Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square


 * 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. Aervanath (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wapsi Square

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have been unable to find any reliable, independent sourcing which could establish the notability of the comic. Currently the article is made up of a lot of plot and character detail, sourced entirely to the comic itself and an unreferenced section about its creator. The long sections on trivia, running gags, characters and other specific plot element all contain original research, with editors interpretation of the source material being used in order to hold much of the text together. Without any third party coverage such as descriptive or critical commentary I do not think the article will currently be able to expand beyond what is essentially a long plot summary. Guest9999 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've not yet had time to do an exhaustive search for readership numbers, but as a member of Blank Label Comics it must be up there.  Here's an article on the strip: .  Also won 2004 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and has been nominated multiple times.  Powers T 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if an article by an old friend in a local newspaper can be used as the basis for establishing notability. The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are questionably notable (the 2004 awards didn't even have a ceremony) and even with that taken into account they are voted on by on-line cartoonists, without any other sources that makes it seem like a bit of a walled garden. Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sufficient for me, but I freely admit the measures aren't objective; that's why we have these discussions. Powers T 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. Guest9999 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Notable webcomics should have made the news a few times, but this one hasn't. Themfromspace (talk) 22:05, 26 January 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.