Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count Your Sheep
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Count Your Sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Literally every source in the article is the comic itself. I was unable to find any sources in a WP:BEFORE, and the article has been tagged for sources and notability since 2012. Prod contested as "not uncontroversial". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Other than the Webcomics Examiner review, I wasn't able to find any substantial secondary sources. That review is not enough to demonstrate notability. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete – The Webcomic Examiner review and WCCAs won are great, but those two are just not enough to write an article around. Maybe if I could've found one more source... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to have more to write with, but it's doable. (Wouldn't it be great if I put my money where my mouth is right away? Sadly post-COVID fatigue is kicking my ass and I'm a dunce at the best of times. --Kizor 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The Webcomic Examiner is considered a reliable source by the webcomics wikiproject's consensus, and the shipload of WCCA awards is perfectly adequate as an independent indication that the topic is of some distinction within its field, instead of being included indiscriminately - which is to say, to establish notability. --Kizor 04:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Several AFDs disagree with you on the WCCAs being a notable award. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen the three AfDs you've linked in other discussions to make that point. All of them were decided on the basis of not having reliable sourcing to write with, not on the basis of the WCCAs' notability. You say there's consensus that they aren't notable, but the only one of those three that discusses the WCCAs' status in any detail shows nothing of the sort, and looking at the current raft of webcomic AfDs I see more support for their notability than opposition. I've also seen you argue that the WCCAs can't have been big if they were only awarded for seven years, and I disagree: seven years during the Internet's formative period is an eternity. I stand by what I said. --Kizor 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Besides which, you're in said detailed discussion arguing that WCCAs ≠ notability if no other sources exist, which isn't the case here. --Kizor 05:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen the three AfDs you've linked in other discussions to make that point. All of them were decided on the basis of not having reliable sourcing to write with, not on the basis of the WCCAs' notability. You say there's consensus that they aren't notable, but the only one of those three that discusses the WCCAs' status in any detail shows nothing of the sort, and looking at the current raft of webcomic AfDs I see more support for their notability than opposition. I've also seen you argue that the WCCAs can't have been big if they were only awarded for seven years, and I disagree: seven years during the Internet's formative period is an eternity. I stand by what I said. --Kizor 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Several AFDs disagree with you on the WCCAs being a notable award. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- Delete, even if there was a consensus that webcomics examiner is reliable, still WP:ONESOURCE. QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)