Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Res0rt (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 January 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Res0rt

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

Procedural renom. The nominator of the original AfD requested undeletion after coming to the conclusion some sources do demonstrate notability. Overriding community consensus would be a bad thing, but a closer examination could be well warranted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source I found. Notability is clearly lower for webcomics than most others (see similar arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlock Mercenary), and for a webcomic to get detailed coverage such as this is clearly a solid argument of notability. Also, this seems entirely superfluous to renominate IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous rationale -- worth note that a lot of the argument before was whether or not the sources found previously were "good enough", and TPH has decided that answer is now "yes". Since he was one of the major advocates for having it deleted in the first place, I'd think that's good enough rationale for keeping it now. I don't think this warrants a procedural renomination. Veled (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that 13 people agreed it should be deleted on the last AfD. That TenPoundHammer changed his opinion doesn't mean that their opinion is somehow invalidated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like last afd. A sentence and a quote from the comics creator is not in depth coverage. We comics do not have a special lower level of notability for inclusion. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source TPH links to is not new, it was included in the last discussion. There is nothing new here so this should be speedy deleted as a repost. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2013 (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.