Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Western Nostril


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Western Nostril

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

non notable cartoon Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability.  raseaC talk to me 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, only appears in one paper, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am a bit confused, how do you define notable? 2 books, 1 regular newspaper with a significant readership, an online readership around the world. My purpose was to ensure that my initial article was factually correct. There have been a number of other publications but I need verification before listing them. Based on world wide popularity, this subject is more notable than Microminiature sculptors for example, but that is my opinion, so rather give me some guidance as what exactly is required to reflect notability, more references, newspaper & magazine article citations. Thanks. JulianDicks (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Independent coverage is what is looked for. Not blogs, forums or press releases; not your own sites or aboutus or LinkedIn. Not the publication of your two books - independent review (by staff writers or known critics) in non-editable sources. The subject is possibly more notable than Microminiature sculptors, but they are probably better referenced. Give us evidence for your claims. Peridon (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i think it is rude to assume this is self promotional. So far it looks like the editors need a bit more training. I will do more research. So far no blogs/forums or press releases. JulianDicks (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say self-promotional? I said not your site because that is obviously not neutral, and websites can be created for any old rubbish. In fact, I think your article is fairly neutral in tone, but it needs references from outside to establish notability. Failing them now, come back when you can produce. It's your job to find them, by the way. Peridon (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you implied it by saying "your two books". I'm going to ignore that as I'm pretty sure mistakes happen. Just to clarify, I am not the cartoonists. I'll endeavour this coming week to meet the guidelines outlined so far. JulianDicks (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that they are not valid as references here. Their existence, but not if not self-published, backed up independent sources could add to notability - but they cannot be primary reference material. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2010 (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.