- 1/0 (web comic) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I disagree with the no-consensus close here. The AFD was initially closed as delete, but changed to no consensus. However, an examination of !vote-by-!vote shows:
- One "keep" that says "Well, I think the Web Cartoonists Award is notable."
- One "Delete" that's a WP:JNN.
- One "keep" that says "sometimes WCCA is notable enough" but gives no proof.
- A "delete" with a reasonably well-written rationale based in policy.
- A WP:JUSTAVOTE later amended to include a Waybacked link to a non-notable review and an interview from a notable interviewer — though the interviewer is notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED as we all know.
- An WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote.
- A "delete" with another reasonably well-written rationale based in policy.
As I pointed out in the original AFD, there are no fewer than three AFDs that show a strong precedent for the WCCA not being a notable award to confer notability per WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lackadaisy (3rd nomination)). There was also a discussion at the notability criteria for websites that amounted to "WCCA isn't notable".
I see no solid arguments from those who called for a "keep" in this AFD — they basically amounted to personal opinion and WP:ITSNOTABLE. The only "keep" !vote that tried to make an actual argument failed, by showing two unacceptable sources that don't help the article one iota. Given the complete lack of substance to most of the "keep"s, I believe that this should've been closed as delete or at least relisted a second time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Waybacked link is to a review in The Webcomics Examiner. Does it constitute a significant, reliable source? It's editor-in-chief was Joe Zabel, who is pretty conclusively notable. Notability isn't inherited, to be sure, but is an online publication edited by a fairly important figure in the field a valid source even if there's not enough third-party discussion of that publication for it itself to be notable? The second link was to an interview, published in ComixTalk. ComixTalk is the rebranded successor to Comixpedia. There appears to be some editorial oversight, but in general, it hasn't been thought of well as a source. On the other hand, the interviewer, Shaenon K. Garrity, is unquestionably influential in the field. With a unknown or lesser-known interviewer, that would clearly be discounted; with Garrity as interviewer and a slightly more prestigious publisher, that would certainly be the sort of things we'd want to cite. On which side of our standards does this split the difference? I'm inclined to favor the sourcing and endorse the no consensus close, but I wouldn't oppose a relist if others believe more community input on the value of those sources would be preferable. As an aside to TenPoundHammer, sorry about the process wonkery in objecting to the rapid relist ... and then suggesting a relist. I'd take a trout slap, but, really, trout is tasty, and those otters would hate to see a fish wasted like that. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - If this were an AfD, I would probably say that WP:WEB was met due to being nominated for the WCCA three times, as pointed out by Hobit. However, because a no consensus procedurally means a keep in an AfD (in most cases), I see no reason to relist to get that result. One delete vote, by the IP, is a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT and there are one or two comments that do quote policy on deleting, and another quoting sources from the Wayback Machine for a keep. Thus, no consensus. CycloneGU (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I'm not keen on the additional criteria and most are clear they are secondary criteria and not a replacement for the primary requirement for non-trivial coverage etc. So in general I'd think these type of things wouldn't be here, however the close wasn't totally unreasonable and is indicative of something on the borderline, which could fall either way depending on time of year and prevailing wind. Getting a stronger consensus elsewhere about the status of those awards re notabilty would followed by a renom (if relevant) would seem a better way to deal with this. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as "no consensus." The problem here is that there really isn't a broad consensus on the question of whether receiving the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award (or, in this case, being nominated for it multiple times) confers notability. Yes, the consensus in three previous AfDs was that the award was insufficient as an indicator of notability. But there was no such consensus in this AfD. This discussion and this discussion, like the debate we're currently reviewing, saw multiple experienced editors opining that the award confers notability. The WT:WEB discussion linked to in the nomination was brief and involved very few users, and it does not represent a binding, broad consensus. TenPoundHammer's dismissal of two votes in this AfD as "personal opinions" ignores the fact that reasonable minds can disagree on this subject, and every consensus about the WCCA that has occurred thus far has been local and arbitrary (based on who showed up). I don't see any consensus on the sourcing question either; in fact, there's no real discussion of their worthiness. No one asserting the general notability guideline wasn't met addressed these sources specifically, and even TPH did not explicitly repudiate those sources until he opened this DRV. This is problematic because, per Serpent's Choice above, there is certainly a case to be made for considering these sources significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. All things considered, "no consensus" was clearly the right close here; if Sandstein had not reversed his original close, I expect that I would have favored overturning the deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse What's there to say? "No consensus" should be used in this manner (multiple arguments on both sides, no clear upper hand) far more often than it is. Far too often, nose-counting, with or without vote-discounting, is substituted for a generally obviousness that the community is divided on something. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
