Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda Comic


 * 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. Fails WP:WEB --Madchester 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zelda Comic
Why is it that Category:Webcomics is larger than Category:Blogs or Category:Erotica websites? Is it because blogs and porn site are totally unrepresented on Wikipedia? That webcomics form a larger part of the Internet than porn sites or blogs? Or that webcomics are inherently more notable than other websites? Or maybe that webcomics are utterly overrepresented here on Wikipedia? I think its a bit of the first and more of the last. One of the possible reasons can be seen at the webcomic, here. In the news post you can see that the author is flattered that someone has put together a Wikipedia page for his "little comic" and calling Wikipedia a "noble effort to amass information on just about every webcomic out there". This is not what Wikipedia is, yet many webcomic fans seem to think otherwise. This "little webcomic" belongs on comixpedia, which is an effort to amass webcomic information, and the only way we're going to change that community's perception of Wikipedia is to get these non-notable websites deleted. I think that this little comic isn't notable, nor does its author, a Google search doesn't bring back much relevence to this comic at all. I checked this on Alexa when it was still up, I can't remember the exact figure, but the rank was in the hundreds of thousands, it definitely wasn't good enough to not get blacklisted on my watchlist. - Hahnch e  n 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) –I just have a simple question... why if they are the one to decide what is notable or not do they let's everyone write in the encyclopedia? I think that there is no not notable site. Even the www.perdu.com have the credit to make us laught. I think an information can be not notable if it's false... but this have no link with the popularity of this infomation. I understand the need to delete entrie about porn site, or terroriste site because children can consult this encyclopedia but a comic is not a dangerous site. I don't like particulary Zelda comic but if you think that this comic is not notable i think that tintin, asterix or megatokyo (a webcomic) is not notable either. P.S. Sorry for gramatical mistakes, english not my fist language --65.92.219.161 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Marie-France Fortin
 * STRONGLY KEEP!!!! I don't see why this should not be kept. There already are Wikipedia pages about other sprite comics such as the Neglected Mario Characters and I don't see anyone deleting that. This one is just as good,is about Nintendo other big franchise, and is a hell lot more updated as well. Anyways doing so shows nothing but ignorance. Yami Sasha 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I always say, any site that cites their Wikipedia page on their front page fails WP:WEB. Oh yeah, per nom.~ Alphachimp   talk  00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB--Nick Y. 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nick Y AdamBiswanger1 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally Fails WP:WEB Aeon 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I almost feel bad for this guy. Almost. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A little melodramatic, don't you think? The reason why the webcomic category is so large is because we've actually got most of them tagged, but not sorted.  I'd be surprised if one blog in ten on Wikipedia has been wikified at all, let alone categorized. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB Michael 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Use to populate the Delete category. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I suppose I ought to correct the original poster's comment: On my website, I said that WikiProject Webcomics was striving to amass information on webcomics, not Wikipedia as a whole. I'll cast my vote to keep the article on the merits of it being notable to me and other people that enjoy it, regardless of Alexa ratings. I'd also like to add that notability is hardly an objective basis for article deletion. And what's wrong with a topic being obscure? Last time I checked, Wikipedia is not paper. -- Mario Panighetti 21:05, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Comment, interestingly, last time you checked Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a soapbox or a vehicle for fancruft or a vehicle for advertising. Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I didn't realize I was advertising via Wikipedia. If anything, I was advertising FOR Wikipedia from my page. Not a great deal of traffic comes through my site, I grant you, but I fail to see how I was using Wikipedia to advertise my site, since I didn't make the entry in question. -- Mario Panighetti
 * Comment, I apologize for cluttering this page up with cumbersome arguments against deletion. My vote's been cast, so I'll leave it at that, though it does seem that it's an argument I'm not going to win. Let the gears of the machine turn ever onward and ever forward. -- Mario Panighetti
 * Comment. Except...WP:AFD is not a vote, it is a means of establishing consensus among editors for reasons leading to deletion. Alphachimp   talk  11:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I absolutely knew you were advertising FOR Wikipedia when you made that news post on your front page. That's cool.  But Wikipedia isn't a place to catalogue every webcomic, and the wikiproject isn't either.  The wikiproject is a good place to sort out all webcomic stuff out, like categorisation, rating articles and wikifying them.  It also creates new articles, but it doesn't cover every webcomic out there, nor should it.  Just as we don't cover every blog, forum, deviantart profile or porn site. - Hahnch  e  n 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB &mdash; ዮም   (Yom)  |  contribs  •  Talk  •  E  05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete, Once again Hahnchen fails to read properly. First of all, on the comic's home page, mario states that it is the goal of WikiProject Webcomics, NOT Wikipedia as a whole, to gather information on webcomics. Therefore mario is not at all promoting Wikipedia as an encyclopedia on Webcomics as Hahnchen so ignorantly states. I have a final question to add to the opening series of questions: "Or perhaps there is nothing wrong with webcomics, but I, Hahnchen, am just a biased asshole who hates things that bring people happiness?" 100% of all webcomic authors and fans agree: my added question is, in fact, the correct choice. (See Hahnchen, you're not the only one who can make up statistics.) But go ahead. Delete it anyway since it give you a chubby. Zelda Comic and all the other webcomics whose articles you've so ignorantly deleted are better than this bullshit encyclopedia. Mjc0961 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I congratulate you for putting together a comment without resorting to your favourite pastime on vandalising my user page with your favourite phallus pictures, although you have yet again inserted a phallic reference into your comment. Is that a theme with you? I pull statistics out of my ass all the time, it just happens that when I do it, they're correct and can be easily verified. It's just a gift that I have. Yours however, are wrong. The Wikiproject's aim is not to cover every single webcomic on earth, being that some like DSSB are totally obscure, lack any kind of redeeming quality, and add nothing to the encyclopedia's value. Zelda Comic's a bit better than that, but still, compared with the billions of websites out there, it's not notable. - Hahnch e  n 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - Hahnch  e  n 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see why it should be deleted. Deleted because of not being notable? I think that some people have different views. How many people are on the internet? Enough to make a deletion poll obsolete. ~w00ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.7.197 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - Sorry you disagree with our deletion policy, w00ty, but it's quite fair. Perhaps if you were a member, you would understand it better.  This article is non-notable and fails WP:WEB. Srose  (talk)  15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can understand where Hanchen is coming from, that you shouldn't catalogue every obscure sprite comic on the internet, however I personally feel that Zelda Comic has reached a level of popularity which warrants its own article, as when it was still on the Buzzcomix list, it would very rarely leave the top 20s, showing that it was and still is quite popular. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightLord (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and Alexa rank of 868,565. —Caesura(t) 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me state right off that I am a fan of Zelda Comic. That out of the way, let me also state that I understand most of the comments about deletion. Sure, Zelda Comic is not particularly notable to people outside of its fanbase. Most of the arguments based on notability make sense, although Hanchen is a moron who doesn't read all the way through before commenting on something. One argument does not make sense to me, though, so could someone explain it to me? How in the nine hells does Mario linking to his wiki page on the front page of HIS website automatically fail him on WP:WEB? If I made an article on something that could be perfect in all aspects about some website I own, then I went and linked to the wiki article on MY WEBSITE, would that automatically disqualify the article? It makes no sense to me. 207.62.176.150 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Methinks Alphachimp was making a little joke when he said that linking to Wikipedia is a disqualifier for inclusion on Wikipedia. (The basis of the joke is that in general, sites that are important enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia generally do not get excited when a Wikipedia article on them appears. Amazon.com, for example, does not have a notice on its front page saying, "Look, everyone! There's a Wikipedia article about us!") The real reason the site fails WP:WEB is that it has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", it has not "won a well known and independent award", and its content is not "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". —Caesura(t) 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Zelda comic is a very good comic and I put it right up there with far side. To delete this wikipedia page for reasons as pathetic as these is absurd. Even though they include true facts I don't beleive these are important enough to delete it for.--Jeremy Hart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.220.240 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as per nom, not to mention subsequent meatpuppetfest. --MCB 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --PresN 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and obvious meatpuppetry due to the link on the webcomic's main page and subsequent fans wanting to keep the article from being deleted. Ryulong 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And to quote: "So much for that whole Wikipedia idea. Apparently Zelda Comic isn't notable enough for them (On the comic's home page, this is a link to this very AfD discussion, and I have done the same to it here). Maybe it's just me, but it sure is odd using a criteria as subjective as "notability" for an encyclopedia. Doesn't the sheer size of the Internet and the number of users on it at any given moment mean that a reasonable amount of people will find anything notable (and for that matter, non-notable)? That link gives you the option to argue for the article's being kept, but I'm not going to push any of you to do so. It seems an awful lot like they've already made the decision anyway. Sigh." Ryulong 21:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The counterpoint to that frontpage comment is that the sheer size and mass of the internet make it impossible to catalog all information -- a common misconception is that Wikipedia indiscriminately collects information, and we don't. It's not that I hate you guys or anything, I'm sure you enjoy yourselves and I wish you nothing but the best. I only ask that you understand that we're literally flooded with hundreds or thousands of new articles every day, and if something even looks remotely like "This is a band my friends and I started," we're going to take a closer look. Have a glance at the criteria of WP:WEB, if you will. Notability can be subjective, but it's an important concept; factual accuracy alone doesn't guarantee inclusion. Hope that helps a bit. Regards, Luna Santin 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We all understand that factual accuracy doesn't guarantee inclusion, and that Wikipedia isn't a blog for everyone to post about their little bands or whatnot on, Luna Santin. We're just plain sick of Hahnchen's bullshit where he acts like mario (or whatever author) wrote the article to promote his site and to promote Wikipedia as an index of all things webcomic. Then he always brings up Alexa and uses it to make it sound like only two or three people read the webcomic in question. You should not have admins on here insulting people like that for no reason whatsoever. What you have said above would be perfectly fine, but here comes this biased prick who has to come out and try to make every webcomic author out to be some jackass abusing Wikipedia when most of the time the author of the comic the article is about didn't even write the damn article in the first place! That's why it gets linked on their sites: they are excited to see that one of their fans took time out of their personal lives to write an article about their webcomic. And that's why you don't see Amazon.com putting "Look, everyone! There's a Wikipedia article about us!" -- because they don't care if there's a Wikipedia article about them. They're after money, and having a happy customer write an article about them doesn't interest them at all. In closing, it's nice to see someone explain why articles like this don't meet the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines without resorting to insulting the author of the webcomic. But as long as you have these assholes like Hahnchen here doing that, you're going to have pissed off fans like us coming here to stick up for the comics and authors in question. Mjc0961 12:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didn't act like Mario had written the article to promote his comic. I absolutely knew that he wrote the news post because he was he flattered that someone else thought his comic worthy of inclusion.  My comment is on the feeling in the webcomic community that Wikipedia is used as a catalogue of all webcomics.  If you had read my nomination, with eyes, you would have realised this.  But instead you popped on your "Hahnchen is out to get us" hat and started talking about erections. - Hahnch  e  n 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this does not meet our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 04:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The policies of Wikipedia decide what is notable and not-notable. This is an encyclopedia, so every article must have some reason for its existence.  The article Zelda Comic is not notable according to Wikipedia policies (WP:WEB and WP:NOT).  Everyone can edit this encyclopedia because that way, the greatest amount of information is available.  However, certain policies here allow vandalism and non-notable articles to be removed.  Notable porn sites must be kept, even though many people (myself among them) do not like them on moral grounds.  Terrorist groups must be included in an encyclopedia because they are notable.  Yes, children can access this website, but they must look up the pornographic page or terrorist group to access the corresponding article.  Children can go to google.com and search for pornography and terrorist groups.  An encyclopedia is a collection of important, notable information. (See: encyclopedia.) Srose  (talk)  14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep- I would just like to say that on the author's homepage, it quotes,"That link gives you the option to argue for the article's being kept, but I'm not going to push any of you to do so"...so obviously he's not pushing his fans to discuss here. I think that there is no reason whatsoever to delete this article.As for "notability"-If it wasn't noteable in the first place, why was it even given an article?!24.59.136.149 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)The Head Sheikah
 * Comment - It was not given an article; someone (probably a fan or creator of the website/comic itself) created it. The link to this discussion on the Zelda Comic website should be removed.  This discussion is for people who understand what Wikipedia's policies are; no one with a vested interest or no knowledge of Wikipedian policy should be "voting". Srose  (talk)  16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't really see what this comic has done wrong.  Admittedly it is not as big as Homestar Runner, but it still does have a pretty loyal following.  I think back in looking at this to an 8-Bit Theatre entry I saw the other day...the way he described his surprise and joy with his following was along the same lines as the entry in question here.  I'd say keep it!
 * Delete and Comment Per nom, also has many errors and doesn't sound professionally. Also, little NPOV. And 24.59.136.149, it wasn't 'given' an article, someone wrote it. Anybody can do that. Userpie 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB.-- John Lake 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see why this should be deleted. Encyclopedias are supposed to have articles on everything, and Zelda Comic is SOMETHING. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onilink3 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Please make the puppetry stop. Ryulong 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why does it matter how many pages are on Wikipedia? The page will exist and if someone wants to read it, they may. If they don't, it won't come up in a search. The article's unprofessional tone can be edited. If someone takes the time to write an article about a webcomic, I can't see a good reason why it should be deleted. Also, I hardly think the author's comments on his website about it being a "little comic" can stand as evidence. 69.243.44.231 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article's an article, what's the purpose of an encyclopedia that registers only notable things? Delete the half of wikipedia then... Why have rules on what to keep and what to delete? If it is well written, just take it or do it all yourself...--83.219.107.166 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Greenyoshi
 * Comment - Take a look at Encyclopedia Brittanica. It has MUCH more stringent guidelines than Wikipedia.  We have rules so that we don't have pointless articles.  Encyclopedias are for notable things only.  Take a look in your encyclopedia, if you have one.  It doesn't have anything silly or pointless.  It may have google.com because "google" is actually a verb accepted in the Oxford English Dictionary now.  Your encyclopedia would not have a non-notable website in it.  Everything in an encyclopedia must be able to attest to its own importance.  The Zelda Comic cannot; it has no educational, social, historic, or scientific value. Srose  (talk)  20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per nom. Transwiki to Comixpedia if they'll have it. There's already a separate wiki for webcomics cast out of wikipedia, so even less need to clutter wikipedia with this stuff Bwithh 02:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Conflicted If one were to delete this page based on the overabbundence of webcomics on wikipedia and only have a link to the comixpedia site, then one would also have to tell the animes to go to an anime wiki, video games to a video game wiki, and so. In my belief, this goes against the "wealth of human knowdlge" idea behind wikipedia.  On the other hand, removing all non-necceary detail for this comic and include basics and a link to comixpedia, would make the article easier on the eyes and closer to wikipedia's guidelines.  Subsequently, to be fair, one would have to go out and do the same thing for all topic-specific articles.  Plus i can't officially mark myself for or against it, being i am one of the poeple who started the article.  So, you see my conflict? In Addition, "a noble effort to amass information on just about every webcomic out there" is about the wikiproject webcomics", not wikipedia. Bud0011 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnott%2C_Ontario. The article that came up when I pressed "Random Article." If Wikipedia's keeping one-sentence stuff like that up, a webcomic with a decent following deserves its own article if the authors of said article take it seriously. Which they were. Unless an article was created by virtue of a typo (which can easily happen), is in some way a true form of "vandalism," or if simply Wikipedia runs out of server space, if it's well-written it should stay up, in my opinion. Of course Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the 1st Amendment and free speech and all that, but I always thought it took to heart its spirit. This is definitely to the contrary of that. Mikintosh 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Not that I say Zelda comic isn't notable, but just because an article for an encyclopedia isn't "notable" doesn't mean a thing. An encyclopedia is used to find out information on a certain subject, correct? If so, it doesn't matter if it's "notable." The real question should be "moral." Which I believe Zelda comic, for the most part, is. Besides, the Wiki is based on the Internet. The Internet has vast amounts of space, so why shouldn't it include "pointless" material?
 * Comment A version of this article is already on Comixpedia. In fact, this article is an updated version of Zelda Comic. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:51, 14 July 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.