Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (4th 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 Speedy keep - spurious renomination, expert close from last time and its DRV hasn't changed. Please don't do this again without a remarkably good reason for a change backed by someone who is actually willing to back up claims of expertise in the field - anything less would be merely querulous - David Gerard 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker

Notability not asserted, no reliable sources cited. bogdan 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability established. Naconkantari 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom ::mikm t 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO, does not satisfy WP:WEB. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Jayden54 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. I'm almost certain this has been deleted before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was kept before. Phil Sandifer 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and I agree with above, I think this has been here before, but possibly under a different title. As it stands, unsourced & does not satisfy WEB. SkierRMH 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think anyone looking at this AFD debate should take a look at the previous nominations where there was a lot of acrimony and part of what happened made its way up to the Arbitration Commitee. I myself was involved in the closing (and overturning) of one these debates. Whether or not this webcomic is notable is something I have no real opinion of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very large number of editors have had the opportunity to improve this article by providing evidence of notability during the four nominations for delete. No such evidence has been provided. DrKiernan 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This has survived deletion by overwhelming margins in the past, and it's all but a violation of WP:POINT to nominate it again. Since we're going for repetition, I'll repost the reason that 20 people voted keep last time: comic is on Dayfree Press, a notable webcomics syndicate of which almost every other strip has an article. As a result, [1] appears as a sponsored link from both Questionable Content and Daily Dinosaur Comics. Furthermore, the editor of Dayfree was named as one of the 25 notable webcomics people in Comixpedia for 2004, and used his interview there to mention Able and Baker as a hot strip. Since Dayfree membership is by application, its membership in the syndicate constittues a jdugment of quality and notability from a highly important source. I also ask whoever closes this debate to glance at User:Snowspinner/Webcomics - I believe I have qualifications that make me a particular expert on webcomics and their notability, which might be taken as relevent in determining consensus. Phil Sandifer 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, querulous re-re-re-nomination and !votes from people not knowledgeable in the field. Unless someone who can actually show (not just assert) any expertise in webcomics has a serious objection, I'll be closing this in 24 hours - David Gerard 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an internet guide, article is original research with no verifiable information from reputable sources, let alone any suggesting real importance, let alone enough to write an article from a neutral point of view. Comixpedia is the place for this type of original research. -- Dragonfiend 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out once again that the standard you are applying is not the standard intended or endorsed by any of our content policies. This is not OR by any useful definition - useful both in the sense of being useful to writing an encyclopedia and in the sense of actually being used by Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Sandifer. Notable webcomic and this is the 4th nomination (not quite a Harold Stassen AfD award contender, but getting there). --Oakshade 01:55, 5 January 2007 (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.