Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur

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. Shimeru 05:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur

Furry comic published by what looks like a non-notable publisher, and has indeed been tagged as not asserting notability for a few months now. Doesn't cite sources, may as well be OR. Delete, per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N-K@ngi e ^meep! 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is nothing more than a summary of a comic with no assertion of WP:N, no reliable sources to satisfy WP:ATT. No reason to have this article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Only 71 Google hits [1], almost all of them from the Wiki article and its mirrors, Wood's own website and a handful of commercial hawking sites. Even by the standards of the furry community this is scarcely a blip. RGTraynor 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Desperately needs dates of publication, & I think a different tone. I am not that concerned with presence of this page, specifically. I am however horrified to realise that Teri Sue Wood does not have a page either here or on WikiFur. I'll have to fix that. Ventifax 06:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've actually heard of this one. And Google hits are a *very* poor way to discover notability of something primarily published during pre-WWW years. Ken Arromdee 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. For instance, my own most recent publication credit (I've done a number of RPG books) was in 1991, well before the Web, and a directed search for my surname and that particular publisher alone turns up 580 hits [2]. I certainly don't claim to be a notable author under WP:BIO. Heck, let's not even go with major underground comix/strips like Cheech Wizard (which turns up 170,000 hits, thirty years after the creator's death) or the Freaks (43,000 hits, 15 years after the last issue). I remember an obscure one called Insect Fear that was published sporadically in the 1970s, and it has 1500 hits. RGTraynor 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [3][reply]

Anecdotal evidence that doesn't change the point. Google is a poor measure of anything. Ventifax 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly it is a sound measure of relative notability in this case, but if you've reliable, published sources (as WP:ATT, after all, requires) for the subject's notability, we'd all be glad to see them. RGTraynor 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the attribution policy. Also fails to prove notability with reliable sources per nom. NeoFreak 06:59, 3 April 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.