Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. seems to fall between keep and no consensus, but the effect is the same. It is verifiable, and there's no consenus to delete Scott Mac 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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: 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]

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]
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]
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]
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.  Ravenswing  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.  Ravenswing  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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
You personally disagree with policy? That's a shame, but consensus is that newsblogs are reliable sources; this is not really the place to debate that. Fences&Windows 23:30, 21 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]
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]
  • 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]
  • Keep - while the sources aren't the strongest, it is enough to surpasses the notability threshold, even if just barely. Rami R 11:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just expanded the article with referenced material. There is enought reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:GNG. That is masked by the excessive use of content connected to the topic (press releases, material from the series, fan based websites). However, if you discount those content issues, you'll still see that there is enought reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should provide online links to the sources you cite if they're available. the Publisher's Weekly article you cited is most certainly yet another passing mention. We need reliable sources that tell us something more than the fact that ctrl+alt+del exists. --ScWizard (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added content that cited to other articles as well. As for the Publisher's Weekly article, it says "Ctrl+Alt+Del have big audiences and robust merchandising sales," which tells Wikipedia readers something more than the fact that ctrl+alt+del exists. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how many times are we going to have to have this debate? I know lots of people hate Ctrl-Alt-Del, but it's notable: it's been covered by enough sources to pass our inclusion guidelines. To say there are 'No reliable sources', as Radiant does above, is entirely fallacious. Some of the coverage is minor, yes, but there's more than enough in this article to demonstrate that this is a significant webcomic. As for specific claims of notability: it's very popular, makes enough money to support its creator, has been involved in collaborations with several notable videogames, has been adapted into an animated series, has been mentioned by multiple print sources... what more do people want? Robofish (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has a reasonable reception section, which allows us to treat this content neutrally, without it being advertising. This is a clear indication of having received attention from outside, reliable sources, which is the essence of notability. I don't read it, I didn't like it when I did look at it, but it is notable. Let go of your hate. Fences&Windows 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read every comment here as well as the whole article and its sources and do not see how this meets the notability standard of: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anyone who thinks it does meet this standard just needs to list the reliable sources that give this significant coverage, but they've failed to do so. Without such sources, this article is just a total mess. The reception section here is particularly a horrible mess of original research, neutral point of view violations, undue weight given to unreliable sources, and sweeping claims being sourced to single, self-published sources. For example, the statement "Ctrl+Alt+Del has seen its popularity decrease throughout the years and has not won or been nominated for a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award since 2005" is sourced to just a single self-published "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" site which makes no mention of a loss in readership, no mention that their awards stopped having a video game comics category, and no mention that the awards have apparently ceased to exist at all years ago. But hey, no reason we can't cherry-pick self-published information and use original research and unsourced statements to say negative things about living people, eh? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You read this article cited in the Wikipedia article and concluded that it is not significant coverage within one reliable source? As for the rest of your comments, there's no reason we can't cherry-pick information from the article and use original opinion and unsourced statements to say negative things about the article, eh? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't share your misunderstanding where I think our notability standard is "significant coverage within one reliable source," as you've put it. I have a clear understanding that Wikipedia:Notability says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and a clear understanding that the plural "sources" means "multiple" which is greater than your potential "one reliable source." Again, anyone who thinks this topic does meet the notability standard just needs to list the multiple reliable sources that give this significant coverage. A simple "Here's significant coverage in reliable source A, significant coverage in reliable source B, significant coverage in reliable source C, etc." is all that's necessary. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first I've heard of the Manila Times article. That's certainly non trivial coverage from a published reliable source. --ScWizard (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this Lincoln Journal Star article and this Manila Times article are enough to establish notability. People will continue to push their POV using unreliable internet sources, but that's a separate problem. --ScWizard (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For all of the reasons and all of the sources that everyone has already mentioned. It may not have the sheer volume of reputable sources that, say, The New Yorker has, but what Webcomic does? I can't help but feel that there is a certain sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, both here and in the article talk section. Also, I think that the sheer amount of time spent by people arguing about CAD, defending CAD, and attacking CAD, both here and elsewhere, makes its own subtle arguement for the webcomic's notability. Also, not to beat a dead horse, but aren't we kind of beating a dead horse here? How many times has this article met, and surmounted, arguments about its notability? At some point, doesn't this just become a forum for people to say they don't like the article, and don't want it in Wikipedia?--Vercingetorix08 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. > 2 indep. sources. i.e. fulfils WP:GNG. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does it have the same level and breadth of sources that a GA/FA has? No. Does it have more sources and demonstrated notability than several stubs here? Yes. The fact that you can point at Penny Arcade,Something Positive,Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, General Protection Fault as comics in the similar vein and progressing very similarly proves that we have taken on other articles that were in the same niche. (Yes I know I'm walking over the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but it does make a point). The fact that they've garnered enough notability to be parodied/featured in the other strips demonstrates their notability (at least in the community). Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. I was going to close this "no consensus" as there is some doubt about whether or not some of the coverage mentioned is "significant" and I have my own doubts but the Manilla times article is "significant coverage" and the coverage in "A History of Webcomics" (dead tree) is likely significant. That's 2 and 2 is "multiple". Of course more would be better but I think those 2 along with the "maybes" mentioned just slightly pushes it above the bar. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2011 (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_(webcomic)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140140424"