Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Whiteboard (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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Whiteboard
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No real notability. The assertations are vague and mostly trivial, and I'm not sure about the reliability of the blog citation. I couldn't find any other real coverage in sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems notable enough to me. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Emperor (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Didn't it get mentioned in a published magazine?  Paintball Games International's "What Paintball Gear" Annual 2003, pg. 194 Characters featured in already established notable web comics(notice the blue links to their pages).   D r e a m Focus  02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete there is no demonstration of notability, just going by the title the PBI (apparently not a notable publication) article isn't all about the webcomic (and the name even suggests it might mention the merchandising rather than the webcomic, but what is discussed is far from clear from the article - you can add a quite field to reference templates which often helps to explain the context). I also think it is pushing it to include a comment on a blog as critical reaction. It might be that some more work will fix these problems so I'm open to re-evaluating my opinion. (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Strong keep per "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators..." It has been printed in at least 2 magazines independent of the creator. For anyone who hasn't, please read the old discussion. RP9 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (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.