Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy in Love (comic)

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 delete. Sango 123 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy in Love (comic)

Delete, this unverifiable vanity article on a less-than-one-month-old non-notable minor webcomic. The article is unverifiable per our official content policies as it has no credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It does not meet the WP:WEB notability guideline as it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, has won no well-known and independent awards, and its publisher (Keenspot) is not both well-known and independent of the creators. The article seems to have been created by one of the webcomic's authors and edited by another Keenspot cartoonist. So, that's the trifecta of unveriifiable, non-notable vanity. -- Dragonfiend 00:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I reject your assertion that Keenspot is not both well-known and independent of the creators. However, vanity does appear to be an issue and it has only been around a month, so I'm not going to suggest keeping it, either. In any case, it does have a version at Comixpedia: Crazy in Love. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure if Keenspot is independent (I've seen it refered to many times, perhaps incorrectly, as a "collective," implying shared control by its artists); however, I believe that while it may be "well-known" to you and I it is not "well-known" in any sort of general sense. -- Dragonfiend 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable webcomic. It's only been around for a month (well, not even that). --Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why would something that has been around less than a month need an article? — NM Chico24 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per well-reasoned nom. --MCB 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the very good nom. Too new to warrent inclusion. rootology 08:16, 30 July 2006 (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.