Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinfest (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hornpipe2 (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 26 July 2024 (→‎Sinfest: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sinfest

AfDs for this article:

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

Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets GNG and has numerous sustained sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the sources are not sustained, as it's impossible to update the article since 2011 or so due to a lack of sources. 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen, fails WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
    Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source[1] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170202032914/https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/required-reading-40-of-the-best-webcomics.html No Six sentences in a listicle of 40 items ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222023014/https://www.wired.com/2009/08/10-great-webcomics-you-should-not-share-with-your-kids-geekdad-wayback-machine/ No Five sentences in a listicle of 10 items ✘ No
https://sinfest.net/news.php (redirects to a site on Wikipedia's blacklist) No The subject's website No Self-published source ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170707021326/https://www.themarysue.com/40-webcomics-you-need-to-read/2/ No Three sentences in a listicle of 40 items ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20090615151041/https://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6663678.html?nid=2789&source=link&rid=1907919383 No Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject ✘ No
Webcomics. Bloomsbury Comics Studies. ? Offline source I do not have access to. No Nominator says "in his blog [the source] made clear he did not do any research for this." ? Offline source I do not have access to. ✘ No
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html No Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180310090252/http://www.patreon.com/sinfest No The subject's blog post No Self-published source ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141027235626/http://www.ccawards.com/2004.htm No Artist name and title of work simply listed three times in a list of 115+ other items ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110611141712/http://www.bt.no/bergenpuls/litteratur/Debuterer-i-Tommy-og-Tigeren-2285615.html No Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.


Elspea756 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Keep it seeing that we already have one wikipedia page for Stonetoss. Why not keep Sinfest as a page?96.241.99.133 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.
    Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.
    If A then B, not B. Therefore not A. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lesen WP:NTEMP. Once something is notable it is notable for good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lesen WP:Sustained If something was 'notable' for a very short period of time and isn't afterwards, it probably was never notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage in this article is for over a decade!
    If this is what WP:SUSTAINED means, 99% of articles on a fictional work fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Clean up' is not possible. Because it wasn't actually notable in the first place. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per source assessment. Felicia (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit. Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.) Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit.", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected". Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this. Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen as per source assessment 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion on the sources presented by Oaktree b? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficient. Could you start an article with just those? I don't think so. 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk)
They are both SIGCOV. And yes you could? Good enough for GNG, in combination with the earlier stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".
In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to do a mass AfD and propose they all be deleted, press your luck, but this clears the standards we have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It cleared the standards we *had* in 2000. It does not clear the standards for 2020.
I think a reassessment, and deletion, is in order.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It clears the standards we currently have now, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift. Ssteedman (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a deletion rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be counted as Lack of WP:Sustained. Which is reason to delete. Sinfest is not notable, and has not been for ten years. 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read WP:NTEMP
Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.
It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.
Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.
Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.
You said it in your own words.
and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,
Sinfest lacks continued coverage.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered for over a decade!! PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: There is significant onwiki canvassing going on. Special:Contributions/2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 has violated WP:CANVASS by notifying the following editors, whom 2601...403 expects to !vote delete: Kontakr, Daveosaurus, DontKnowWhyIBother, BurningLibrary, PrincessPandaWiki, Jellyfish. Please take this into account when closing this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there's also a push from a Reddit post encouraging people to brigade for a "delete" vote. https://www.reddit.com/r/sinfest/comments/1ecf5ki/sinfest_article_up_for_deletion_on_wikipedia/ Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar I don't care enough about the article to !vote either way. However notability is not temporary, and Sinfest is far from the only comic that became extremist late in its run.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How long does the coverage have to be for you to consider it sustained? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.
    If official people care about the comic, they will write official things when the comic makes major changes. Like people did with Cerebrus. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is contrary to WP:NTEMP, so no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, however, WP:Sustained
    Wikipedia has a lot of 'contradictory' rules that are intended to be balanced against each other. WP:NTEMP must be balanced against WP:Sustained and this falls on the side of not being notable.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have One. Book.
    That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.
    2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar A possible solution: what is wrong with Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reading further about Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P
    That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen while I'm not usually in favor of reading WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People are no longer posting regular updates about Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hornpipe2: Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again people keep saying "if we can't document it as it is now..." but it seems really clear that Wikipedia policy doesn't care about that! And if you look at the article it's "outdated" because the system is functioning exactly as designed: the coverage is about the time when the comic was relevant. No more and no less.
    I simply do not see the fundamental problem with the usual process of article lifecycle. The comic had its heyday and got its page, which pretty much stands today as it did then. Readership fell off. Nobody's bothered to write anything notable about it since then, because it's no longer worth writing about, which is why the article hasn't been updated since then. That doesn't detract from its previous notability, nor is it a failure of Wikipedia by keeping the "outdated" article around.
    The thing I keep feeling like is happening, is people are arriving here with an axe to grind - they're upset that the comic today isn't what it was before and they're feeling betrayed, they feel that its continuing Wikipedia page is a sort of endorsement or publicity win, Reddit is sending disgruntled former fans here with explicit "vote delete" calls, etc - and this is leading to specious arguments targeted at taking this one guy down a peg. None of this is sticking as a reason to Delete, to me. IP editor (above) was on a good tack when they argued that the sources were not notable, I could be interested in further discussion on that point, but "we can't find anyone to talk about this NOW" is not a reason to delete an article about how something was THEN. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sinfest_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1236846685"