Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburban Jungle (2nd 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 delete. Neither the amount of Google hits nor a passing review on a blog satisfy the requirements of our policies on notability. The award nomination is a indication of importance but as Dahn correctly points out, the guideline explicitly requires multiple nominations. So Why 07:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburban Jungle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance"

This article contains no content other than a description of the web site and its content, the bulk of the article is plot detail free of any commentary or critical context. It has been tagged as lacking references for since August 2007 (over 2 years) and I have not been able to find anything from independent reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Having received significant coverage from independent reliable sources is the criterion given for a stand-alone article by the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for web content states that "primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability". Guest9999 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a five-year-old article that represents the works of tens of editors about a webcomic that publishes regularly, has been collected on paper by Plan 9, and is still active. googling the name of the comic and the word webcomic garners over 15,000 hits. the name and 'comic' gets 3,960,000 google hits. It clearly has a following. It's true, standard media don't review webcomics. Even fans usually just post about them in lists of good webcomics. The self-styled WebComicCritic says of Suburban Jungle, "How a furry comic is meant to work." (April 9, 2009).
- WebComicCritic is a blog and it doesn't even give a full review of the comic, the short passing quote you give is the sum of the coverage. Having fans post about them in forums or their personal websites a) could not be included in the article and b) is in no way an indicator of notability. I get just over 9000 Google hits for your suggested search but they boil down to exactly 141 on the default stetting which omits repeat results. From those pages I can find official websites, blogs, wikis, forums, other webcomics and webcomic directories but nothing even approaching a reliable source. The books appear to have received no more coverage than the comic - i.e. none - and so do not meet any of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Guest9999 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's age and how many people worked on it are irrelevant; policy needs to be followed if it is to mean anything. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All it really means is that Wikipedia loses another topic. If Wikipedia wants to throw away good copy, we're glad to transwiki the article to WikiFur and work on it there. GreenReaper (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Under WP:WEB is The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization... Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. This webcomic was nominated for The Ursa Major Awards, 2004. Chip Unicorn (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Erm, it was nominated once for an award. The requirement you cited, as you cited it, says that it should have done one of the following: a) win; b) be nominated several times, in succession. Dahn (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unsourcable, going nowhere. Dahn (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2009 (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.