Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:42, 19 February 2011

Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page of a non notable webcomic. ScWizard (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —ScWizard (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The previous AfD debate wasn't automatically linked because the name had changed. Here's the old (very inconclusive) debate: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. --ScWizard (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of evidence that the situation has significantly changed since the last debate less than a year ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep- there seems to be enough links in the article to show that it meets the WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counting links isn't a very good measure of notability. The vast majority of the links are to the comic itself. A lot of the so called "newspaper citations" are actually links to newspaper blogs. Here's an example: "Laser Orgy", one of many blogs affiliated with the Boston Pheonix (a local paper) --ScWizard (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has potential. For example, an obvious source is the book The History of WebComics but no-one has has cited it yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a real book pubished by a real publisher. If anyone can confirm that this book covers Ctrl Alt Del in some degree of detail (as opposed to a passing mention or not at all) then deleting this article should certainly be reconsidered. --ScWizard (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article hasn't improved on the issues that led to its deletion previously. It reads more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry, and it reads like this because it's just not notable enough to ever get past this --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jehorn (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder that the AfD process is not a vote. You may want to review this page: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes --ScWizard (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject matter is notable (albeit not for the right reasons), however a fair amount of content has been removed from the article before with regards to the criticisms of the comic itself. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly "infamous" in certain circles, but that's not the same as being notable. I know Penny Arcade's blog criticised it, but blogs (even "famous blogs") aren't considered "published sources" per the web notability guideline. --ScWizard (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG, no evidence this passes any notability criteria. As far as the Keep proponents go, could they express valid grounds supporting their POV? One says nothing at all. One says "seems like a real book published by a real publisher." If so, so what? Merely having a book published meets NO notability criteria. "The article has potential?" Err, no: either it meets the criteria or it does not, and defending a Keep vote on the grounds that there's a History of Webcomics book out there (with, I assume, the implication that this particular webcomic might be cited, without the slightest shred of evidence that it actually is) is farcical. "There seems to be enough links" to show that the subject passes the GNG? Has Umbralcorax actually looked at those links, or is the simple existence of hyperlinks now considered notable? Just seems like a bunch of people are mailing it in here. RGTraynor 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misinterpreting things. I'm the one that you're quoting as talking about the webcomic book, but I'm also the one who nominated this article for deletion. Now my opinion is that if something is covered in detail in a history book (one that's not self published) then it's notable. However the people in favor of keeping this article have not demonstrated yet that that is the case. If they successfully demonstrate this, then I might change my stance, but right now I'm (obviously) in favor of deletion. --ScWizard (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one to whom I referred in that mention was, as it happens, Col. Warden. RGTraynor 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books indicates that there is specific content about this topic on page 79 of that book; it's just not viewable online. I am not familiar with this topic but was able to turn up this reference within 30 seconds. The GNG is a guideline, not a hard policy, and is expected to be used in a common-sense way. Commonsense tells us that there's more to be done here and there seems to be no pressing reason to disrupt this improvement by deleting everything, contrary to our editing policy.

That "A History of Webcomics" book is horrible, even the author has said so, and shouldn't be used as a reliable source for anything. That said, even though the book has no index (!!!) and no page numbers even (!!!) I believe I've found the two sentences on the topic on page 79 and it is exceedingly trivial. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two mentions are probably as follows, found in the conclusion section (from earlier version at [1]): "Many of the most financially successful webcomics, including Sluggy Freelance, Goats, Penny Arcade, The Norm, Ctrl-Alt-Del and User Friendly, " and "When PVP began selling special advertisements that used its own characters to make commercial endorsements, Ctrl-Alt-Del and Something Positive quickly followed suit." See User:84user/Sandbox#Sourcing webcomics for my attempts at tracking down some of the parts. -84user (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound like passing mentions to me, certainly not enough to establish notability. I don't see any way the information in the book could improve this article in a substantial way. --ScWizard (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like there is plenty of coverage. Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has fairly wide coverage, has potential if article can be developed. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:42pm • 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as news coverage goes I see the article in the Phoenix and then the book mentioned above and five sources without links: (Lincoln Journal Star, Chicago Tribune, Knoxville News-Sentinel, Jersey Journal, and Chronicle Herald). Does anyone know if these merely contain a mention of the strip or if they contain a detailed look at it? Qrsdogg (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to reiterate that the so call "article" in The Boston Phoenix is in fact a blog post. As for the other articles, I'm going to try and look over them now. I'll let you know what I find. --ScWizard (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the sun tribune article is a short piece that merely gives a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site which is a "trivial mention" according to WP:WEB.

The Lincoln Journal Star article is unquestionably nontrivial coverage.

The Knoxsville Sentinel piece is trivial coverage in what might not even be a real article.

I wasn't able to locate the The Jersey Journal article, but the article title is "Giving advice" so it sounds like the article is not primarily about the webcomic.

I was also unable to locate the The Chronicle Herald article, but the article title is "Very cool" so it sounds like the article is not primarily about the webcomic.

Will the Lincoln Journal Star article be enough? I don't think so. I don't think a single article in a local paper makes something notable, and WP:WEB agrees, calling for non trivial mentions in multiple published works. --ScWizard (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short Lincoln Journal Star piece doesn't even name the creator of this webcomic. It is trivial coverage of this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on the side of delete, but your definition of "trivial coverage" certainly seems to be different from the definition in WP:WEB. I really don't see how naming the author is a prerequisite for non trivial coverage. The article is several paragraphs long and solely focused on a phenomenon springing from this particular webcomic, I wouldn't call it "in depth" coverage, but calling it "trivial" is just ridiculous. --ScWizard (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my definition of trivial coverage I'm going by, but WP:WEB's and elsewhere. "Trivial coverage [is] a brief summary of the nature of the content," which is all that the Lincoln Journal Star piece has. Without even listing the author's name and the URL of the webcomic, this is pretty clearly on the side of trivial coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because to my mind the several trivial mentions in printed media add up to one non-trivial coverage, making two in total. Also, my quick Google Scholar search gave this as first result: http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_2/group/index.shtml . This is not referenced in the article, and has three admittedly short mentions, but that an academic paper used it must count for something, I feel. Also missing from article and here is a brief 2011 news source mention, it's easy to find so I leave it to others. -84user (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's an interesting interpretation which is, however, not supported by the guideline. RGTraynor 12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it is a guideline. My interpretation is partly supported by this other guideline under "Basic criteria". -84user (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I wrote the above without first looking at the article or its talk page, except to search for and confirm non-presence of the paper and the 2011 news source. In fact on 28 June 2010 I had posted Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)#Norwegian university thesis source that contained weak support for the claim the comic has a low ranking, and weak support for the description "nerdcore". I now find more support for the low ranking claim and long detailed coverage by Larry Cruz at The Webcomic Overlook: part 1 and part 2. -84user (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree that several trivial mentions add up to a non trivial mention. It being repeatedly printed that "Ctrl+Alt+Del is a webcomic by Tim Buckley, it's an example of a webcomic focused on video games" doesn't add any information that could be used to write a good encyclopedic article. That's why the quotes used in the actual article are from bloggers, for instance quoting video game "journalist" Ben_Croshaw (imo he's hilarious, but I've never considered him a journalist) and fellow webcomic creators. --ScWizard (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am asking the editor here if he recalls the coverage of the two print-only sources listed above. The full sources appear available if you pay: Document ID: 10C3B8F80146A130 here 315 words price USD 2.95, snippet ends after 86 words at "So far I have found two more", and here (search for Asad, Mariam in 2005-09-22 341 words price 4 U.S. dollars). I feel that a decision to delete should not be considered until the sources provided are more thoroughly examined. The fact that some sources are print-only should not be a hindrance whatsoever. -84user (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Jersey Journal" source is a single four sentence paragraph of trivial coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find the four sentences? Could you summarise what it said? The free snippet only gives me the first 86 out of 315 words. -84user (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my impression from how it was quoted, but I wasn't able to confirm it myself. Good sleuthing, thank you! --ScWizard (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has changed since previous delete outcome AfD, still no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, the bare minimum required to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to Sc for for digging those refs up, I had assumed they weren't available online since the ref didn't link to them. I've gone back and forth about this a few times and almost came down on the side of Keep. In the end I think the coverage of the webcomic in Reliable Sources qualifies as "trivial". I was going to say it should be kept because of the coverage in the Phoenix and the Journal-Star, (I am inclined to accept the Phoenix post as an RS per WP:NEWSBLOG) but it looks like those articles are really focused on the holiday that this strip spawned rather than the strip itself. The funny thing is I might have come down on the side of keep if the article was about "Winter-een-mas", but that's a debate for another day. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree with WP:NEWSBLOG. Citing op-eds is one thing, because to publish an op-ed you generally need to be a notable person, but newspaper blogs usually let any old journalist run their mouth. Now there are some exceptions such as the New York Times which has an some important bloggers, but is what Shaula Clark thinks of this webcomic really encyclopedic? --ScWizard (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed this case in particular, but I guess it is tricky to figure out who is an "important blogger" when it comes to webcomics. If someone wants to base the notability of an article off of "news blogs", I would think a discussion at WP:RS/N would be a good idea. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When it comes to the subject of "Media" items, WP:GNG has regularly been Ignored because the subject is well enough known that our coverage of it is expected even if reliable secondary coverage is lacking - this is particularly true when there is substantial coverage in a variety of sources such as Blogs, Forums, etc. As a result we have substantial numbers of episodes on articles of TV series or on Films that use only the episode or film it's self as a source similarly we have articles on Published comics that are well known and possibly even important in the history of comics but have not been covered by secondary sources (or if those sources exist they are not cited) examples include both Fred Basset and The Far Side. While I've never read it myself, Ctrl+Alt+Del is substantially well known webcomic and as one of the first to become well known it is notable (even if it doesn't fit our definition of notability) . Reading the first AfD many of the contents came across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and whilst this AfD is coming across at least on the grounds of Notability - In my mind Ctrl+Alt+Del meets critera 3 of the Web Content Notability in that it is syndicated by webzines with editorial checking (and possibly it's adaptation into other media e.g;animation independent of the comic's owner suggests further notability) but I think there should be a further look at the guidelines for Media Subjects on the whole in the way that we currently assess notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally I think that the expectation that wikipedia will cover stuff that's "famous on the internet" is part of the problem. You're right that there is a disconnect between the internet and the print media. For instance lets say there's a popular youtube video, bloggers will be all over it very quickly, but the print media will mention it much later if at all. The reason for this is that the print media operates far slower than that internet so they want to cover stuff that they believe will be relevant a day or even a week later. I think an intrinsic part of an encyclopedia is stability and covering each new internet craze is detrimental to that. --ScWizard (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, this comic isn't a "new internet craze". It has been a popular webcomic series for 8 years. There is definitely coverage out there. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue in a bit of a different way here-we do have a ton of articles about webcomics and memes from Homestar Runner to Techno Viking. The fact that there are so many articles in the Webcomics and Internet meme categories (many of which have survived AFD's) indicates to me that our notability guidelines aren't too harsh on internet stuff. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that Wikipedia:Notability_(web) also considers Web Content Notable if it is nominated for the same award in multiple years without winning which Ctrl+Alt+Del has been for the Web Cartoonists Choice awards in 2004 and 2005. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification 2004, search "Cont+Alt+Del" and 2005, read the comic

The weight (or lack thereof) of the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is an issue that effects not only this article, but also articles such as Elf Only Inn (currently deleted, nominated for deletion 5 times) --ScWizard (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(web) specifically requires "well-known and independent" awards. The "Web Cartoonists Choice Awards" is neither (it's run by webcartoonists and the lack of sources for it show it is little-known.) Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about these? [2][3][4] _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't look like published sources to me. --ScWizard (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They look like sources published by a Time Warner subsidiary; in a webzine with full editorial fact checking. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sentences about a non-scientific internet poll is not significant coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It's a good web series and it even collaborated with AdventureQuest Worlds one time. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment well I thought I had exhausted Google Scholar search, but I keep finding more. Yes they are probably minor coverage, but still (just one for now, there are more): Manhandling Joysticks & Pushing Buttons a thesis by Elizabeth Valentine - 2004 - eda.kent.ac.uk. Page 40, 2 comic struips to illustrate Valentine's thesis about differences between male and female gamers; Page 47: Image 7 comic strip; Pages 53 and 54: "(Images 32 and 33) shown overleaf, illustrate common misconceptions about gamers." -84user (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the most well-known gaming webcomics around. That being said, it's incredibly shit, but still highly notable. Kaysow (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment The History of WebComics has 6 different pages that mention this comic. It's also available in a library near my work but isn't open again until Monday morning. I have no details on the depth of coverage at this time.Hobit (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known gaming-related web-comic. There's a certain WP:IDONTLIKEIT surrounding it like most things that pioneered on the Internet, but as far as I'm concerned, the notability is established. May be it does not match every point of WP:NOTABILITY or WP:WEB, but it has received much coverage (but may be not in RS) and this -- to me -- is a case of IAR applied to notability guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources means no article; all sources that I've found are either trivial mentions, or self-promotion by the comic's author. That several people express liking the comic is no grounds for it getting a free pass against sourcing policy. >Radiant< 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 *'''comment''' The History of WebComics has 6 different pages that mention this comic.  It's also available in a library near my work but isn't open again until Monday morning. I have no details on the depth of coverage at this time.[[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. A well-known gaming-related web-comic. There's a certain [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] surrounding it like most things that pioneered on the Internet, but as far as I'm concerned, the notability is established. May be it does not match every point of [[WP:NOTABILITY]] or [[WP:WEB]], but it has received much coverage (but may be not in RS) and this -- to me -- is a case of IAR applied to notability guidelines. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:H3llkn0wz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:H3llkn0wz|TALK]]</small> 11:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. No reliable sources means no article; all sources that I've found are either trivial mentions, or self-promotion by the comic's author. That several people express [[WP:ILIKEIT|liking the comic]] is no grounds for it getting a free pass against sourcing policy. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)