Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends


 * 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 delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends, Romoin, and Insta-nan
The Wonderful World Of Romoin is a non-notable webcomic you'll find here. Romoin is an article about the main character of this comic, and Insta-nan is the (fictional) brand of coffee he prefers. Its claim to notability is that the comic has a small following on two internet forums (no Wikipedia articles for either) and that the author spammed it on a third. It doesn't meet WP:WEB. It also has WP:VAIN problems as all three articles are by the webcomic's author (note the author and licenses used on the images uploaded to commons). –Abe Dashiell
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. You can't bootstrap yourself into notability by starting with Wikipedia. Get notable first, then we'll see about an article. george 15:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gw e rnol 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nortelrye 23:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete - believe it or not, this webcomic DOES have a following, as evidenced by the amount of people visiting the page. The REAL website address is www.geocities.com/worldofromoin/ and check out the critics page to see what people think about it. It's inclusion in Wikipedia is completely valid and far more interesting than listing Speed dating - John Surname
 * Delete nn and vanity. Listed on "geocities".--Jersey Devil 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable webcomic 203.26.16.67 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - [You're not even a user]
 * Don't delete - It's notable ENOUGH. I actually created the "Wonderful World Of" entry, and I have nothing at all to do with the creation of the comic.Jesustrashcan 16:48, 16 April 2006
 * Would you be so kind as to provide verifiable information taken from what the Wikipedia community considers reliable, third-party sources to back up your claim "it's notable enough". Items such as regional or national level newspapers or magazines citing the webcomic's popularity would be your best bet for such a thing. As an internet based comic, it would also be a good idea to review the Notability (websites) guideline, and if you can provide sources showing that this comic can meet one or more of the listed criteria, I would say keep and merge all into comic's main article. If this cannot be done by the end of the deletion discussion, delete away as externally unverifiable. -- Saberwyn 12:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's obviously notable enough that I came across it through Internet browsing. If you can find something on the Internet that easily through Google, then I'd say it's rather notable. Not to mention the fact that this, by all means, is NOT a vanity article, as - as I said, I have nothing at all to do with the creation of the comics - but you neglected to mention that in your rebuttal. Did you feel you didn't need to, or was it just your agenda? Jesustrashcan 13:06, 17 April 2006
 * I'm not saying it is or it isn't a vanity article. I don't care who wrote the article, as in my personal view a well-sourced, externally verifiable article can be written by the creator or someone with a vested interest in the article's subject. I'm asking: "Can you provide sources such as reviews from newspapers, magazines, or major websites independant of the comic, demonstrating the notability of this article?" and/or "Has this comic been presented with an award from a major publisher or organisation?". Because a Google search for the title of the comic produces twelve unique from 55 hits, which implies a limited spread of the comic's notability across the internet, I am wondering if you can provide any published sources that attest to how popular the comic is, and therefore, if it passes the Notability (websites) guideline.
 * It states, in the very first line on the page, that it is not actually Wikipedia policy except in the cases of advertisement or using Wikipedia as a web directory. While it may not fit any of the criteria, it is neither an advertisement or an attempt at using Wikipedia as a web directory. Those aren't guidelines, they're merely suggestions. Jesustrashcan 14:50, 17 April 2006
 * I'm not sure which section of the guideline you are starting at, but the first sentances I see state "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), but it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered in Wikipedia in a way that complies with Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research, which are formal policies." This guideline is the black-and-white copy of the consensus arrived at concerning website inclusion a while ago, and although it is a guideline, my personal interpretation is that if an article on web-based content cannot be demonstrated to meet any of the points listed, then another reason, one which is not feasibly covered by the guideline, must be provided if the article is to be included. I have not said that the article is an advertisment, or an attempt to promote the comic or use weblinks on Wikipedia to promote increased readership in any way or form. I have said that the article is unverifiable (official policy), through the use of reliable, third-party sources (guideline detailing how the verifiability policy can be enacted). -- Saberwyn 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * TWWOR is totally verifiable. It is an actual comic. It has a following of people. Who read it. And enjoy it. EVERYTHING on the page is 100% TRUE! I am not advertising, and simply because I can't afford a proper website, how does that make mine ANY LESS VALID? The websites that I host Romoin on ARE NOT PERSONAL WEBSITES/BLOGS. They are completely free of opinion. Just Romoin. Thrusty thrusty. - User:Johnsurname
 * I don't see how John Daker or O RLY? are more notable than this, and this is up for deletion. But perhaps I'm just ignorant? Jesustrashcan 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's hosted on spaces.msn.com - NO. - Hahnch e  n 12:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Its webhost shouldn't be considered a reason for its deletion. Jesustrashcan 13:09, 17 April 2006
 * It wasn't the sole reason, but it is one of them that no one had mentioned at the time. There are going to be more popular myspace profiles than this, it's not notable, and that's why I voted. - Hahnch  e  n 13:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I am doubtful of its notability, because it's apparent I mistook the original authorship of the The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends article, I am changing my implied delete for it to no vote. I maintain that both Insta-nan and Romoin should be deleted, however, and I am not withdrawing the AfD as a whole. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)(t/c) 15:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Having looked more into this, even though I was wrong about WP:VANITY for the original article, I don't believe The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends comes close to meeting WP:WEB. Therefore, delete for all three articles. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ok the Insta-Nan and Romoin entries can go. But I still believe the comic is notable enough for it to stay. I created the MSN spaces site after the original site because I felt it might be easier to maintain a following on a blog format- johnsurname
 * Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:50, 19 April 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.