Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 and redirect to Blank Label Comics. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip Crisis

[edit]
Starslip Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB and other criteria under WikiProject: Webcomics. Alexa ranking search for "www.starslip.com" yields no traffic data whatsoever even though the site has been up for two years. Furthermore many other comics on the internet have been around for more than two years without attaining notability, let alone Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. The article also includes reference to the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, which has been found non-notable by Wikipedia editors. Salby 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As noted below, the reason your Alexa search yielded no traffic data is because you searched the WRONG URL. All of the "delete" motions below that yesman this original nomination are therefore flawed. --ItsWalky! 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, has not been covered in any news media or other non-article sources. I say this with some experience in web comics as a fan of Player Arcade. Incredulous 06:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.145.117 (talk • contribs).[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is clearly a notable webcomic as its critical accolades indicate. I could also point out that exact phrase search turns up 101,000 hits on Google - this is a strip that has been much talked about, especially for a strip only a couple years old - and also that this webcomic has published three "real" books to date. Salby has not even searched for the correct url. www.starslipcrisis.com has an Alexa rank of 88,460 if you care about Alexa ranks. Balancer 08:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if Alexa ranking is no longer an official criteria, two related web comics Evil Inc. and Ugly Hill are either up for deletion or have been deleted. The Starslip Crisis article is full of fancruft. Also the three "real" books are print-on-demand and can be produced by anyone instantly. Incredulous 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mild keep - and I'll point out that Evil Inc. was restored, and Ugly Hill may wind up being kept. I'll also point out that a Google search for the phrase, even after excluding wikipedia, comixpedia, wikiquote, lulu, nightsidepress, and starslipcrisis, still gets +92000 hits, with +250 of those being distinct (reviews, blog recommendations, awards, interviews with Straub, etc). Article definitely needs work, though. DS 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed. "We're trying to delete all these other webcomics, so it's okay to delete this one too" is a circular argument. If the deletion status of "related webcomics" is at all pertinent to this discussion, then the fact that Evil Inc. was restored and Ugly Hill is likely on its way to vindication should paint this affair in the opposite manner Incredulous suggests. --ItsWalky! 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Ugly Hill discussion is loaded of meatpuppetry after the author linked to the AfD, so I wouldn't look to vindication there. As for Evil Inc., there have been several AfDs put forth in good faith, which indicates an issue. In its defense, its author is a newspaper cartoonist and has been published, so there are non-author-generated secondary sources. LKeith30 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Ugly Hill discussion is doing quite well for the comic, both numbers-wise and argument-wise, even after discarding the meatpuppetry. The Evil Inc. article was brought back on DRV with overwhelming support after new, previously unknown sources surfaced. --Kizor 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That there have been several AfDs put for for Evil Inc. is not an indication of a problem; it's an indication of taking multiple bites at the apple until one comes up without a worm, and the article is deleted. This is in line with the general vendetta against webcomics around here. -- Jay Maynard 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it you didn't read what I wrote about starslipcrisis.com's Alexa rank of ~88,000? Or paid any attention to where the article itself links to a secondary source? Balancer 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Retracted, but 88,000 is not a particularly low rank, nor does the article uphold WP:N. Has Starslip Crisis been the focus of any secondary-source articles? Expewikist 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory search I did early dug up one article in a periodical focusing on Starslip Crisis.[1]Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: That one's focused on Blank Label, not Starslip Crisis itself, as is most not relating to winning a 2006 WCCA. Balancer 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc. aren't particularly useful for writing encyclopedia articles. What we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. Best I can find is a trivial mention in passing on Editor and Publisher's website (not their print edition) and a three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper that begins "To round out my list, I have to include the sci-fi humor strip 'Starslip Crisis' by my friend Kris Straub ..." I thought it might be worth merging a paragraph on this comic to Blank Label Comics, but can't find decent sources for that topic either. -- Dragonfiend 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:N's standards for such, the E&P article is not a "trivial" mention of the comic. E&P is also clearly an independent source with non-negligible circulation. I can also find another article, this one in a periodical about webcomics circulated regionally in Canada, in about five minutes of searching.[2]. And if I can find another article not mentioned in the wiki article under question that quickly, there are probably more non-trivial mentions out there, which is one of the reasons why we rely on secondary indications of notability, e.g., "website has won an award," which Starslip Crisis has. Balancer 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Notability, "'Non-triviality' is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." Being mentioned once in a three sentence-long "article" is not a depth of content -- it is trivial. --Dragonfiend 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, you do know that [3] is just the beginning of a longer article, the entirety of which is only available to registered users? —xyzzyn 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the "full article" at the library and found it is no longer than the non-subscriber brief preview on the E&P website. Or does your library somehow have a longer version? If you don't have access to a library, you may notice that E&P often runs such brief items. One way to tell a brief from a longer article from their web site is that the non-subscriber version of a brief will end with a complete sentence [4] [5] where as the preview to a longer article ends in mid-sentence or mid-word.[6] [7] [8] -- Dragonfiend 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for the article text yields this full version of the local newspaper article. [9] It's a passing mention, not a review or spotlight. Repromancer 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we're clear, Repromancer's link is to the trivial "three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper" on this comic. xyzzy_n and Balancer were talking about the trivial mention inside a three-sentence brief on E&P's website. Local newspaper: trivial 3-sentence paragraph in a larger column. E&P: Trivial mention inside 3-sentence brief. -- Dragonfiend 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research! E&P is available at one library in my town, but I would not have been able to get there before Monday. —xyzzyn 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then the interview with Straub in a [non-local] periodical magazine [10] primarily distributed in print form in Canada. And I'm pretty sure we can find more if we look seriously. Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a great reference for Blank Label Comics (so go ahead and put it in), but it only mentions Starslip Crisis twice and does not seem to discuss it at all. —xyzzyn 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume you're referring to the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards" as far as the website winning an award. Those awards were found NN despite even a television appearance and NY Times mention in an article about webcomics. [11] This article falls way below that. LKeith30 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the claim that the WCCA are not an indication of notability. The WCCA are the most prominent webcomic awards in existence, and thus an indication that a webcomic is notable as a webcomic. Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, but the WCCA article itself was deleted recently for failing to meet WP:N. That's the definition of non-notable (and another argument entirely!). If the article supporting a lesser article is deleted for being NN, how can the supported article use it as proof of notability? LKeith30 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three reasons. First, the reasons offered in the AFD for the WCCA being notable (i.e., mention in a New York Times article) are applicable to saying that winning the award is a notable. Second, WP:WEB suggests not that an award be "notable" by Wikipedia standards, but simply states that the award be "independent and well-known." Even if the Oscars were not notable in and of themselves by WP:N, i.e., if no newspapers or other print sources talked about them, the fact that a film had won an Oscar would be still an indication of a film being a notable film, since the Oscars are well-known and the judges are (I like to think, at least) not too closely tied to film producers. The WCCA seem able to qualify as well-known even if this fame does not translate into more than several secondary sources analyzing the WCCA. Third, the AFD for the WCCA appears likely to be appealed in the near future; it was carried against a 7-4 vote on the basis that non-trival mention in the New York Times was not an indication of notability. If it's not put up for deletion review within the next couple days, I'll stick my neck out and do so myself, because that's a questionable AFD if I've ever seen one, and I've watched some pretty hotly argued AFDs. Balancer 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the comic changed name from StarSHIFT Crisis and that name should also be checked when researching it. Also I thought Alexa had been discredited as a measure of popularity. Nice accusation of 'Poor Faith' that hasn't even been checked on the subject site, something that would be easy to do. Plus 'incitement against AfD' can be entirely in good faith and need not even be deliberate 'The Wikipedia entry for this comic is up for deletion, I don't understand why' is pretty much a precis of the initial reaction of most artists so far. Then they progress to annoyance when they look at how many other entries are being eliminated, together with one of the principle ways quality etc. is judged within the industry (the WCCA). Not that any artist action is needed at the moment as many Webcomic readers are on the lookout for yet another AfD related to a significant comic.--BoatThing 10:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alexa ranking is far below that of PvP, Megatokto, Ctrl-Alt-Del, PA, et centera. So, do you propose that we should delete all articles about webcomics that gather an audience of less than 20,000 readers per day (Starslip crisis gets around 10,000)? This would leave probably some thirty or fewer comics, plus maybe another dozen that would be included because of their historical significance. I do agree with the guidelines stating that every fact should be sourced and referenced correctly. I do agree that the article about Starslip Crisis fails these guidelines. But I don't agree that we should delete articles based on unverifiable claims of non-notability, when there's reasonable argument for the notability. (In fact, if we base our perception of notability on the size of readership, I think the bar should be somewhere around 2,000 to 5,000 daily readers, and less if there are other reasons to believe the comic is culturally significant.) Of course, if sources are requested and the article does not improve in a reasonable timeframe, then it should be deleted. --Tappel 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of readers does not determine very much. From where are you getting these numbers, anyway? —xyzzyn 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the number of readers for SC from [16]. I believe, based on those numbers, that there are real, notable references for this comic, we haven't just looked hard enough. --Tappel 08:35, 15 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starslip_Crisis&oldid=1144732358"