Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination)

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 Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

2001 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2002 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2003 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2005 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2006 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

This article was previously subject to an articles for deletion nomination, was deleted, and is now being relisted following a deletion review debate. The key issue raised in the deletion review was that sources were introduced late in the original debate and not all the participants may have had a proper chance to evaluate them. bainer (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources assert some notability, even in the mainstream press. As far as I can see, the awards are well-recognized within the web comic community. Regardless of the current quality of the article, a well-written article can be written about this subject that is verifiable with reliable sources. --- RockMFR 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Multiple independently published sources have noted these awards in a non-trivial fashion (NYT, TV, etc); these are the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art (webcomics). The case is crystal clear. Balancer 02:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the awards are so notable that /they themselves are a source of notability/ for the comics they are presented to. Nardman1 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - This sounds almost circular at first, but consider this: The fact that these comics won awards is why these comics were covered in this NYT article. --Random832(tc) 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• There new york times is a trivial piece. Here's the whole content from that article that is about the award:

It utterly transparent that the author isn't actually talking about the awards, noting that this was several months after them should provide some clue. This source fails utterly to establish that this is "singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art." the attack of the show's re-broadcasting is great and all, but we don't have articles based upon everythingthat ever was on one show. Well, perhaps if the show was 60 minutes... but that's hardly the case here. unless we're going to go for wholesale abandonment of freedom from bias based upon passionate defence, this article must be deleted unless multiple non-trivial sources are added. I understand that there is an active "web community" to whom this awards' importance is claimed to be obvious, but the criteria are really straight-forward, that this claim be proven not just asserted.
brenneman 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Long Comment with no real point. I see where you are coming from. And I might even agree with you to say that the article isn't about the WCCA. But I think the article demonstrates something interesting. The author of the article is using the WCCA as a way to get into different web comics. For him (in the article), the WCCA is a prop... something to get him talking about specific web comics. Maybe that's what the WCCA does... it provides a starting point for people to approach the subject of web comics. It shows people which comics are liked and respected by other artists. As far as I can tell, this is the most notable award for web comics. I think it's a good idea to keep it around. -- Ben 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment It is simply incorrect to say that the quotation above is the total sum of the references to the WCCA in the article. Read the article instead of just using your search function and you will find a number of references further down using pronouns and indirect references. This has been asserted and debunked so many times that I'm having a hard time maintaining the assumption of good faith. The NYT article should be read. It is not trivial except for very unusual values of trivial. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If G4 and NYT think it is the notable enough to use as the best commics and then surely that is notibility established.--Dacium 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but the article clearly does not indicate that the author thinks that these are "the best commics." - brenneman 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All the more reason - the fact that they received awards was enough to make the author feel they were worth mentioning even when he did not personally think they were all that good. --Random832(tc) 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions.
• Keep main article, delete year articles I do agree that this needs work, but the sources that are provided are enough (even if not by much) to establish notability. And "everything that ever was on one show" is a bit of a straw man - it was a whole episode. --Random832(t

c) 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • comment I would agree that, for now, it would make sense to keep the year data inside the main article and only break them out once this has become unwieldy. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, a whole show in Attack of the Show!, but look how incredibly minor this show actually is... Can we just step back from the fact that this is about webcomics for a moment, and look at how desperately thin the material availible from reliable sources is? - brenneman 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a niche. Are we going to start deleting places of local interest because their towns' local newspapers have low circulation numbers worldwide? --Random832(tc) 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oi, mate, you really don't want to go there: That guideline is the result of a long seige by editors who thought that "all schools are notable." There's an unsteady equilibrium now between people who like reliable sources and people who like schools, but if the strongest argument you've got is that there are more like this one than I rest my case. - brenneman 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • comment The strongest argument is that it's met the test of inclusion including two articles in independent media. If you'd stop making disparaging remarks about the sourcing, we wouldn't be "going there" at all. Two is the standard, two are given so the article stays unless there's some double secret guideline about webcomics I don't know about. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, we can't — because it's the overly restrictive definition of "reliable sources" that's being applied here that's causing the problem in the first place. Essentially, there's a bias among the anti-web (and, therefore, anti-webcomic) crowd that says that web sources can never be reliable, and that's being used to expurgate anything on the web from Wikipedia. It is about webcomics, because it's about the web. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep. The original deletion enabled the anti-webcomic jihad. Deleting this entry, then using that to deny that webcomics that win these awards are notable, is noting more than creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and denying that webcomics can be notable at all. These awards are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement, and if this entry is deleted, we might as well delete any article having to do with anything on the web. -- Jay Maynard 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the list articles; the list of previous winners should be treated the same as the lists of previous winners of the premier awards in any other field. If that means merging or deleting, so be it; if that means keeping, then keep. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'm rapidly giving up on talking sense here, but first:

  1. There is no "jihad."
  2. Please provide a reliable source that these are the "are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement."
  3. Plenty of webcomics get no-web coverage: When I Am King is the first I think of.
  4. "[D]elete any article having to do with anything on the web" that fails the bias and verification policy seems reasonable to me.

  brenneman 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. bibliomaniac15 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, has not garnered the type of verifiable coverage in reputable independent sources one would expect of a seven-year-old supposedly "notable" award, let alone enough to write from a neutral point of view. What, if we really stretch our standards, we might possibly almost have two reputable sources? We have better sources for last year's revisions to the Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Also, the point of view that this is "the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art" is ridiculous when you have the awards' committee members blogging things like "The WCCAs are horribly mismanaged, they are not well organized and they don't do what they are supposed to. I know this because I have been part of the administrative process."[5] With a dearth of reputable sources, I don't see how to write this article without giving undue weight to wikipedia editor's personal points of view and original research about this topic. -- Dragonfiend 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment you seem to be arguing for raising the standards for sourcing beyond WP:WEB. Shouldn't you be over there instead of doing it on a case by case basis? That would seem a much more fair solution. This doesn't mean that I agree that more than two sources should be the standard but that doing it for an article while leaving the standard at a lower level is even worse than changing the standard badly. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment An award given a solitary High School to its students is different from the WCCA that awards to an industry. Arguing that Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award and this article must share the same property even though they are completely different is a false analogy known as comparing apples and oranges. This isn't helpful and weakens your viewpoint. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that an award given at a solitary high school is different than an award given to an "industry." One difference would be that we would expect better sources for a seven-year-old "industry" award than we would for any single school's perfect attendance award in a single year. But instead we see the opposite difference, that we seem to have far more sources for an award given in a single year at a solitary high school than we do this seven-year-old award given to an entire "industry." Feel free to draw fruit comparisons. Maybe: "If an attendance award were an Apple, and we shouldn't have an article on the Apple Attendance Award, then we shouldn't have an article on any fruit-based awards with less non-trivial coverage than the Apple Award, so if the Orange Juice Choice award has worse sourcing, then we shouldn't have an article on the Orange Awards." Mmmm ... is anyone else getting hungry? I know am. In fact, I'm really hungry for enough reputable sources that we can cover this topic from a neutral point of view. --Dragonfiend 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. With that in mind, there is at least enough information to fully cite a stub... maybe not enough for a full article, but the article should at least be started. Anyway, it should be short work to make a stub out of the existing information, and when more sources come to light, we can of course restore the appropriate statements from the page history easily. Myself, I'd just leave it as is — asserting notability on a verifiable topic is good enough for me when the topic is obscure... there are bound to be at least one unsourced statement in an article anyway. Probably the best thing to do here is to leave it alone and simply wait for the sources to appear in the media. --DavidHOzAu 11:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: it is irrelevant if a webcomic blogger like Straub on Halfpixel the one you linked (sorry: your quote was very similar to something Kris Straub said, and I didn't think to check that he was actually the one you linked to. My bad) likes the award. The very fact that he posted about them indicates further notability on the subject. Notability does not equal popularity or likability. Whether or not they are any good, the WCCA are still very, very widely recognised in webcomics. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"The very fact that [someone on this awards' committee] posted about them indicates further notability on the subject"? It seems you are saying that if the members of this awards committe are aware of the awards, then that shows how well known the awards are. I disagree, as I would fully expect an awards committee to be aware of the awards they give out. Further, he is blogging on how little known the awards are: "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening ... we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep That NYT article is effectively about the WCCA, just imagine an article discussing the recent BAFTAs say. It would look at the award itself and then dsicuss the winners (even if you don't think they are worthy winners - actually you can probably get more copy out of them that way). Same here - it is the hook for the article and is the thread winding through it holding the whole thing together. Obviously it needs work but that looks to be a good start. (Emperor 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

Merge the years into the main article (possibly a section for the award and then the winners sorted by year). The big comic award entries have the awards in the article so I don't see why this should be different. See Eisner Award, Eagle Awards, etc. (Emperor 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

• I've added the six other articles that are hagning off the arse of these two mediocre sources. - brenneman 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found above. I'd like to remind everyone here to remain civil. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep - sources provide substantial evidence of noteability. In particular, those independent sources consider the awards as something that gives noteability to the comics receiving them. Saying that such coverage is "only about the individual strips" is like saying that coverage on the academy awards is "only about individual movies". --Latebird 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an utterly nonsensical argument: The point is that the only coverage in reliable sources consists of a small listing of the subsets of the winner. Look at the Academy Award page, at the bottom: There are two entire books written about the academy awards. Why is it so utterly difficult to make this very simple point? - brenneman 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because in a different case books are also available, doesn't make an argument about a specificy type of article "nonsensical". You're making it sound like hollywood-type fame was a requirement for noteability. If it's really so hard to understand, my point has been made much more eloquently by MrErku below. --Latebird 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notability established by sources. Yes, the awards may be limited to the niche community of online webcomics fans (although I believe it includes tens of millions of individuals), but it is notable within that community (and even somewhat outside of it). Also, I have no interest in webcomics nor articles related to webcomics (and have never edited such articles). -- Black Falcon 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Why is this even being nominated? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because WP:DRV does not explicitly restore articles, it relists them. This is mostly a procedural nomination. Nifboy 05:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as to the main article Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, neutral as to the individual year articles. These awards may not be extremely notable but they have received sufficient mainstream attention to justify an article here. --Metropolitan90 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend and Brenneman, who have established that there is not sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources to form the basis of an article on this topic, be it from the point of view of WP:V or WP:N. Sandstein 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment yet extensive coverage is not actually part of the standard, is it. Moving the goal posts continues on the delete side. Two sources needed according to standards, two sources cited, suddenly that's not enough. No doubt there will be more articles popping up as this year's winners are announced. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the NYT article just gives it a passing mention and the podcast isn't sufficiently independent. The website for these awards is pretty simple, and contains exhortations to 'spread the word'. The forums are very quiet for a supposedly notable online award.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Forums are non-notable, so why does the forum activity enter into this debate? And what does the layout of their website have to do with anything? That seems like a total nonsequitor. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For an Internet-based award that has run for six years and is supposedly well-known, it seems remarkable that the site should be so minimal. There's no information on how many webcomic artists actually vote in the awards. A few dozen? Hundreds? This is a website for a small band of hobbyists, no different from websites about homebrew or origami.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I don't see how that is at all relevant. The quality of the site design has nothing to do with its notability, nor does forum activity, nor even the number and quality of the voters have anything to do with it. For all Wikipedia is concerned, the WCCAwards could be appointed by a single shadowy figure who fakes all the votes. This is not a discussion of the quality, or professional level of the WCCA, but its notability for inclusion. That is all. Besides being the subject of an article in the New York Times and on a public television show, the WCCA have been regularly referred to by Kristopher Straub, Howard Tayler, and many times by Jeph Jacques, three very well-known comic authors that I pulled out from the very, very tip of the list of webcomics I can name of the top of my head. I am sure a quick google check could yield more. The top names in webcomics are discussing these, which indicates they are not a tiny, unimportant niche in the webcomic world. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been the subject of an article in the NYT, it was a passing mention. I disagree with your assertation that the nigh-impossbility of providing sourced information about this site's voting processes is irrelevant: Attribution is a core policy. How is an encyclopedic treatment of this site's achievements, impact or historical significance possible if the site itself is minimal and, as you suggest, asking for information about it asking too much? As for the webcomic world, I believe that webcomics constitute a fairly small subculture and that webcomic fans have an unrealistic view of their popularity. 'Notable in webcomics' doesn't mean notable, any more than 'notable in origami' or 'notable in homebrewing'. Why can't these awards just be mentioned and linked in webcomic or Keenspot, as is normal?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See my post below re. validity of the NYT article - namely, what exactly would an awards article have to say to be notable in your books, besides describing an award and listing and describing its winners, a process that takes up about 2/3 of the article?

I do agree that attribution is difficult, and a paring down of this article is probably in order. I don't claim to know much about the WCCA besides that they exist, and pretty much all the webcomic artists I know of get excited when they win one, even the big names. I, for one, don't care to edit articles I don't know a thing about, but I think it would strengthen the Keep argument if someone who did know something were to edit this a bit.

Regarding the importance of the webcomic subculture, it is (ok, getting sick of "irrelevant". New word? um...) unimportant what you "believe" the size of the community is. I would be supporting the inclusion of an article about the Origami Artists' Choice Awards if they had been written up in the New York Times as an example of the internet awards given out to origami artists on the internet, had it been brought to my attention. Especially if a few people who were interested in origami then joined the discussion and listed several origami experts, citing their discussion about said awards and showing that experts in the field were aware of and gave a hoot about the "OACA" one way or the other.

The reasoning behind your argument yields the end result, "I don't see how Okazaki fragments are all that notable. Can't they just be contained in the article on DNA replication?" If Wikipedia is not in fact about creating articles that meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and expanding on those articles to the limit of available noteworthy knowledge, I am a little confused about what we are doing here. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A BBC article about the Webbys from 2001, showing what a genuinely notable award can expect in terms of coverage. Quotes from the creator, their motivation, the quirky speeches, info on the judges and a selection of nominees, context and so on. No such coverage exists for the WCCA. If the NYT did an actual write-up of these awards, rather than three or four paragraphs, then the article should be kept. If there was sustained coverage every year, as one would expect for popular awards, then there would be absolutely no question about it.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, you have me in the sense that that shows a lot more information about the Webbys than the NYT article does about the WCCA. Clearly the Webbys are more notable than the WCCA (can't say as I'm surprised), and that is a better article. Regarding annual coverage in a newspaper, comparing the WCCA to the webbys is very misleading: the BBC coverage of the Webbys seems to be mostly "BBC won a webby award last night..." type stuff, in which the resource in question clearly has a vested interest in the awards. In fact, that is also the case in the article you linked, where it appears BBC's intial interest was in their own winning of the award - not that I am calling the article into question, it is definitely valid.

However, I would say the NYT article is still very clearly not trivial, and I am not sure where you can come out saying it is. Even if only pared down to the barest bones of absolute direct reference, as Brenneman has done, one comes out with a solid paragraph of information. The definition of non-triviality according to WP:N is: "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." with the further elabouration: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 6 January 1992.) is plainly trivial. These stress, at least from my perspective, that a "trivial" reference is in fact trivial. It does not spend a paragraph describing the topic in question, in relative detail, nor does it go on to refer back to the topic in nearly every subsequent paragraph of the article. A trivial mention of the WCCA in a New York Times article would be something like, ";There are also awards, like the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (link)", the end, proceed with article as planned.

Be careful not to apply a judgement call to what is trivial and what is not, based on how important you think the WCCA is. Unless triviality is some ephemereal, hard to define concept - which WP:N does not seem to suggest, else notability would be subjective - there is no way to claim this article is trivial. Not to mention anything of a notable television show devoting an entire episode to it, which Brenneman would like to shrug off, but which is certainly a "non-trivial, reliable published work, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did say the NYT snippets were passing mentions, not trivial. However, the NYT article is about webcomics generally, and there is only one paragraph that provides any hard information about the awards themselves, and not very much at that. The TV show did not 'devote a whole episode' to it, it was one of several segments. Whether this segment truly counts as an independent source is questionable, given that it was the WCCA 'Chief Executive' that was hosting it. With both sources being frankly borderline, the lack of further, ongoing coverage clinches it for me; an encyclopedic article can't be created with what is available.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It should possibly be mentioned that the BBC was nominated for two awards there (along with other news-related sources). Not even to mention the real-life and high-profile ceremony. Just two sidenotes since there is a slight difference of scale here. --Sid 3050 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at in the first pgph, but you say it better. Also, I am intensely curious why pokemon are so important that wikipedia needs over 400 entries on the statistics of each pokemon in the pokedex (whatever the hell that is), but webcomics are so amazingly unimportant that despite a New York Times article bringing up the major webcomic award and talking about it for anywhere between 1 and 7 paragraphs, said webcomic award is not worthy of wikipedia. /sigh/ done here for the night. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I don't know what the naysayers expect a NYT article to SAY about an internet webcomics award. One would hardly expect them to write a dissertation about its history and management/nomination practices. One would expect, in fact, an article exactly like this one, for almost any award. If this NYT article is non-notable, I can't really imagine a notable article being printed. More importantly, this seems like a strong case of wikilawyering to me. Whether or not there is a dearth of printed articles about the WCCA, almost anyone with ANY involvement in the webcomic industry, from casual readers to authors, has heard of and recognises the WCCA. What is the definition of notability? Is it a tallyup of how many newspapers have mentioned a subject, as WP has lately been leaning towards? Or is that just meant to be an arbitrary measurement of something like, I don't know, how notable something is within its field? Because I would say this is pretty bloomin' notable to webcomics. It doesn't really matter in this debate, since this article meets wp:n anyway, but it is definitely food for thought. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as for the individual year articles, neutral. It seems to me one would expect most annual award information to be on the WCCA site itself. However, if the WCCA is notable, I suppose the individual years of it are. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, make that a weak delete for the 6 child articles. At this stage I don't see any purpose to them as there is not enough to build a huge article for the WCCA in the first place. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the main article -- I think it meets WP:RS now -- but I don't think we need to keep lists for the individual years. A link to the WCCA site should be sufficient. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with the reasoning that has been given above. Current sources are NYT, AotS, and a radio interview (which I admit I currently can't find proof for on the official site since it took place 19 months ago, but the announcement doesn't strike me as a fake and has not been contested). This year's presentation will be at Megacon. No opinion about the individual years, though. --Sid 3050 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notabilty asserted due to the fact the awards represent an entire industry. Notability asserted due to multiuple coverages in known publications (NTY, G4). And a comment - award presentations - even well known ones - can be boring and often don't attract huge coverage in media, but that has nothing to do with the notabilty of the award. The WCCA is highly notable within the webcomic industry, and deserves a place in wikipedia. Timmccloud 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the main article, merge the years into a single article or with the main article. To repeat my argument in the undeletion, 'As per the NYT article [6] and most of an episode of "Attack of the Show" [7]'. As I said, independent mentions in a mayor national newspaper and a popular cable/satellite television show (on G4TV) should count for something. The fact that the writer of the NYT article disagreed with many of the judges choices (and apparently disliked the medium as a whole) is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the writer thought the awards were important enough, or representative enough to devote 7 paragraphs to them and its winners in an 18 paragraph general article about webcomics (actually, rereading it, the WCCA's seem to be used as one of the articles main 'hooks'). And finally Websnark, while possibly not a valid source for notability, being a blog, mentions them several times: [8], [9] and [10] at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclapton (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC). Oops, forgot to sign --15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Grr, messed up signing again --Aclapton 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, since I'm satisfied that both are verifiable and notable. I'd be more explicit, but quite frankly, the point's been beaten into the ground by now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• That said, if someone wanted to Merge the yearly pages back into the parent article, so that we'd have one huge honkin' article instead of a central one with satellites, I guess that'd be OK. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep for main article, delete the others without merging. And rewrite the main article to use only the two supposedly reliable references as sources. As for the other articles, not only are they almost directly copied from a copyrighted website, but also erroneous. If we need this information, we can link to it. —xyzzy_n 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the "by year" articles, merging them into Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards would only create listcruft and the lists themselves provide no context and I would go so far as to declair them as indiscriminate as well as violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. As for the main article, it barely passes WP:WEB by the thinnest of margins. However, I still have concerns that there is not enough coverage by reliable sources to build a proper, verifiable, encycopedic article from without using primary sources or original research. --Farix (Talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Even if the WCCA does barely pass WP:WEB, that doesn't mean that it can be verified through reliable sources that the award is "well-known" and therefore, winning this award should not be used as proof of notability. --Farix (Talk) 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You raise at interesting point that needs clarifying if the article survives the AfD. There are several webcomics who's main claim to notability at the moment is winning a WCCA. It should be cleared up whether the WCCA's count towards notability under WP:WEB. --Aclapton 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So, in other words, even if this article is restored, the jihad can continue? You're not willing to reconsider the numerous deletions of articles that hinged on this one? You're not willing to right that wrong? -- Jay Maynard 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You misunderstand me, I am not favouring any "jihad". I personally think that the WCCA's as an award should count for notability, but others may disagree. That is why I want the issue of whether or not they count for notability resolved as well and clearly stated, or else it will come up in every AfD for a webcomic with a WCCA. --Aclapton 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Most notable awards honoring an indisputably notable and expanding subject. Rogue 9 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend . Interesting to those who draw them and those who lpook at them on the internet, perhaps, but lacking the multiple independent reliable and verfiable sources needed to satisfy Wikipedia standards. Edison 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above reasons. --Djsasso 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - NYT article does devote the awards more than trivial space, and what's more, uses them to define the best in web comics. In a way, that does the awards as much or more of an honor than if the article had merely been about the history of the awards, it lends the awards credibility. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the main article, I've rewritten it and it meets our policies of verifiability and no original research. Other arguments are subjective. 84.92.54.229 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Comment, I appear to have logged out there, that's me, Steve block. Steve block Talk 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment Why hasn't brenneman !voted? --Random832(tc) 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a debate, not a vote. He's made his opinion known in his comments here. Steve block Talk 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but making one's opinion known in bold is customary - it's not a vote, but it is a !vote. I was just curious anyway. --Random832(tc) 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no independent reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest you go re-read the article, I count 2. That's a plural to me. Also suggest you understand the difference between a guideline and a policy. Steve block Talk 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote

• • Jimmy Wales, 17:43, 29 January 2004. Steve block Talk 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been interviewed by The Guardian and the Wall Street Journal, does that make me deserving of an article? - Francis Tyers · 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Furthermore I have ~800 google hits compared to WCCA ~150. - Francis Tyers · 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Specious Argument, and factually incorrect because of bias. WCCA and "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" together make 479 google hits. Besides that, counting google hits is a WP:ILIKEIT vsWP:IDONTLIKEIT style of argument, which is invalid. Timmccloud 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Or ‘about 13,100’ for ‘"Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards"’, and more for different ways to write the name, but of course Google hits prove nothing. —xyzzy_n 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All. If any webcomic is notable, then this is also. The year-by-year ones are good suppliments to the main, keeping large lists out of the page. LukeSurl 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article, delete others. The main article has seen significant improvement. While FA status is so remote you’d need Hubble to see it, the article merits inclusion in its current shape—notability is established, major points are cited with more or less adequate sources and NPOV seems to be maintained. The lists aren’t necessary or useful, though; if there is a real need to have webcomic articles organised by WCCA nominations and awards, categories should do the trick. —xyzzy_n 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Problem is, there has been a roll on effect. When the WCCA article was deleted, many webcomics were then AFD because of notability concerns, and THAT led to the WCCA catagory being deleted as well. So unless the deletion of the catagory gets overturned (and it was deleted because the WCCA was deleted - starting to see a pattern here?) we can't use catagories as a solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timmccloud (talk • contribs).
    • I hadn’t read that CFD; apparently people there thought a list would be better. However, a single article with a list of award winners ought to be enough. By the way, the article should say how webcomics are nominated and how the winners are chosen. —xyzzy_n 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article at least, appears to be well-known. No opinion on the year/list articles; they could probably be either deleted or turned into redirects. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. The lists should go as well. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that somethings notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Steve block Talk 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Er, WP:NOTE? WP:WEB? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Try again: Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that an article's notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. You stated "notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS" I'd like you to clarify where exactly in WP:V, per your statement that it is in there. Thanks. Steve block Talk 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • My thinking goes something like this: WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." WP:NOT#IINFO: "articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" Is it an "exceptional claim" to say a website has had impact or historical significance? Yes. Do exceptional claims require strong sources? Yes. Do "strong sources" equal multiple non-trivial sources? Yes. Is this how our WP:NOTE content guideline recommends we should act on our WP:V and WP:NOT content policies? Yes. -- Dragonfiend 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:V also states that "dubious" and "self-published" sources can be used as verification for articles about the sources themselves given some very minimal conditions. As I've pointed out earlier, it is trivially easy for an article about a webcomic - and I'll point out this applies to any content primarily distributed online - to satisfy WP:V; the only question is whether or not it meets notability standards in the first place to merit an article. The standards for notability are outlined fairly clearly, and resoundingly met in this case. Balancer 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the main article; WP:V isn't in question, and I feel the sources given are sufficient to meet WP:N; I don't see them as trivial. The daughter articles don't seem necessary; I'm leaning toward delete for them, but a merge or partial merge and redirect might be an option. No strong opinion. Shimeru 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as I point out above, the number of reliable sources that discuss the WCCA is less than the number of reliable sources that discuss me (Guardian and WSJ). Would keep voters support an article on a (needless to say) entirely non-notable me? - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So you had two articles - what in those articles makes you notable? We are talking about a group that publishes industry awards - that has recognition across it's industry, and it's notablitly is supported by a few articles. I see nothing notable about you that matches what the WCCA does, and your argument (and anyone that agrees with you) is on the nature of WP:ILIKEIT since "you have more google hits than WCCA does". Specious argument. Timmccloud 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying I am notable, I'm saying that the WCCA is not notable. Please read my argument. - Francis Tyers · 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you were a primary focus of those articles, then yes, I'd vote to keep an article on you -- you'd meet WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BIO. Why would you think such an article should be deleted? Shimeru 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I am a secondary mention, but get probably around the same amount of treatment as in the NYT article for WCCA. I don't meet WP:BIO in a million years. - Francis Tyers · 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Francis. bogdan 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Francis, you want an article so bad I'll write you one, but let's not compare apples and oranges here, eh. They may both be fruits but they taste different, and an article on you may be an article, like the article on the WCCA, but they cover different topics. So let's go right out and delete everything less notable that Francis, God help us if Jimbo shows up and demands the same treatment, or does it only work for Francis? Let's examine the article on its merits. Wikipedia is case by case and has shades of grey. Wikipedia is a broad church. Wikipedia works when we respect each other, listen to each other and work to a solution. Let's try and achieve that here in line with our policies. Show me where this does not meet a policy. Steve block Talk 20:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not notable enough to merit an article, neither is this organisation, the point being that a couple of trivial mentions in mainstream press does not a make something notable. - Francis Tyers · 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, the point is that you think these are trivial mentions and that you think they aren't notable enough. The NYT article used the awards as a hook, criticised them but placed a value on them. The NYT article assessed them as relevant to the field of webcomics, discussed them as part of the medium. It was not trivial. Triviality is a throw away "The WCCA were awarded on Tues night". Triviality defined in the guideline as follows:

Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

• • • This was not trivial coverage by that definition. It wasn't a brief summary of the website. This wasn't reporting the internet address, it wasn't an internet directory listing and it wasn't telling you update times, in fact it deferred to the awards in picking strips to cover. Not trivial. Steve block Talk 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Per RockMFR and per Balancer. Notable within the community of webcomics, has mainstream coverage, and can be expanded into an informative article. I would also suggest keeping the individual entries, but if not, merge them in. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Why delete this? People are just going to end up recreating an article for the WCCAs without realizing that it's already been deleted, assuming that they are mentioned on a webcomic's entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.168.17 (talk • contribs) 02:16, February 18, 2007.

• Page protection. Problem solved. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• And, since the anti-webcomic jihadists are all admins, this will get slapped on as soon as the deletion is re-confirmed (again, by an admin). -- Jay Maynard 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• That's really disheartening. I'd like to think that wikipedia would encourage edits and contributions by new people to encourage its growth and popularity. That would just send the message that my opinion doesn't matter.--Thaeus 24.82.168.17 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC). (Note: the earlier unsigned comment was also mine.)

• That's because your opinion doesn't matter, if you're not in the in crowd. -- Jay Maynard 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivial media sources -- the Times writer simply used it as a hook to justify his selections for the article. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment A major hook for a story is not trivial. More unusual values for trivial. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the definition of "trivial"? Steve Block posted it about four paragraphs up. If the awards are important enough that a new york times author saw them as a valid entry-hook for the webcomic world, they do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "trivial". Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• The article was written by Sarah Boxer. At a guess I'd say it should be to justify "her" choices. But the assertion that she used the awards to justify her choices is not evidenced by the article, and is not trivial per the guidance offered on triviality. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Strong article with NYT reference demonstrating this is an obvious keeper. --JJay 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:NOTE criteria satisfied. Freepsbane 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, has sufficent sourcing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable. Egunthry 12:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Delete per Dragonfiend and Brenneman. I'm sorry, but I don't find the references/sources adequate at present. I wish to particularly echo Francis Tyers's comment. WMMartin 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a canary in a coal mine. It's not that webcomics or the WCCA itself are that important to the scheme of things but you can write up this process to "roll back" and dump down the memory hole a great many more things than webcomics using the methodology used to eliminate so many webcomics over the past few months. The sourcing satisfies the standards and thus the article should stay.TMLutas 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As mentioned above, sources demonstrate notability per WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The article meets the basic sourcing requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to amend the nomination, if possible, to include 2007 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why not. The ceremonies were just held and the article should be popping up very shortly. --Kizor 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - sourcing is sufficient, no contested content. (In addition, I have to register my amusement about the way the New York Times were previously used as an archetypical example of a notable and reliable source. Heh.) --Kizor 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a meaningful award within a fairly large subculture. The winners all mention the award, so they clearly think it's important. --Hobit 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And I think the raw number of folks responding here gives a hint to this. I only even found out about the deletion because I'd turned to Wikipedia to find out who actually won this year (the actual website is annoying...)--Hobit 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is probably the best reason for keeping this article yet: Since there's no shred of news coverage to tell us who won this web award, and the awards web site itself is annoying, then we should use wikipedia to announce the winners. --Dragonfiend 05:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, Wikipedia is already the WCCA's best advertising so it's a logical step... - brenneman 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Great scott... we couldn't have people learning about a subject via Wikipedia, now could we? ;-) Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [afterthought: my site is rated 89k on alexa, does not even have a wikipedia article of its own, and gets most of its traffic from return users... but wikipedia is still one of the largest sources of new traffic after google. wp is just plain a well-trafficked site, and people come here to find links and information. It doesn't say anything at all about an item's importance that they get most of their traffic straight off WP, because WP is huge.] Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rather than reading tea leaves, I've written to the author of the time's article and asked her to comment as to her intent when writing the article. - brenneman 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I applaud the effort, but at this stage the author's opinion is pretty much invalid. Her article has been published already, and clearly makes more than trivial mention of the WCCA. Whether or not she intended the mention to be trivial is not the issue: very clearly, the mention is not trivial. I know you know the definition of trivial, brenneman, so I am in the dark as to why you think this doesn't meet it. At best, one might call this a "casual" mention, but it covers far too much ground to be trivial. Allowing the author to amend their opinions on a published work defeats the entire purpose of using published works, namely that they are in print and unchanging.

Note that I am not disparaging the effort, I do want to hear the author's opinion. Just establishing that it really doesn't affect the debate. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• brenneman: "Rather than reading tea leaves, I've written to the author of the time's article and asked her to comment as to her intent when writing the article."
• Bravo, but that's the very definition of original research and thus cannot affect the article in any shape or form. Unless we are going to let everyone edit there article as they want? And I can't wait to see if this develops into another look how silly they are on Wikipedia article. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep another silly example of contorted lawyering about Notability wording. This is clearly notable and verifiable, enough with the crap. All the somewhat esoteric, subcultural stuff on wikipedia is what makes it cool.Rdore 06:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the existing sources seem sufficient. The NYT article doesn't look like a trivial reference. --James 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a paragraph-long "blurb" is indisputably a trivial reference. There are a lot of other sources cited. That list of sources looks formidable, but when one looks through it, one finds that the article's subject is "name-dropped" or barely mentioned (trivial) by many, and that the rest are of questionable or no reliability (Comixpedia, a convention site with no apparent editorial control). As to arguments that "this has been used as an argument that most webcomics aren't notable"? Most webcomics aren't notable! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And people claim there is no anti-webcomics jihad... Go read the Wikipedia definition of "trivial" above: even a single paragraph discussing the subject does not meet that definition. -- Jay Maynard 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are some confusion about the format that Comixpedia uses and as a long time reader, and previous contributor, I can shed some light on this. Comixpeida.org is a comic wiki, not to be confused with comixpedia.com (although they have the same publisher). Comixpedia.com consists of one magazine part, which is under editorial control. The content is contributed by staff writers and freelancers to editors. Back when I contributed, you got payed for what you wrote (a rather symbolic amount though, it was 10 US$ for columns and somewhat more for articles if I remember correctly), but I admit I don't know if they still do this. The current month's magazine content can be found on the right side of the frontpage. The second part of comixpedia.com is the community/news section consisting of forums and blogs. The way the frontpage news work is by community contribution. A person writes in their blog on the site, and the newseditor promotes it to the frontpage if he/she finds it to be of interest. Epameinondas 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a 1-paragraph mention, it's spread throughout the article, the person copying it here compressed it, so it looks smaller. They also arguably left out other references to the awards. I don't know if it was the copier's intent to misrepresent the citation, but they are one of those arguing for deletion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are misreading the sources. The convention site is being used as primary source, and thus is reliable. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Notability. Several fairly high profile comicblogs report on the WCCAs. Journalista, The Comic Journal's blog, written by former managing editor Dirk Deppey http://tcj.com/journalista/?p=294, The Beat, Publishers' Weekly's blog written by Heidi McDonald co-editor at PW's comics week http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/01/29/web-cartoonists-choice-awards-noms/, The comics reporter, written by former managing editor and executive editor of The Comics Journal Tom Spurgeon http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/your_2007_wcca_nominees/

Epameinondas 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question Is this really the right way to go about an AfD for the "year" articles? It doesn't look like the individual pages have AfD headers. -- Ben 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. This hasn't been handled as outlined here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VvV (talk • contribs) 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep These awards are sufficiently notable to be documented. Deletion arguments are weak. Merge the years in and leave redirects if desired. Brenny, you know better. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article. Sufficient notability has been demonstrated, and WP is not paper - there's no pressing need to come up with reasons to delete this. However, I'd say weak delete to the year articles, we don't really need to archive information available elsewhere, and they're strewn with red links which are unlikely to become (and stay) pages given the recent attitude for deleting webcomic articles. -- Mithent 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article, Delete yearly articles. Notability requirements have been filled, and the fact that there are criticisms over the award's organization does not in any way affect whether or not it should have an article. If someone wanted to delete the Oscars on the grounds that it's all politics, they'd be laughed off the site. - Zaron 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Main article is clearly notable, per arguments above; Neutral on year articles, but agree that they should be tagged. Willow 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The current procedural argument to establish notability is currently based on minimal foundations but these are solid enough to support the existence of an article. The argument against the NYT article supporting notability requires that the mention of the WCCA be trivial, that is, the NYT article would not be substantially changed or significantly reduced by the removal of references to the WCCA. My understanding is that it would be significantly changed in that one or more introductory paragraphs would be lost and the structure of the NYT article would be lost, reducing it to a series of isolated comments on a random and, to the read inexplicable, sampling of comics without any basis for asserting that they are in any way representative of web comics or to show that they have not been carefully selected by the NYT reporter to support her positions regarding web comics. I believe this argument shows that the WCCA were not a trivial part of the article and since there appears to be a consensus that the article as a whole was non-trivial it therefore follows that the mention of the WCCA was non-trivial.

I would not necessarily support keeping an ever expanding list of past winners and nominations. It is probably sufficient to list the past or current years nominations, the past winners of all awards and, for years beyond that, the winners of two or three 'headline' awards.--BoatThing 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason not to list all past winners, but I think giving a separate article for each year's awards is overkill. - Zaron 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. Looking over the vast number of categories given, it would be one hell of a mess to stuff it all into one panel. It might be best to keep the other articles. - Zaron 03:00, 21 February 2007 (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.