Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP Consensus in this debate is that this topic is notable. Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards

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

Last AFD argued "keep" based on one freaking source from the NYT and by that alone, there was a weak keep consensus. The rest of the sources are from the unreliable Comixpedia or press releases/other primary sources. I see absolutely no other secondary coverage whatsoever. One source that's reputable is not enough to carry a whole article.

Also, if this is deleted, there're subpages that need to go too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added the AfD header to the subarticles since they are also effectively up for deletion. Guest9999 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can tell the topic lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - which is the criterion for a stand alone article set out in the general notability guideline. Most of the sources currently used in the article are unreliable ones such as ComixTalk and various blogs. Others are not independent - the website for the awards and press releases. What that leaves is the New York Times source mentioned in the nomination. Personally I think that there are instances where one source can be enough to sustain an article - but here I do not think this to be the case. The article in question is not about the awards - it is about webcomics in general - and does not even take an in depth look at the awards. One paragraph, comprised of five short sentences, is dedicated to discussing the actual awards. There is some further discussion about some of the winners but it is done in the context of webcomics as a whole and does not say anything about the awards. I do not think that this is enough to sustain an encyclopaedia article and given that the awards have not been held for two years I do not imagne that there is much independent, reliable coverage in the pipeline. Currently sources do not even exist to confirm if the awards have been cancelled or why so it is impossible for the article to give an accurate account of either the awards over their lifetime or their current state. There is a secondary issue that relates to this AfD in that there are several - possibly even many - articles about individual webcomics whose sole claim of importance is having won one or more of these awards. Currently Wikipedia:Notability (web) gives as "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" as a criterion for a stand alone article; whether "well-known and independent" is the same as notable is - in my opinion - a discussion for a different venue. Each article should be judged on its own merits and based on the lack of coverage and the fact that an apparently defunct award for webcomics seems like an unlikely topic for significant coverage by reliable sources in the near future I think this article should be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT is always enough, if there is other evidence to support it, and less-than-ordinarily-reliable sources can do that, as they do here. That the award is ceased is totally irrelevant--if anything, its a reason why we should cover it, as nobody else is likely to be able to do better. The importance is further shown by it being in fact a criterion used to support articles on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what it's worth during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar is a particular instance when the community decided that one New York Times article was not enough to confer notability on a subject. In that case it was an entire article pretty much dedicated to the individual, not just a paragraph. Guest9999 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously an attempt not to get rid of the article for this specific award but to get rid of all webcomics whose main reason for inclusion is that they won a WCCA afterwards. That there is an article in the “New York Times” about this awards is a strong indicator for notability. Also, the creators of “Girl Genius”, one of the most notable webcomics, find this award so important that there are three large banners for it on the start page of the comic. The WCCA is also recognized alongside with other notable awards by winners such as Digger. Moreover, apart from several mentions in other news articles the WCCA has even been mentioned in three books. It has also been the only award of any sort given to a webcomic in 2001 and during its run there has not been any other specific webcomic award (all other prices for “Best new comic” were part of other award shows). --84.57.173.204 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you give above is a describes the awards as "basically fan awards" and states that a description of them as ""just an extension of the usual simpering circlejerk that the webcomics 'community' is,"" is "pretty accurate" before going on to say that comics win because "fans of a comic that's enjoying a popularity surge can easily turn out in force and stuff the virtual ballot boxes" and "You can't take seriously any award developed by the comics industry or people on the internet, and the WCCAs have the misfortune to be both.". Frankly if this was taken to be accurate it seems unlikely that - notable or otherwise - the awards should be considered "well-known and independent". Guest9999 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On top of the NYT article, there seems to be plenty of reputable coverage out there. I don't think the fact that the article needs some revision, as stated above, as an argument to delete either.SpaFon (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, When a "simpering circlejerk" is written about by the NYT and Comics Journal writer Shaenon K. Garrity, that meets Wikipedia:Notability. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another in a long line of blatant removal attempts. The article has been verified as notable. The only reason this keeps getting brought up again and again is the link to web comics. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (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.