Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everlasting Wanderers

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everlasting Wanderers

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This Ragnarok Online fancomic can be seen here. The Alexa rank is wholely unimpressive at 800,000 and looking at the Googles for "everlasting wanderers seems to show more hits for a Ragnarok Online mp3 or soundtrack of some sort then for the webcomic. Also note that Google shows a lack of third party sources, however there are some foreign language links which I couldn't check out. - Hahnchen 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete~!!!!-Its a good comic to me so far...and probably a lot of other people! >_< Why delete it if just for fun??? Or just for apathetic boredom? There's not that many hosting sites that display comics like Spinny's ;_; It would be really disappointing to see it disappear~after all the hard work Spinny did! Some of my friends saw Spinny's work and was really surprised. They don't know that much people that could draw that good and actually post it online for everyone to see and enjoy. Everlasting Wanderers deserves a wiki because its been a comic since 2 years ago. Ok, that didn't make much sense...but this comic was created by a very hardworking person, Spinny. A wonderful artist who posts comics online so everyone could read it. And now there's a wiki for Everlasting Wanderers. Why are people opposing it? Just because it isn't in the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that it has to have something to do with world views, etc. Everyone has their own opinions from what they see in daily life. Hopefully some people understand what I'm trying to say. >w<" xoxo Chibi =] 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete- Using Alexa as a gauge to rank webcomics is not an accurate gauge. Many comic hosting sites, such as Comic Genesis and Smack Jeeves get blanket Alexa rankings for the domain itself, while their individual comics may not necessarily receive the listed high traffic. Furthermore, while there may be only 95,000 google hits for Everlasting Wanderers, the top hits are obviously the fancomic and related information. Fans of Everlasting Wanderers also know it goes by the shortened name "Everwander, which net a few thousand more hits that are almost entirely dedicated to Everlasting Wanderers. If you utilize only Google hits and Alexa rankings, The Lounge piggybacks from Comicgenesis.com's Alexa ranking, and obviously does not share the majority of google hits from the rather generic title, yet it (and more like it) would be allowed to maintain a wikipedia entry. If you mark Everlasting Wanderers for deletion based on these two criteria, you are being unfair and discriminatory, simply because there are many other webcomics in the same situation, but happen to be hosted on the correct domain to provide an aggregate Alexa rating. If Wikipedia is going to crack down because of the WP:WEB requirements, that's fine. However, if Wikipedia does so, it should affect *all* offenders, and not just this one. Hoorayforicecream 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete- This article is not damaging anyone. The author seems happy to have this article here. Your point to delete this are... weak. There're another fancomics here, so... why delete this? - Katsurina Hinagami 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete- I feel that the argument to delete this page, based on the premise that the subject does not have many hits on Google, is a very weak one. Unless it can be proven that this page violates any of Wikipedia's rules, or that it can be treated differently from the hundreds of other webcomic pages currently on Wikipedia, this page should not be deleted. - Winter04 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The argument to delete this page, based on the premise that the subject does not have many hits on Google, is a very strong one. As this is Internet-based content, a lack of Google hits or a low Alexa rank shows that there may not be enough interest in the webcomic for external independent sources to write about it. Wikipedia requires all information in articles to be verifiable from external reliable sources. Unless it can be proven that this webcomic has been mentioned in multiple such reliable sources, this page should be deleted. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising for a non-encyclopedic topic. Geogre 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hahnchen and Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't fulfill webcomic guidelines from WP:WEB. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- I would like to point that the format for this page is similar to how almost every other webcomic page is built, so I fail to see how this can be considered "non-encyclopedic content". Also, the page is not forcing anybody to read the comic or telling readers that it is the best comic in the universe. It's simply there for people who want to read up on it. Winter04 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- the comic's title was based off of the game's soundtrack so i don't find it suprising that the soundtrack would have a majority of the google hits. but the fact that the comic itself is at the top of the results should count for something69.109.114.249 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 20:48 23 august 2006 (pst)
• Comment- I always thought of wikipedia as an online encyclopedic source where you could find *anything* you were interested in learning about (within legal reasons). Soleras 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete As others have said it's doing no harm and the reasons for deleting it seem fillwed with technicalities, inconsistencies and lack significant knowledge. If you don't like it, don't read it - but don't ruin what is a good resource for others who want to read about this comic. Additionally, I feel Soleras has made a very useful point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.101.104 (talk • contribs).
• Comment ok, since when did webcomic follow strict restrictions, or have certain guideline that made them a webcomic? you people who try to make everything perfect, saying that this comic does not meet the guideline, or does not have much google hits or what not, ask a question to yourself, who are YOU to judge eh? are you perfect? are you SOOO smart that you must delete this small piece of work that few of the people enjoy as entertainment and as simple pleasure? And this about how this page is a non-encyclopedic? the page is providing information, isn't that enough? just providing information. As long as this comic is legal, it has every right to be on wiki just like the other pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.79.198 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nom. The article itself outlines no sign of notability. Anyone can create a webcomic...it doesn't mean anyone deserves an encyclopedia entry about it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd also like to note that Hoorayforicecream's comments about pages like The Lounge need to be taken into heavy consideration. If we're going to nitpick the details, then we must nitpick the double standards. Soleras 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you do any research on the List of webcomics, you'll see a large number of comics listed that not only have extremely low Alexa ratings (over 2 million), but also fall under the same criteria. Furthermore, some webcomics can maintain a wiki entry simply by having met the WP:WEB standards at some point in the past, but have since stopped updating. Some have even maintained their wikipedia entries (such as Acid Reflux (webcomic))) for over a year. Acid Reflux was added to Wikipedia 3 years *after* it had stopped updating, and has not met any of the requirements for WP:WEB. Everlasting Wanderers' entry has existed less than three months, yet WP moves to strike it down now? That seems not only unduly harsh, but discriminatory. Hoorayforicecream 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Nitpick? you people are going to nitpick on a webcomic? what kind of lives do you people have?!? and this webcomic deserves a wiki page as much as the other pages. If you people have any sense of pity, or guilt, you will leave this wiki page alone. If not, then our society is definitly heading the wrong way.
• Comment If this is meant to satisfy the WP:WEB requirements for Notability, would there really be any difference in Notability if the author had posted this comic on Comic Genesis instead? That should satisfy the #3 requirement for Web Notability, despite nothing really changing. 66.77.144.8 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Reply - This is just a reply to some of the comments raised. Comic Genesis does not imply notability, in fact, I do searches on wikipedia on for Comic Genesis domains to flag them for deletion. Having it on Comic Gen is just like having it on Geocities, absolutely meaningless. The reason there are a a literal shitload of entirely unnotable webcomics on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should keep them. My watchlist has around 70 webcomics, all which should be deleted, but I just haven't got round to them yet and very few others seem to nominate webcomics. I mean, here's just a small selection of the webcomic tripe on Wikipedia, Corner Pocket, Killer Robots from Space, Friend Bear, Insert Funn13 Here. By all means nominate them for deletion, they need it. - Hahnchen 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Reply - Hahnchen, are you the one who determines what is notable and what is not? Did you create requirement #3 on the WP:WEB? Comic Genesis does exactly what Requirement #3 states. It provides an independent third party online publishing site for web works. Your opinion may be that Everlasting Wanderers, Killer Robots from Space, Friend Bear and whatever other comics are not notable and should therefore be purged from Wikipedia, but that is it. It is your opinion. The rules that Wikipedia have put forth regarding notability do not agree with you. Rather than mark entries for deletion that clearly meet the existing notability requirements, perhaps your time would be better spent lobbying to get the notability requirements themselves changed. Obviously, it is in need of amendment. But not only is it stupid to continue attempting to delete the Everlasting Wanderers entry by spitting in the face of the very rules you claim to be deleting them for, it is hypocritical. Hoorayforicecream 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a difference between "being distributed" and being hosted on free web space. Criteria 3 on WP:WEB refers to cases like Little Gamers which is distributed by Custom PC magazine (as well as others). Some take this criteria to refer to all "keenspot" comics to be notable, although I myself to not subscribe to that school of thought. - Hahnchen 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Once again, this is your opinion. You may not think that something distributed or published by Comic Genesis is notable. You're entitled to your opinion. However, you do not speak directly for wikipedia. You are not the rule-maker. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's rules, you are enforcing your own interpretation of the rules, which may or may not be correct. Comic Genesis promotes the comics it hosts. It provides link exchanges and advertisements on a scale that the majority of free web hosting does not. These are all services that free web hosting lacks. Do I think the rule is wrong in this case? Sure. However, I would go about trying to fix things by changing the rule rather than enforce my own viewpoint on WP entries that may or may not conform to my own interpretation of the rules. As an individual user, you can state and pontificate, but you do not speak for everyone, especially when you are going against the rules as written. Read it yourself. "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.". Well known. Independent. Online Publisher. Yes, comic genesis falls under all of those terms. If you disagree, then change the rule.Hoorayforicecream 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest you read Note #7 of Criteria 3 on WP:WEB, which states that "although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Since Comic Genesis is similar to both Geocities and Newgrounds in that anyone with a webcomic can be hosted on Comic Genesis, being hosted on Comic Genesis is considered trivial and thus does not satisfy Criteria 3. Also, Hahnchen doesn't seem to be enforcing anything (he isn't an admin so it isn't possible for him to), he is only offering his opinions to this debate, similar to what you have been doing.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, non-notable webcomic. Large amounts of sockpuppets don't really help the situation.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:15, 26 August 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.