Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalon (webcomic)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) No reason given by User:71.13.152.248, who should have been the nominator. --Kjoonlee 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am in fact 71.13.152.248, so any arguments that no reason was given by the original poster are invalid. Go find another strawman argument in order to excuse your dismissals. True.mcdohl 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly a straw man. You didn't provide a rationale when you nominated this, so it's perfectly legitimate for people to say the nomination was out of process. It was. Next time, please follow the instructions. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While 'I know the original author and he wants this article gone' isn't all that valid a reason; Mr. Phillips could get on Wikipedia himself and make his own case if he were so determined (and assuming this is taken responsibly, like it should, he just might eventually). So instead, consider this: this article contributes nothing toward Wikipedia in terms of actual encyclopedic material. I am of the mind that this article will NEVER be edited or expanded to the extent that it WOULD deserve recognition as a worthwhile article for Wiki. Given the topic of the article outright, deletion should be obvious - it's an eight-year-old internet comic with no notable history in the past five years, and the article does less to describe the comic than to describe what Josh Phillips hasn't done with it, which can just as easily go on a personal page for him (assuming THAT would even be relevant to Wikipedia). Larger and more notable webcomics, ones that have actually been popular in the here and now, aren't even being allowed to remain on Wiki, and an argument that Avalon has won WCCA awards in the past should be groundless, given that the WCAA article itself is up for deletion. At the very least, I am requesting that some consistency be shown across the board for webcomic deletion, especially given that this article deserves it more; this should not remain as a testament to nostalgia. I understand that this sort of thing isn't smiled upon here. True.mcdohl 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No reason given by original poster. --Kjoonlee 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If True.mcdohl is 71.13.152.248, then I'd urge him to improve the article himself, instead of trolling.[1] --Kjoonlee 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on... it's a webcomic... that's reason enough! No? (<-Joking) I didn't "get" what you said earlier. That's a nice bit of trolling there. -- Ben 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Firstly, the comic has won Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards twice. That alone is enough for me. Secondly, the reason that the original author wants it deleted is not valid given that multiple editors have contributed to the article over time. -- Black Falcon 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:WEB criteria number 2 (outside award). -- Ben 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. -- Ben 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) -- Ben 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: no rationale given for deletion. Multiple award winning comic. Nomination was most likely due to the comic's author recently posting in his LiveJournal that he considered it embarassing.[2] — Gwalla | Talk 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Nice find. -- Ben 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: No reason for deletion stated, has been published in print form. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere is there evidence of Avalon in print (indeed, a publishing attempt was made, but no ISBN was acquired and the resulting products were not of retail quality). Staedtler 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is this it? -- Ben 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; that was a premature book announcement made by Keenspot. It was created before any publication contract was ever signed (and none was); that book has never been published. The original publication in question was handled by a startup company called Maverick Camel. Staedtler 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strange. Thanks for the clarification. -- Ben 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure I've seen the print version. I don't unfortunately own it, so I can't back this up at the moment. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • D00d. I think Staedtler might have some info you might not have on this one... :) -- Ben 03:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment regarding the books: If anyone still has the book they purchased, I'd be surprised if it was still in one piece -- the binding was terrible, never mind the print quality. I have to admit the real evidence of this publication attempt is the stack of two dozen books on my shelf that I couldn't successfully repair. The initial sales run was cut short when the publishing quality was revealed, and I recall there was a significant number of customers who tried and failed to obtain refunds (it also says a lot that I, the book's author, could not get reliable info on sales and distribution). No ISBN was ever registered for the book, and it was only sold directly from the publisher, Maverick Camel, so I doubt any official record of the publication could ever be found -- hence my original comment that no evidence of the publication existed. Staedtler 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Follow the precedent of Starslip Crisis. It too has won Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, and has been published in print, and yet is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Any arguments to keep Avalon's entry based on those two criteria are invalid. Staedtler 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the AFD that was hijacked by a bunch of sockpuppets? Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I can't speak for the reason for consensus to delete despite established sockpuppetry. Staedtler 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Starslip Crisis' deletion was reopened and the deletion passed the second time around. Staedtler 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. Looks to me like most votes were to keep, and the result was a merge with Blank Label Comics, which is not at all the same thing. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems to have been redirected to Blank Label, not merged (and without any explanation by the closing admin, grr). At best, then, Avalon (webcomic) should redirect to Keenspot, I take it? (Also, AfDs are discussions, not votes — quantity is irrelevant) Staedtler 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of the merits of the nomination, I see nothing in the article to suggest this has any non-trivial, independent third party sources, let alone any suggesting importance. --Dragonfiend 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The comic is notable as one of several that contributed to the rise and popularization of the webcomic. It won awards, and was incredibly popular in its day. And considering how many porn stars, b-grade films, X-men characters, trivial "historical" events and personages, and slang-terms are included here and never considered for deletion, I think its ridiculous that THIS article of all the others would be singled out. -- Awakeandalive1 19:16, 21 February, 2007
  • Comment: You're going to need to find verifiable evidence to those claims of importance to back up your Keep. Staedtler 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Ben 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It doesn't deserve to be deleted" isn't a valid rationale for speedy keep. See WP:SK. I do think the nomination was out of process, however. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WCCA awards qualify the comic for notability per WP:WEB. Nomination apparently in bad faith per WP:POINT. Balancer 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Agreed. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:50, 23 February 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.