Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misfile

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 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misfile

Misfile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Comic doesn't assert notability that would qualify under WP:WEB. While it has a number of books published, Amazon doesn't carry them. Brad Beattie (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Ronbo76 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This article meets WP:WEB Criteria #3 in that its "content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" as a paperback book available at this URL: lulu.com web bookstore. Additionally, a Yahoo websearch yielded three notable independent neutral third-party citations and or a source that have been incorporated into the article via citations, a source and reference citation. I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics but speak without conflict of interest (WP:COI) because I have nominated AfD and support debate on the AfD. Ronbo76 01:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think I agree with you regarding the Lulu.com bookstore; It's certainly the strongest lead to notability here. However, the third-party citations you added to the article aren't really that strong. The Comixpedia reference was based off of the Wikipedia article and the Web Comics List is more of an entry in a directory than anything else. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • None of these can be considered reliable sources. Comixpedia is a Wikipedia mirror. The Web Comics List is an inclusive directory that lacks the inclusion standards of Wikipedia and has been rejected as a source in past Webcomics AFDs. And Lulu.com is a print on demand publisher, which means the books there are not an "independent third-party" publications. Serpent's Choice 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics maintains its review and deletion of webcomics and other Comic related articles [[1]]. Recommend - This and all other AfDs be referred to them as they would be the experts on the matter. Ronbo76 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The Comixpedia wiki is definitely not a Wikipedia mirror. That said, it's still a wiki, so I removed the source. We've lost good articles before to poor arguments giving deletionists more fuel. --Kizor 07:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have to agree with Ronbo, the comic seems notable enough and the article is well written.Ganfon 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article per Ronbo. Bigtop 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom and Dhartung. I do agree the Alexa traffic rank that it does not count Lulu. It's non-notable, so I change my vote to delete. Bigtop 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless other sources are forthcoming. A print-on-demand publisher is not an indicator of notability. bikeable (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa traffic rank past 28,000. And lulu does not count. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lulu.com is essentially a print on demand website, meaning that books produced by it cannot be included as a third party distributor. Comixpedia is a wiki and therefor unusable as a reference and The Webcomic List is free to join and not necessarily third party. I'd consider keeping if better sourcing is available. Cheers, Lankybugger 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Bwithh 07:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that many other webcomics with articles are less notable than Misfile, and these are not listed as AfD. It seems as though Misfile has been singled out for no apparent reason.86.3.139.101 14:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Comment Fair points made. I think maybe the notability definitions for webcomics should be carefully reconsidered (although this is not the place to discuss that) - due to the media of webcomics, book sales are often low and thus do not attract publishers except in the case of very popular webcomics, and there are far fewer awards and notable reviewer/commentators of webcomics as compared with print comics. Perhaps the total readership of comic, or the professional status of the artist/writer should also be considered? 86.3.139.101 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — Terrible argument. A is bad, so B should be bad. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This argument has been used before in other AFDs. How would we sort all the comics by notability to ensure that we nominate the least notable first? Considering that such a task would be impossible, it's best to just look at what we have and see what meets our criteria and what doesn't. --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment and Brad will eventually get to AfD the even less notable ones in due course! ;) --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sure he will, Steve. I'm sure he will. --Kizor 17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yours is a common objection -- "that's in here, why not this?" The answer is that Wikipedia is big, and the AFD attention window is small, and something like a spotlight. Inclusion is not notability, because another article you find may also in fact violate guidelines. Since policies and guidelines have gotten stricter over time (and because "no consensus" defaults to "keep"), it is also possible that an article previously "passed" AFD but would not pass today. Ultimately, webcomics are all struggling uphill against WP:V and WP:RS and really should be exceptionally notable in the webcomic world to have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Which will largely obliterate our coverage of webcomics and destroy Wikipedia's use as a reference work in the field, not to mention its coverage of an art form. --Kizor 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: self-published books are not an indication of notability. And by the way, there have been nominated (and deleted) a whole bunch of webcomics over the last few months, this one is definitely not being singled out... Fram 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, NN per above, and self-publishing doesn't count per above too --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lulu counts as a 'vanity publisher', thus invalidating its only claim to fame. --InShaneee 17:02, 13 January 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.