Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequential Art (webcomic) (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 delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential Art (webcomic)

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

Previously kept due to addition of two interviews. One is now 404'd but saved here, and the other makes only one tangential mention of it ("My most successful creation to date has been the Sequential Art strip"). The other sources are a Greek comic blog which doesn't look reliable, and a podcast with the author which would be a primary source. The sources are borderline, but I feel that they just aren't cutting it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: you voted this a "Weak Keep" in its last AfD. Why the change of heart? Veled (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that TPH previously supported due to addition of two interviews. But one is now 404'd and the other makes only tangential mention. He says that the sources are borderline. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if the one is now 404'd. Sources merely need to exist, not to be accessable on the Internet, and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say whether I agreed with TPH, I was just answering Veled's question. :) Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search of HighBeam for the comic and/or its author turned up no new sources. the wub "?!" 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and continued (likely insurmountable) sourcing problems. My opinion hasn't changed since 2008, and if anything the continued poor state of the article after its four-year second chance gives me no reasomable cause to believe that giving it a third chance will change it much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing problems, does not meet WP:GNG. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2012 (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.