Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Existential Comics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4meter4 (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 1 November 2025. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Existential Comics

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

Existential Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Existential Comics does not appear to pass the general notability guideline. The American Philosophical Association blog source is an interview, much like the Daily Stoic, Critical-Theory and Hyperallergic sources are. I previously removed another interview from the questionable-looking BTR Today from the article. Of the remaining four sources, two of them discuss a single fleeting event. The Willamette Week is a local newspaper, which is not an ideal source for proving a subject's notability. In any case, a sizeable portion of the three-paragraph article consists of quotations from Corey Mohler himself. The other one, a Salon article, comes from a publication that is generally regarded as being of questionable reliability. The Paste article is functionally a three-paragraph advertisement. The article in El País is the only one that has any real content. A search for additional sources found a few passing mentions and republications of Existential Comics' issues in Philosophy Now. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Webcomics. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am getting hits in google scholar with potential WP:SIGCOV, but they are pay-walled (and in multiple languages) so it is hard to tell how in-depth they are. That said, here are some book sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I think these added to what is already in the article collectively pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is a paragraph long, the second one is a passing mention that is preceded by a part of a paragraph, the third one is a paragraph that discusses a random tweet that the author made, the fourth one is another passing mention that accuses the author of praising an "abusive, totalitarian dictator and mass murderer", the fifth one is a third passing mention and the sixth one is a brief mention of another random tweet. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Length is not the only determining factor over whether something is significant coverage. The type of source and the claim being made is also important. In this case, we have scholarly engagement with the material, some of which highlight this as a notable context within the broader literature. The number of sources is also factor when collectively much can be said about a topic verified to SECONDARY materials.4meter4 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Existential_Comics&oldid=1319903797"