Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to get rid of this article, but in light of the "support" !votes, and in the interest of preserving the work if future reliable sources show up, and per the obvious reason of this being a plausible search term, Redirect to Control-Alt-Delete. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+Alt+Del

[edit]
Ctrl+Alt+Del (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject with only primary sources. Little information exists to replace primary sources, excepting a meme spawned at the comic's expense. Dudewhiterussian (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ugen64 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please note that mention by or tangential connection to otherwise notable sources does not grant notability. We do not have articles for more well known in-house artists at various game studios when they create comics as part of ad campaigns. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very well known webcomic, sources appear to back that up. Artw (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Personal blogs don't count as sources, sorry. Ctrl-Alt-Delete hasn't really accomplished anything worth noting, even considering it's a webcomic and webcomics are by definition not notable. There's little you can say about Ctrl-Alt-Delete: it exists, it pumps out mediocre content on a regular basis and it has a readership of a few thousand. I can point you to any number of webcomics that meet those criteria and yet have also have no presence on Wikipedia. Just existing and doing things is not criteria for being on Wikipedia, otherwise I would have a 50,000 word article on myself. Not to mention that the article itself is either consistently vandalised by those who hate the webcomic, or consistently whitewashed. So what we have is an article that is either pointless, abusive, or fancruft. Doesn't seem worth it to me. --FuegoFish (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "webcomics are by definition not notable"? Powers T 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They never do anything of note. They start and they update. There's no news in that. Nobody writes articles, print or otherwise, about how a webcomic has continued to update after two long years of updating. Releasing print books of content is not notable, anyone can do it. Winning "webcomic awards" is not notable, because they are just pointless trinkets handed out by popular vote - and popularity isn't notability. I suggest you look at the long history of webcomic articles on Wikipedia and their habit of being deleted if you want to learn more. Less than 0.01% of all webcomics have a Wikipedia article, and even then not all of them actually even meet the requirements necessary for notability. That's how Wikipedia works, for good or bad, no exceptions. --FuegoFish (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, so are you saying that none of them are notable (as you imply in your first sentence and in your previous comment) or that most of them are not notable (as you imply by saying "not all of them actually even meet the requirements")? Powers T 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Typically, webcomics that manage to have articles are generally notable for reasons beyond them being a webcomic, like Penny Arcade's charity work and popular convention. The implication when I said "not all of them actually even meet the requirements" is that there are articles for webcomics here on Wikipedia that have been around for a long time without anybody actually noticing the subject isn't notable in any way. In any case, recently I have taken the opposite stance in a webcomic AfD discussion, arguing to keep a particular article. In that discussion, I was told (time and again) what was and was not grounds for an article, so it's been drilled into my head. That other webcomic has at least as many fans as this one, its article had at least as many independent sources as this one, and yet it was deleted for a lack of notability. I don't really see why this article should stick around when it also fails to meet the same criteria. I recommend taking a look at the notability guidelines for web content. --FuegoFish (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm quite familiar with the guidelines, and I assure you that there are several webcomics which meet them as webcomics, Penny Arcade among them. PA would have an article regardless of Child's Play and PAX (which have their own articles anyway). I believe CAD is among the group of webcomics that meet the guidelines, although I admit it's a borderline case. I don't know what this other webcomic was whose article was deleted, but I likely would have opposed deletion in that case as well. Powers T 13:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well nobody who voted and argued (at length) for that deletion seems to be interested in this particular one. Maybe it was less that it was a webcomic and more that it was a new article? Or maybe there's just cliques on Wikipedia when it comes to this sort of thing. I don't know. But I've learned a long time ago that when it comes to Wikipedia, you go with the flow, because there are people on here with more time and impatience than you - and they're the ones who make all the policies. --FuegoFish (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Primary sources abound. Kflester (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a general article on, or list of, webcomics; or weak delete if that helps meet a concensus. The only source coming close to satisfying notability guidelines (or verifiability, really), is the 1UP write-up. Other citations are either trivial, or not independent. Marasmusine (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe redirect I'm not really sure how notable this is, and then people keep mentioning the problems with sources. This would probably be better on a webcomics list as mentioned before. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In past AfD's I've believed this to be a non-notable webcomic. In the span of time since then, little has changed. This subject has not been reviewed or discussed by third parties (as far as the page suggests). I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here since we simply cannot include the work of just any freelance artist, be their work painting, scultpure, comic or otherwise. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, interesting. I agree that pages must meet verifiability (the ability to prove we know what we're talking about, vital to an open wiki) and notability (the ability to meet an arbitrary but popularly supported standard of worthiness, meant to keep the place maintainable (but which may be used to destroy unpleasant content rather than improve Wikipedia more often than not)). Other than those things, why can't we? --Kizor 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out here that in the past we have searched for sources, and following much discussion, have failed in finding any, apart from an unhealthy dose of primary sources. This article has seen much work done to it in an attempt to boost its validity, but there just aren't any particularly notable sources for it - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Will the closing admin please realize that 10#H's characterization is grossly flawed, at least in so far as it implies that all keep !votes follow the reasoning he specifies? My recommendation of keep, for example, is not based on that at all. Powers T 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel&oldid=1142183709"