Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil's Panties


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Devil's Panties

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It exists, but the coverage and significance are not enough to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
 * Delete. Non-notable webcomic, it exists, has a few fans, presumably, but no WP:SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG. At best, this can be mentioned on some list of webcomics. The author does not appear to be notable, so no valid redirect target other than such list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a pretty old article, and the webcomic's been running since 2001 -- which means it means my personal standard of whether I think something is notable. Whether Wikipedia thinks it's notable is a different question. I'm going to look for some sources -- so far, I've found some from Buzzymag, Comic Strip Fan, and SPBURKE. I haven't heard of these websites before, so I don't know about their reliability. jp×g 08:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also got Bleedingcool. There is a Kotaku article, which I know is well-regarded, but I'm not sure if it has SIGCOV (not the primary subject of the article). jp×g 08:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Buzzymag and SPBURKE are interviews and not independent. ComicStripFan is a fan site, not reliable. Bleeding Cool and Kotaku are not substantial.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, cannot locate significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources that show notability. -- Darth Mike (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I don't think this passes notability. The most sources I found that could be considered independent and substantial are this book review, this interview for Dragon Con, and maybe some other interviews like this, this, and this. That might be enough, but probably not. I'd also say that if it is kept it drastically needs rewriting. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * keep that's actually a fair number of sources. A lot of them are interviews or based on interviews, but that's not exactly a shocking way for an author to be covered.  I don't poo-poo interviews as sources as much as others when considering WP:N, so that's probably part of it.  But even if you don't like interviews for WP:N, the publishers weekly review is above the bar for sure and ComicStripFan is certainly reliable in its area.  I wouldn't use it for things outside of comic strips, or even for BLPs related to comic strips, but for this?  Sure. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article's quality should be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion per our policies. Based on the sources discussed by HenryCrun15 and Hobit, I think this passes the WP:GNG. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This one's borderline, but ultimately for me I agree with HenryCrun that the sources aren't significant enough to meet our inclusion threshold. It's a notability case made of a house of very flimsy sourcing trying to buttress the shaky claim to fame. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable, for reasons outlined by others above. –– FormalDude  talk  01:31, 8 September 2021 (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.