Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ménage à 3 (webcomic)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ménage à 3 (webcomic)

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

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

The sources in the Ménage à 3 are pretty bad, consisting of an interview, a myriad of self-published blogs (one has an obvious pseudonym for the writer, one has a Wordpress domain) or otherwise unreliable-looking sites, and the comic itself. Regarding the comic's creator, her page is cited mostly to her own works, to the sites of non-notable awards she's won, or to articles about works she collaborated on which only mention her in passing. Most of her other works are redlinked.

I was unable to find any better sources in a

WP:NWEB in the absence of more substantial sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comics Alliance is not a self published blog. Artw (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article needs a substantial rewrite. The Comics Alliance source is reliable and substantial (as discussed by
Notability (web) = "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." To me, this is enough to meet the standard for notability. However, the article is a mess – the statement in the header that it "is consistently rated amongst the top 50 webcomics annually" is in no way true – so if this article is kept I will strip is back to its most basic sourced form. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect Ménage à 3 to the page on Gisèle Lagacé. I believe this specific webcomic has gotten so little coverage that it can easily be covered in the article on the creator. Lagacé is also covered (at least in passing) by lots of other publications. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize this was a bundle; don't those usually look different? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an NWEB pass. There's enough in the available reliable sources (Comics Alliance, Lambiek) for a solid stub, and more could reasonably be added from the marginally reliable sources already used. I agree some trimming/rewriting is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as one suggestion has been to redirect one nominated article to another so I want participants here to be clear about their opinions on BOTH articles being deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, my Keep vote is for the Ménage à 3 article. I don't have a well-informed opinion to share about the bio. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Same; I didn't notice that this nomination covered two articles, and I haven't researched the second article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You two don't feel like the webcomic article is better served merged into the biography? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, especially if the artist herself doesn't meet notability standards. Which sources discuss her more than just in passing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I think Joe Shuster Award confers some notability. Borderline, since other cited sources are very niche, and I was not impressed by the (removed) claim that "Ménage à 3 is consistently rated amongst the top 50 webcomics annually" which was based on a 2008 article in ComixTALK which doesn't strike me as very reliable (niche website of unclear RS, analysis seems amateurish). Bottom line, if it didn't win JSA I'd vote delete. Winning the award, however, is a sign of some visibility and significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's plenty of keep votes, but this is probably very borderline. Still, I am, very weakly, going to go with weak keep. There's no hope for this to meet GNG, and the poor article will forever be a start/stub class article (the latter possible if the poorly refed parts are rm). All of the refs, except for Comics Alliance, which has a WP article, are SPS. Even Comics Alliance seems questionable. On one hand, it's notable (I assume so, I haven't checked the WP article on Comics Alliance's sources) enough to have an article, and it won an award. On the other hand, it looks unprofessional to me, and lacks any editorial policies. Also, how is this an RS? It's popular and high-profile, but doesn't have any editorial policies, and its FAQ says If you are a published comic artist, please mail us a short biography with a focus on your career in comics to Lambiek. Also include (links to) some samples of your published comics work. This doesn't seem reliable to me (where's the fact-checking and editorial policies)? So, GNG, or the first criteria of Notability (web) isn't meet. The second website says that the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. That's probably the case Joe Shuster Award, which seems notable enough and has some refs. Is it very prominent? Probably not. But I guess it meets the "well-known" mark, and it's indepedent. On this basis, I think it saitsfies the second Notability (web) criteria and I support weak keep, but I also agree with Piotrus that if this didn't win the award, deletion would certainly be a better choice. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2022 (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.