Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Webcomics

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Webcomics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Webcomics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Webcomics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Webcomics/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for possible Webcomic AfDs

Related deletion sorting

Comics and animation

Webcomics

Existential Comics

(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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 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 publication within the broader literature of its type. The number of sources is also a factor when collectively much can be said about a topic verified to SECONDARY materials. We can have a reliable article verified to SECONDARY materials of a decent length. That's a good sign of notability, and a good reason for inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]