Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur Comics

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The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Comics

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

Absolutely no secondary sources that are valid. "Webcomics Review" does not appear to be an active site, and a Wayback search shows it to be just a Wordpress blog. Being mentioned on Cracked is not sufficient for reliability. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards have been determined in the past to be insufficient for notability. Being published in ‪Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists‬ is not sufficient, as most of the works in those books are redlinked as well. Being published in book form is not an assertation of notability for a webcomic.

In short, this is nothing but in-universe fancruft, sourced almost exclusively to the strip itself. A search on Google Books turned up only false positives, and Google News turned up only articles such as this, which merely reposted strips with quirky commentary on them. Hardly WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find any reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe trim down the in-universe details. This is a famous and innovative webcomic. JIP | Talk 06:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's notable doesn't make it so. How is it famous and innotative? Show, don't tell. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is notable, of that I have no doubt (it's fairly well known on the internet), the issue is finding sources to prove this.[1] is not the most reliable of sources, but is fairly in-depth. [2] is also quite in-depth, but is it a reliable source? [3], [4] are reviews on the book. [5] This is a first-look interview. I would definitely lean more to keep than to delete, but I'll leave these links for people to pick apart and decide if they save the article or not. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Detailed coverage in "Dinosaur Comics Collection" on Boing Boing, "In Depth: Ryan North" on Comic Book Resources, and "Web Comic Spotlight: 5/30/12: Dinosaur Comics" on Comic Vine. Paragraph long coverage in "10 Wicked Awesome Webcomics" on PC Magazine and "Five Webcomics You Can Share With Your Kids" on Wired. Minor mentions in Classics and Comics published by Oxford University Press, Comics, Manga, and Graphic Novels published by ABC-CLIO, Graphic Novels and Comics in Libraries and Archives published by McFarland & Company, "From doodles to Web star" on the Boston Globe, "Adventure Time comic writer Ryan North talks about his latest secret codes" on the Toronto Star, and others. The subject has received significant coverage by published secondary sources, and meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 11:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So add them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article with the Boing Boing, Comic Book Resources, Comic Vine, Wired and PC Magazine sources. The article meets WP:GNG.--xanchester (t) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources currently in this article (thanks to improvement after nomination) seem to meet WP:NOTE. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2012 (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.