Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards
- 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 delete.
While there was some lack of serious deabet, the nomination called into question the notability of the subject, which is a matter of sources and interpretation of those sources. Only two have been provided, which under any circumstances would only satisfy the most stretched-thin definition of "multiple."
Consideration of these sources shows that even this very-low baseline is not satisfied:
- The Times article can easily be read as demonstrating the lack of importance of the awards: They are mentioned in a "plucked from the air" manner and the critic refutes most of the awards. This is also one of over four thousand such "Critic's Notebook" entires. It's firmly established that items are not "non-trivial" merely by virtue of being in the times.
- The "Attack of the Show" episode is arguably a stronger source than the times article, but again it's a minor item in a minor show: They ran five-ish times a week at that stage, and this is only a minor episode in a minor show.
While it's clear there is vocal support for the inclusion of the web awards, the article was not well served by the perfunctory manner in which this debate was carried out. When it's "so obvious" that something is notable that stating so (and re-stating so) is the method of argumentation rather than than providing solid evidence, it's worth looking again at the assumptions being made.
There have not been made sufficient refutation to the claim that this is not notable (by providing multiple non-trivial sources).
brenneman 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not fits our standards for notability and verifiability: not mentioned in any reliable sources, but only in a few forums and blogs (in all, 298 google hits) bogdan 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep: AfD is not cleanup. If there is a sourcing issue then mark the page as such. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not able to find *any* reliable sources. bogdan 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely non-notable award. - Francis Tyers · 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you change the google search to WCCA webcomics, you find roughly 40,000 google hits relating to the award. The problem is that it's usually abbreviated to WCCA, but WCCA is also an abbreviation for many other things; google hits are next to useless in measuring the awards notability. That said, just about anybody involved with webcomics knows that the WCCA is notable. I'm searching for print media links establishing this now. Also, if you don't consider the Web Cartoonist Choic Awards to be notable, then what DO you consider to be a notable webcomic award?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- After five minutes of searching, I was able to find it referenced in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200&en=08e3777cc4943486&ei=5090&partner=geartest&emc=rss">This article</a> describing the advances of webcomics as a medium; it was used throughout the article as a way of firmly establishing what the best examples of a given feature were. That firmly establishes its credibility in my opinion. Also, if you google Webcomic Awards, it is quite literally the first hit. If it weren't notable as an award, I doubt that it would be the first hit for its primary purpose.
- Delete, fails WP:N as it has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Completely unsourced article, over half of which is labeled as unsourced "Controversy," also fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. A search at my library shows little in the way for the potential for decent sources. I only turned up the NYT article noted above and a brief mention in an article in The Record of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. -- Dragonfiend 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to the Ontario article? In conjunction with the NYT article, I would say that establishes notability. Given the extremely credible and notable reference in the NY Times, that sounds like a good reason for inclusion. As for your other complaints... How on EARTH can you claim WP:NPOV? It's very neutral, with the possible exception of the controversy section. And, in my opinion, the controversy section maintains a neutral tone as well. WP:OR isn't a problem, here; it doesn't make any interpretations in the main section, merely reporting the facts (thus fulfilling the stringent guidelines of primary source work). The controversy section probably constitutes original research, but when it's a subsection of an article, the procedure is to rewrite, not erase. WP:RS is fulfilled; it links to the main site as a primary source, and merely reports the facts, making no interpretations. Again, if the controversy section is the problem, rewrite, don't delete. As for WP:V, what more do you want? Once we include a link to the two news articles, that verifies both the contents of the page, and the notability of the page. To mention one other item as an aside, this award is currently being used to establish the notability of a large number of webcomics on this site. This is because the award is well-respected. A simple search of the webcomic community will reveal that just about everyone who deals with webcomics as a hobby pays attention to it, if only to gripe that it isn't fair. While I realize that this doesn't do much for this debate, it does indicate that it is notable; something with this much attention must have attracted more print sources then a pair of newspaper articles. I found a large number of podcasts referencing the WCCA; is there a policy that would allow those as sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.202 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The Record article only briefly mentioned the award in a profile of a local artist. It's not an article about the award by any stretch. Here on EARTH, my NPOV concerns stem from an article based on things like "Controversy over the procedure" " Common claims" "the awards are said" "It has therefore been argued" etc with no sources. Clearly these arguments and controversies involve somebody's point of view, but they don't seem to be points of view based on reputable sources. What do these arguments and controversies represent? Disagreements on a message board somewhere? Wikipedia is not the place for such things. -- Dragonfiend 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I had rewritten the article to remove the uncited controversy section, but the article has since been reverted. That said, the answer to fixing the NPOV concerns, not deleting the article, especially since it is only applicable to a subsection, not the article as a whole. Sorry for the WI:CIVIL violation, I'm just somewhat shocked that this is up for deletion.
- The Record article only briefly mentioned the award in a profile of a local artist. It's not an article about the award by any stretch. Here on EARTH, my NPOV concerns stem from an article based on things like "Controversy over the procedure" " Common claims" "the awards are said" "It has therefore been argued" etc with no sources. Clearly these arguments and controversies involve somebody's point of view, but they don't seem to be points of view based on reputable sources. What do these arguments and controversies represent? Disagreements on a message board somewhere? Wikipedia is not the place for such things. -- Dragonfiend 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to the Ontario article? In conjunction with the NYT article, I would say that establishes notability. Given the extremely credible and notable reference in the NY Times, that sounds like a good reason for inclusion. As for your other complaints... How on EARTH can you claim WP:NPOV? It's very neutral, with the possible exception of the controversy section. And, in my opinion, the controversy section maintains a neutral tone as well. WP:OR isn't a problem, here; it doesn't make any interpretations in the main section, merely reporting the facts (thus fulfilling the stringent guidelines of primary source work). The controversy section probably constitutes original research, but when it's a subsection of an article, the procedure is to rewrite, not erase. WP:RS is fulfilled; it links to the main site as a primary source, and merely reports the facts, making no interpretations. Again, if the controversy section is the problem, rewrite, don't delete. As for WP:V, what more do you want? Once we include a link to the two news articles, that verifies both the contents of the page, and the notability of the page. To mention one other item as an aside, this award is currently being used to establish the notability of a large number of webcomics on this site. This is because the award is well-respected. A simple search of the webcomic community will reveal that just about everyone who deals with webcomics as a hobby pays attention to it, if only to gripe that it isn't fair. While I realize that this doesn't do much for this debate, it does indicate that it is notable; something with this much attention must have attracted more print sources then a pair of newspaper articles. I found a large number of podcasts referencing the WCCA; is there a policy that would allow those as sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.202 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. In general, fans of webcomics seem to think that their realm of interest lies outside the Wikipedia guidelines that everyone else in the world must follow. It doesn't. - Shaundakulbara 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I just rewrote the article to add sources and remove unverified information. There is no conflict with policy in its new form, and the article will be useful with the many AFDs that reference this award. Another source will be added once the article Dragonfiend referenced is found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.202 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- According to the talk page, the WCCA was also featured on G4 TechTV's Attack of the Show. Does anybody know where to find that?
- Keep. It's one of the major awards in the webcomics world, and there's sourcing to indicate that. --Carnildo 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The newly added NYT and G4 sources help establish notability (although it is borderline), and the POV/OR problems look fixed now. -SpuriousQ 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because the NY Times and AOTS coverage establishes notability; the article is not terribly well written and would benefit from more references, but I don’t currently see any problems that cannot reasonably be fixed. —xyzzyn 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability was a bit sketchy there for a bit, but the fact that Attack of the Show had almost an entire episode dedicated to the awards results would seem to confirm notability to a high degree of certainty. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about that. I'd think that 6-year-old annual awards would generate much more than 2 decent sources if it were all that important. -- Dragonfiend 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is an award for something that is exclusively online... The only people who would care about it all have internet access, and read about it from internet sources that have reported the results. I really can't imagine it being printed in an offline source, in the same way that I can't imagine ANY webcomic award being printed in an offline source. That said, I'm also a bit surprised that there are only two offline mentions of it. Then again, I guess two are all that are needed under Wikipedia guidelines.129.138.44.202 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)girl from before[reply]
- Indeed. As has been observed repeatedly, this subject - by and large - abhors mainstream media attention. Offline mentions aren't that much of an indication of notability, and anyway the content criteria have been met. --Kizor 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is an award for something that is exclusively online... The only people who would care about it all have internet access, and read about it from internet sources that have reported the results. I really can't imagine it being printed in an offline source, in the same way that I can't imagine ANY webcomic award being printed in an offline source. That said, I'm also a bit surprised that there are only two offline mentions of it. Then again, I guess two are all that are needed under Wikipedia guidelines.129.138.44.202 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)girl from before[reply]
- I don't know about that. I'd think that 6-year-old annual awards would generate much more than 2 decent sources if it were all that important. -- Dragonfiend 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AfD is, as mentioned, not cleanup, and that issue is now moot. The subject is indirectly very important for our coverage of the field. Sourcing requirements have been met. --Kizor 23:24, 26 January 2007 (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.