Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerkcity

Jerkcity

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of wikipedia
• Delete because this way Brad will finally get to be hall monitor. Xihr 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Jerkcity 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails swedish meatball test. Quatloo 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - even I've heard of this, and I hardly read web comics. Richard W.M. Jones 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - long standing notable web comic Gid0ze 19:31:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If those asshats at User:Jerkcity want to delete it, then we should keep it. Galexander 19:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a no-brainer. Long-standing, well-known webcomic. -- Rynne 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy, it's a guideline made up by the "consensus" of a population of certain wiki editors who get some sort of weird thrill out of imposing their judgements on others. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no credible reason to delete entries based on notability... other than that wannabe administrators simply enjoy doing it. Ariochiv 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Right at the top of WP:WEB it says this. "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how the authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.". I'm pretty sure that means it's official. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

False. Policies are official. Guidelines are not. Quatloo 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete yes, I've heard of this, too, I think it's a wonderful comic, but we aren't building an encyclopedia of wonderful things we've heard of. No, this does not meet WP:WEB which is a guideline. It also doesn't meet our official WP:V policy "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It also doesn't meet our official policy that WP:NOT and internet guide, and articles about websites should "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." So, if we want to keep this article, find some verifiable info from reliable sources talking about the topic's significance. -- Dragonfiend 04:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nom Stormscape 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your accusation of bad-faith, malicious editing seems entirely unfounded. -- Dragonfiend 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep but if you decide to Delete, get rid of Penny Arcade too. --timecop 05:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- well-known webcomic. Also, I agree with Stormscape -- may be a bad faith nom. Haikupoet 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your accusation of bad-faith, malicious editing seems entirely unfounded. -- Dragonfiend 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah? Well, why aren't you assuming good faith on his assumption? That's what's great about guidelines, you can spin in circles all day defending both sides of any argument. Xihr
      • See your talk page.[1] -- Dragonfiend 06:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This nomination is honestly in good faith. I took a look at the article, the external links, etc and didn't see any claims of notability. Take a look at other highly notable webcomics; Megatokyo for example states in the first paragraph that it ranks among the most popular webcomics, and is the best selling original English-language manga. Jerkcity, on the other hand, makes no assertions of notability. That's why I nominated it. To clarify, I'm not saying all articles need to be as notable as Megatokyo, but they need to assert some form of notability. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So why not add a note stating that it should reference its notability, rather than starting a vote to delete the article entirely? Xihr 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I brought it to AFD as I honestly believe it comes close to WP:CSD#A7, which states that an article is subject to speedy deletion if it does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • If it comes close to it, then it isn't there, is it? So this is all just a waste of time. What else is new. Xihr 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this site doesn't meet WP:WEB, then our guidelines are failing, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生 07:09, 1 November 2006
• Delete - Non-notable. Notable things say that they are notable as per WP:NOT. Reccomend to "Jerkcity" author to assert notability in similar manner as "Megatokyo" author to achieve req'd notability level. SUNSHINE INCARNATE