close look at whether the comic does meet the criteria. Googling "Dr. McNinja" currently yields 140,000 results. Besides being in the major directories, the comic has been reviewed in many, many personal blogs and forums, which together, in my opinion, is as significant as being mentioned in a single "leading" publication about webcomics (this is not something I'd put into WP:WEB as such, but I think as an argument it has merit on a case by case basis). One could argue that the comic is somewhat borderline between Internet meme and traditional web comic.--Eloquence* 17:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, article has no reliable sources, runs counter to the Verifiability policy, and is full of original research. There is also no claim of any sort of encyclopedic notability for the topic of this article -- it is simply a webcomic that, like all webcomics, has a creator, characters and a story. It does not meet the WP:WEB guideline for webcomics, and probably runs counter to another half dozen policies and guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note: This is not the second deletion nomination for this topic; it is the fifth. It has been AFDed and deleted three times, and deleted through WP:PROD once. -- Dragonfiend 18:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it full of "original research" any more than virtually any other article about a website which treats the website itself as a publication and source about itself (including articles like Wikipedia where we extensively cite our own mailing list archives)? I certainly don't see any "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'" as stated on WP:NOR.--Eloquence*
 * For example, the idea that this webcomic uses "high contrast Black-and-white, similar to the style used in Frank Miller's Sin City" seems to be the opinion of a wikipedia editor, not the opinion of a reliable, reputable third-party source. 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." -- Dragonfiend 18:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Sin City comparison is inappropriate and have removed it.--Eloquence* 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And with all things on the internet as time passes they can gain notability. A 21,000 page rank on Alexa is nothing to scoff at. While there may be no publications that have written about the webcomic I don't see how that can automatically say its not a notable website. As stated on Policies_and_guidelines this a guideline and not set in stone. If you can find the other half-dozen policies and guidelines this runs counter to please provide it for consideration. --Crossmr 18:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. As webcomics go it's notable enough. BoojiBoy 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Page rank and google hits are a good standard of notability. The name is not overly generic so it shouldn't lead to too much tainting of the google results. --Crossmr 18:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to side with Eloquence on this one. McNinja was deleted so many times because its fans jumped the gun and made an article for it long before  it should have had one.  Then it kept getting recreated.  At first I thought it was because it just had some very persistent fans, which is why I locked the article down as a deletedpage, but as I looked over its history, I noticed the recreations were all by different people and the text was dissimilar.  There's also been a fair amount of buzz about it in the blogosphere, which, of course, is frustratingly difficult to quantify.  I guess what's deciding me, though, was its membership in Dayfree Press. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum I would have preferred that this come up a few months from now, when I think all the questions of notability will have been settled. Probably in McNinja's favor.  The buzz just feels a lot like what's happened with other big name comics. Don't bother quoting guidelines and policy to me (I know them all by heart) because I am aware I'm venturing dangerously close to crystalballism.  The eventualist in me says the references will come soon enough, and I'd rather not waste cycles on more trips to AfD and DRV.  If I'm wrong and McNinja withers away without ever becoming anything, maybe I'll change my tune, but right now I'm standing firm on my decision. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Please be aware that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press and is therefore under Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. Porphyric Hemophiliac   §  23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as currently lacking reliable, reputable third-party source. I defer in most cases to Adashiel's knowledge of web comics, but in this instance I must demur.  We have standards with regards to verification, and testimony of wikipedia editors in not enough of a reason to cast these standards aside.  With regards to the Dayfree Press quasi-syndication, I look back to many previous discussions in the history of talk WP:WEB where consensus is that syndications does not allow inclusion "by marriage" as it were.  There are several other webcomics in Dayfree press' stable that are notable, but we know this because of third party sources.  I'd urge those who are recomending keep to instead go and find some sources. -  brenneman  style="color:#000000;" title="Admin actions">{L} 02:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sources for what? I am confusèd, as it were. Everything in the article is available on the 'about' page of the Dr. McNinja Web Site. This article fulfills WP:NN, WP:WEB, and, of course, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V. There is no reason to delete this article anymore. Porphyric Hemophiliac   §  14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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." The "About" page on the Dr. McNinja Web site is not a third-party source for a Dr. McNinja article, let alone a reputable, reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We're writing an ancyclopedia; we have higher standards for accuracy than this. -- Dragonfiend 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kind of borderline but good article so I think it should be kept. Sources don't concern me since it is mostly confirmed by the website and the article essentially concerns plot. --JJay 11:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Not convinced at all about notability. Take it to Comicpedia or whatever thats called. Just doesnt belong in Wikipedia Bwithh 20:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eloquence and Abe. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 00:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as this is a respectable foundation of an article for a significant webcomic which has consistently been increasing in notability and popularity since its founding, and further since its affiliation with Dayfree. Some bias exists against the article because of its past deletions but, as mentioned before, previous versions were premature and this iteration deserves a fair, objective look regardless of how it has fared in the past. The Alexa ranking just makes this a no-brainer. --BDD 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is a rapidly-growing comic that is a member of a notable group, and notable in its own right. I agree with the Alexa ranking making this pretty obvious to keep, Wikipedia's anti-webcomic crusading notwithstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.144.141 (talk • contribs).
 * I wrote to the creators of this and asked them if they could provide some pointers coverage in reliable sources. The results are below.
 * Yahoo Pick of the Day
 * At www.fleen.com
 * At independentpropaganda.com
 * Prosper Magazine
 * Hastings says he did an interview with the UK publication, .Net Magazine, although it's not available online.
 * I'd encourage everyone who just rolls off an easy "Keep, notable" to make a little more effort in locating sources. Based upon this being the strongest citations apparently available, my recomendation is unchanged.  Oh, and an alexa rank in the 50K range means almost literally nothing.  Please see this article: You can visit your own site once a day and get a rank of under 60K.  brenneman  style="color:#000000;" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alexa itself considers traffic rankings above 100,000 to be unreliable. Please note that the information you linked to is from October 2003, and toolbar coverage (and therefore information quality) may have increased significantly since then. Please also note that the current ranking is in the 20K range. Finally, assume good faith -- there's no reason to believe that the traffic stats were deliberately manipulated; if anything, the outpouring of support for this comic indicates that it is, indeed, very popular. This is also evidenced by some of the links you provide. As I already noted in my earlier comment, I think it is valid in this case to compare a large amount of legitimate low traffic site coverage to a small amount of high traffic site coverage. As the media structure of the Internet decentralizes (cf. blogosphere), Wikipedia needs to adapt, instead of only relying on old models of publishing as an indicator of a concept's popularity.--Eloquence* 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I am convinced by Aaron Brenneman's arguments that are researched and well based. BlueValour 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna say delete based off of previous webcomic deletion arguments. Dayfree Press lends no more weight to Dr. McNinja than Keenspot lends to its borderline comics.  And the creators of this comic don't have a more established comic to lean on here.  -- Grev 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because..."I am a NIN-JAAAAAA!" (No seriously, the article looks pretty good.) Xuanwu 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no need to delete it - perhaps edit it more strongly to remove the elements unsuitable for the Wikipedia, but there is no need for deletion. OkamiItto 06:41, 21 June 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.