Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmazingSuperPowers

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 Nakon 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AmazingSuperPowers

AmazingSuperPowers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

single-purpose account user with obvious conflict of interest; insufficient notatability; exaggerated Alexa ratings claim (within 20,000, where my search indicated a peak of over 22,000 correction; yesterday it peaked at 15,573); bottom line: just not notable enough - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - are you sure you have the right forum? AmazingSuperPowers seems like a well-written, well-sourced article to me. I don't know where the single-purpose account comment came from! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Wcitti (talk · contribs) looks like Wes Citti, one of the creators. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply This does not invalidate the verifiable sources used, and transparency is supported by the Wikipedia community. I appreciate your concern for this article, Cobaltbluetony, for in creation great care was taken in building neutrality and verifiable sources.-- Wcitti User ¦ Talk 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Are there any sources other than primary sources (e.g. the article's website)? MrPrada (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article contains multiple references to where the comic in question appears in print. Dinosaur Comics relies heavily on appearing in the same publication as this one (the Portland Mercury). A version of this articles was created in the past, but that was before it met the notability guidelines, which it does now, as outlined in this and this set of guidelines. I have also listed the exact issue of the Portland Mercury where the comic first appears. Regarding the Alexa claim, whether or not a site has peaked, relevant past successes are applicable because notability is not temporary. Overall, regardless of who wrote it, this article demonstrates cohesive writing, firm sources, and accuracy. -- Wcitti User ¦ Talk 9:30, 18 April 2008 (PST)
  • Weak keep A little too reliant on primary sources, but otherwise it seems to be fairly well written and assertive of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The comic only appears in a college newspaper and an alternative newspaper. I think the main grounds for deletion here are the lack of reliable secondary sources that review, comment on and critique the work(I'm not counting college humor as a reliable source, sorry). MrPrada (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete but without predjudice against someone with no COI re-creating it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. All the references are to the comic's own website, bar two which are vague handwavings towards possible tangential mentions in newspapers. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Could you be more specific, please? I don't see how direct links or exact volume and issue numbers constitute as "handwaving."-- Wcitti User ¦ Talk 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking of ref #1. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, understood. The publications mentioned in reference #1 are further explained specifically in the "Publishing" section.-- Wcitti User ¦ Talk 07:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Per TenPoundHammer.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per TenPoundHammer; the article is a new one and I think we ought to err on the side of caution (i.e. inclusion) for now. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent sourcing (the two papers cited both carry the comic). No evidence of widespread distribution aside from a (relatively) few college newspapers and self-publications. Viewings on the order of 14,000 pale in comparison of the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of views the significantly notable sites get on one day. As we often say about some articles, we should apply here before saying that the comic is notable for a Wikipedia article: let it grow. If it seems that the comic is relying upon Wikipedia for publicity, it should be deleted as Wikipedia should reflect the notability and publicity instead. B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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.