Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loxie & Zoot (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. ansh 666 01:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loxie & Zoot[edit]

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

Non-notable web comic strip. Has no sources, likely is entirely original research. Rusf10 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reason as stated last time (published in Australia, unique concept). Is there anything new in the nomination that wasn't covered in the previous one? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources, which are non-optional. It is irrelevant if something got a publication deal, a "unique concept", or a long runtime. It's all about whether independent publications consider the topic notable enough to write articles on it. Back in 2005, this guideline was either completely ignored, or did not exist. Wikipedia has evolved. ~Mable (chat) 12:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ – There exists at least one really good source on this topic: this Webcomic Examiner article. Crowley has also won a Ledger Award, which is a notable achievement. Lastly, there is an interview in Comixpedia. I'm still not sure if Comixpedia is considered reliable. The issue is that this is all, and this isn't very much. It would be impossible to create a "reception" section based on this, for example. If more reliable sources pop up, I would happily change my vote, but this is just too little to work with. ~Mable (chat) 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ~~Neutral~~ – I missed a second link to Comixpedia on the page, not that it is much [1]. Through some Googling, I found another interview, however! This one is by Comix Talk: [2]. I still think it is weak, so I'm not going to !vote "keep" just yet, but, well, I really don't know. Of course, if Comixpedia were deemed unreliable, this would be a "delete" vote. ~Mable (chat) 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I started a draft for rewriting this article, I noticed that the Comix Talk and Comixpedia interviews are mirrors of one another, basically decreasing the number of sources by one and making me switch to a "weak delete" !vote again. It doesn't seem like it matters much either way, with the number of "keep" !votes that followed my analysis, but oh well. The sourcing is weak, so I don't think I can bring this article to C-class as I had hoped... ~Mable (chat) 08:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Maplestrip but the lack of sources is a sell off. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The web-comic features non-sexual full nudity by various characters, from children to senior citizens, both male and female, drawn with fairly realistic style with no shame or focus on any particular body parts; this is not something that most media is comfortable promoting without linking it to porn, which this is not. There are several other web-comics that have frequent or even constant displays of nudity, but these are usually in sexual contexts, so not in the same vein. This puts this comic is a pretty rare strata.

Grace has not updated the web-comic in over a decade, so there are very few, if any, new articles covering it. Most of the articles that covered the web-comic a decade ago have been taken down by their publishers over time, for one reason or another, leaving very few articles about it still accessable. So it makes sense that it will get harder to find third-party "reliably sourced" articles about it. Unless the author puts a promotion push on this web-comic, I do not expect to see many new articles covering it, which seems to be the sticking point of this AfD.

The website where the sequel The Bare Pit was hosted has been shut down and that web-comic has not been posted to another web-comics host as yet, Wayback Machine not withstanding. The author is concentrating on the superhero comic Magellan of late, but even there not consistently. It is not unusual for the once-a-week schedule to slide a week or two, so I do not expect that any attention will be paid to this comic in the near future, but at the same time, I do not expect it to go away either.Nutster (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really nice if some of those old sources (if they exist) could be dug up through the Wayback Machine or Web Cite. I know some other sources of this time, like Sequential Tart and T Campbell's A History of Webcomics have never mentioned it. I have hardly read everything, though. ~Mable (chat) 22:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:WEBCRIT since the creator won an award (The Ledger Awards) for the material. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Agree with Argento. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:58, 15 December 2017 (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.