Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey and Andy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Casey and Andy[edit]

I see nothing to distinguish this from the masses of marginal webcomics out there. It doesn't even have an Alexa rank. (I am rather familiar with the world of webcomics. I wish this on e lots of luck, but I don't think it's significant enough for an article. The original article, before someone else wikified it, was a blatant ad.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add that for what it's worth, the author of the comic has been remarkably understanding and cooperative. This one clearly does not meet the Alexa requirements suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. On the other hand, it does look like it meets the alternate proposal criteria (although I haven't waded through the archives to check for regularity). I'm inclined to err on the side of inclusion, although I admit that's partially because the author has been so nice. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet inclusion guidelines for webcomics. Gwalla | Talk 04:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean the ones that are not official and say they aren't? - David Gerard 00:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • They're as official as any such policy, and have been in use for a while now. Furthermore, they actually set a lower bar than the usual Alexa test, so arguing against their validity hurts rather than helps the case for this article. Gwalla | Talk 00:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, Gwalla, it does meet those guidelines, with a run of nearly 450 strips to date. It's on Eric Burns' crawl [1] list, and it got one of his 2004 Shortbread Awards. I don't read it, but it pretty clearly meets the established criteria. The article currently in place sucks pretty badly, though. Definitely needs work. --Ray Radlein 05:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, it only meets the alternative guidelines proposed by Eric Burns, not the ones that have been in use. Gwalla | Talk 20:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • By the same token, since they were propsed, the alternate guidelines have been used at least as often as the original guidelines (which makes sense to me, since the original guidelines do not, IMHO, map very well onto the information space of web comics). If I had to guess, I'd guess that more than half of the currently existing webcomic articles would fail an Alexa test. Of course, if the article remains as stubby as it currently is, it doesn't much matter; but this is a comic which has been repeatedly Snarked; which has been discussed (maybe reviewed?) at Sequential Tart; and appears to have well over a thousand unique Google hits (there's almost 3,000 hits on "Casey and Andy", of which roughly half seem to be references to the webcomic). If it weren't for the fact that this is more like a hiccup than an article, I can't see it even being an issue. --Ray Radlein 21:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am generally in favour of keeping articles that can grow to be something, even substubs, but this is just a few words long. Doesn't even qualify as a substub, no matter if the subject is noteworthy or not. Houshuang 05:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree, this isn't even a substub article. Delete unless expanded before end of Vfd. No significant info will be lost for whoever wants to create a full article. Mgm|(talk) 09:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a good point; I can always just move this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics great big list of "Articles we need" if need be. As it currently stands, it's arguably worse than having no article at all, since if it were on the list of "articles we need," someone might see it there and actually write an article. --Ray Radlein 09:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I read Casey and Andy. I enjoy Casey and Andy. I (marginally) expanded the article for Casey and Andy. I vote keep for Casey and Andy. DS 13:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for meeting the criteria and being worked on. Kappa 13:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only meets alternate criteria proposal. Lacking traffic for any alexa ranking=un-encyclopdic. The old host, galactanet.com, only has an alexa rank of 498,184. Wikipedia is not a web directory, let alone a web-comic directory. Niteowlneils 18:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Er, turns out that that is the current home of the webcomic (www.caseyandandy.com redirects there), as well as other content. Too low a rank to keep. Niteowlneils 18:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I am the author of Casey and Andy, my readers pointed me to this discussion. I apologize for whichever overzealous reader misused wikipedia by posting an advertisement. I thank whoever modified it into a proper stub. And I support whatever deletion decision is made. -ATW
  • Comment: I deleted the overcompact character listing stub and replaced it with an actual description of each of the characters. The first four descriptions are directly from the comic's cast page (two with slight additions), the others were written by me. I did not add anything other than the character listing and I hold no delusion that my descriptions are particularly well-written, but I hope that they elevate the article beyond "stub" status and make it worth keeping and spending more work on. -- Milo, a fan of C&A.
    • Comment: Direct quotations from the website are copyright violations (as each of those descriptions is aparently the full text of each page that they appear on) and therefore it is not legal to add them in their entirety to a Wikipedia article unless the copyright holder releases them. Gwalla | Talk 21:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Since the author himself seems to be aware of this discussion, it should be fairly easy for Milo to clear this or not; on the other hand, rewriting the character bios seems to me to be the better solution anyway, in the long run --Ray Radlein 23:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am the author and I authorize any and all reproduction of C&A images or text for Wikipedia. I'll post that in the Friday, March 4, 2005 newspost on the site to verify my identity. -ATW
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 00:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Susan Davis 16:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I strongly suspect that fanatic readers will continue to contribute. clarka 4 Mar 2005
  • Keep - From what the Alexa test says, 200,000 is the requirement and having almost 500,000, this webcomic meets that criteria. AlmariaR 4 Mar 2005
    • Not to be too much of a wet blanket or anything, but 500,000 is worse than 200,000 in this instance. Lower is better (like golf, without the ugly pants and whispering announcers). While I definitely agree that Casey & Andy deserves inclusion, its Alexa rank isn't why. --Ray Radlein 21:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.