Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinkin' Lincoln


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinkin' Lincoln
Fails WP:WEB Johndarrington 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence or claim of notability. Deli nk 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Deli nk. --Starionwolf 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi  03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep In the interest of full disclosure, Thinkin' Lincoln is my comic (though I did not create this article). Nevertheless, it has been linked to by a number of other fairly big web comics, including Dinosaur Comics, Wondermark, Whispered Apologies, and Reprographics. It also gets 15 or 16 thousand visits per month, and there are over 230 individual strips. This seems to me to be about as notable as a number of other comics that are allowed to remain on Wikipedia. &mdash;KillerDeathRobot
 * Keep It's a great strip that should have an entry. It's notable, there's no reason to delete the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.178.200 (talk • contribs)
 * KeepI read this comic strip everyday, for the purely joyous satire. Long live Thinkin' Lincoln! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.207.47 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Comic author posted on the comic's front page "There is a Wikipedia entry for Thinkin' Lincoln...it's actually marked for deletion! So if you want to help out by editing it and maybe commenting on the talk page that you don't think it should be deleted, that'd be totally kick flippin'." I've applied the  tag since two anon IPs have already made visits. -- Scientizzle 22:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not trying to ballot stuff, I was mostly hoping for some expansion on the article, which indeed has been expanded since I made that post. I know as well as anyone that this isn't a vote. &mdash;KillerDeathRobot
 * Please don't take my comment personally--I was just informing other users of potential ballot stuffing. The article has been expanded, but still doesn't make any claims of notability to meet WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:Reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I realize that I am biased, as the comic's creator, but I have been looking at other comics that are not slated for deletion, and there are quite a few that I have never heard of. Some have not been reviewed (for whatever reason), but some have been kept on the basis of one or two comments that someone has heard of the comic. I apologize for monopolizing so much of the discussion however, and I will not post here again. &mdash;KillerDeathRobot
 * Comment - Articles on neologisms created on Livejournal and MS Paint garbage aren't assets to Wikipedia. If they're not slated for deletion, they should be. - Hahnch  e  n 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag them for deletion, then. We can consider those separately, but they've no real relevance here... -- Scientizzle 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was replying to the author's point about other webcomics "not slated for deletion" and how it doesn't hold up as an argument. - Hahnch e  n 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotchya. And I agree with your point--it's a fine example of a Pokémon test corollary. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So I lied, and I'm posting again. I added some more external links to the main entry. Anyway, my previous point was that in the context of the Webcomics Wikiproject, which purportedly seeks "to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia," a webcomic like mine seems notable enough. Interestingly enough, this point correlates with a criticism of the Pokemon defense, which is critical of the notion that " a parallel bar should be set for every type of article." &mdash;KillerDeathRobot 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet the requirements for WP:WEB. Just not notable enough.--Auger Martel 12:07, 17 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.