Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice Faction


 * 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. Punkmorten 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vice Faction
Another non-notable web comic. No reliable sources or significant and independent syndication. --Hetar 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:V (12 items in google, 4 in yahoo, 0 in ask jeeves), not one of those was a good source. Alos the article fails to state the importance of the subject. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - per JLJeremiah. To be honest dispite the lack of google hits, this is a well written article. One of wikipedia's strengths is its coverage of obscure topics. I see no advert's or copyright violations in this article. (note google is only able to spider something like 20% of the web, so I would suggest someone trying another search engine)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - no sources alone is not reason to delete an article. (if it is, delete half the wiki please). I would suggest a tag be placed on the article —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Being unverifiable because there are no sources is one of the primary reasons for deleting an article. If the article cites no sources and you cannot find any sources when you do your best to find some, then the article is unverifiable.  Whether an article is well-written or not simply doesn't enter into it.  It's up to the editor supplying the content (or someone else) to cite sources.  Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was half finished when listed for deletion, it has been updated since. More information provided. A slip of the mouse caused half of the article to be posted. --JLJeremiah 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, weak to no Google presence, I see no WP:RS which state why this Flash animation is more notable than the (insert your own large number here) that get deleted on a daily basis. -- Kinu t /c  04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Kinu's verdict; This animation is more notable then the bulk of animation articles daily on wikipedia because it is on lifepoint1.com, which gets tens of thousands of uniques per day, Vice faction is a partner animation which shares space with the legendary Xin flash animation series, its popularity is compareable to it. You cannot tell me this is just a normal shitty flash webcomic, this animation has a notable fan basis. Unlike the normal flash articles you see on here, this flash series plot has been weaved; thought out if you will. This is a major project which spans a major fan appeal, per request we created an article on wikipedia. This article has potential to be added to in the future as more information comes forth, wikipedia is a database for notable information correct? Well this is information, my kind sir. --JLJeremiah 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Notable webcomics tend to get talked about. People on other sites talk about them, and post links to them. There's no sign of that for this one. Fan-1967 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a venue for primary source material, such as a new description of a work of fiction that is constructed from direct research.  That is forbidden by our No original research policy.  If you wish to publish a description of a webcomic from direct research, your own web site is the place.  Conversely, if you are not using direct research, but are synthesising knowledge from existing sources, then you must cite sources to demonstrate that.  That is the way, and the only way, to persuade editors to change their minds.  Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources and a poor Google and Alexa showing. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No realible sources alone is no reason to delete this article. --JLJeremiah 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Verification from Reliable Sources is absolutely required to keep an article. That is an absolute core standard in Wikipedia. Fan-1967 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a highly RS can be found which reviews this comic. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Uncle G's reasoning.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence that this meets WEB, and it seems to be simply another Flash webcomic. Plus those pictures seem rather dubious. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above discussion. SynergeticMaggot 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: the entire article seems to be written by JL Jeremiah. This also seems to be the person who penned the web animation itself. I was under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that articles about one's self or one's own work should not be created by that person, but by an outside source. Aside from that, it definately appears non-notable, and per the author's affiliation, self-advertisement. Newnam(talk) 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to establish notability. There are thousands of Flash web comics out there, and this one doesn't appear any different from the crowd. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G and Zetawoof. GassyGuy 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Especially since User:JLJeremiah both created the page and the subject material. JLJeremiah should consider moving the page to their own sanbox and keeping such well-writen content around for when their work becomes more notable.
 * 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.