Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night Zero

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 keep. (non-admin closure) --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 01:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night Zero

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am not finding any reliable sources online that discuss this webcomic. I am only finding various sales listings when Googling this work. No reliable sources are cited on the page, just a few podcasts. The only source I have been able to find is this mention in Flavorwire. I do not believe this article meets the general notability guidelines. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I identified the following independent citations that discussion Night Zero:

Article from The Daily of the University of Washington from 2008 – gives plenty of detail about the comic's premise, creation, creators, and method of production.
Podcast episode from "The Webcomic Beacon" from 2008 - interview with the creators. I haven't listened to this through; the podcast itself may not be a reliable source.
Article in The Stranger from 2009 – Article is entirely about Night Zero, describing a party for its first book release and giving a review of the comic.
Article in The Stranger from 2010 – Article is about another launch party for the book. Does not discuss the comic itself in any detail.
Blog post on Pixelated Geek from 2009 – Presents a photoshoot by the Night Zero team doing Left 4 Dead fanart. Also says it has an interview with them, but I couldn't get it to load. Pixelated Geek is a for-profit blog - I don't know enough about it to comment on its reliability.
Article in Seattle Post-Intelligencer from 2009 – Brief article that sets out the core facts about the comic. Seattle PI is a reliable source (and I think that blogs it hosts are reliable too due to some editorial oversight).
Video from Wayne Wolfe of Triplebeard.com from 2011 – I haven't watched this; doubt it is a reliable source.
Article on Flavorwire from 2012 – gives a brief summary of Night Zero in an article on photocomics.

While not the strongest, I think that there is multiple independent, reliable sources (namely 1, 3, 4, and 6 from The Daily, The Stranger, and Seattle PI), which together provide the basic facts about the subject.

Of course, the article needs substantial rewriting. Lots of the material isn't sourced, reads like an ad, or is overly detailed. But if we keep it, I'll work on it to clean that up. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington University paper article looks good, the The Stranger articles look good, and the Flavorwire listicle looks good. I think the Seattle Post-Intelligencer post is a blog post. The video, podcast, and other blog post are definitely not reliable sources. I still think it's weak, but I suppose I would !vote more along the lines of "neutral" now. I don't think this is enough sources to really work with. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since multiple sources are listed above to satisfy GNG and show that at least two WP:NEXIST, regardless of article sourcing. WP:PRIMARY sources are acceptable to WP:VERIFY content as long as there's no interpretation happening. If any content is not verifiable, it can be removed to improve the article without deleting it. -2pou (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (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.