Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonus Stage

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 as unsourced. Arguments that hold no water in XfD discussions: 1. "It has a huge fanbase." 2. "It ran for X episodes/years/seasons." 3. "It is somehow linked to something that is notable." 4. "We have a project on it." I think we had them all here. Arguments that hold water in XfD discussions: 1. "Here is a news article that prominently features the topic of this article." I don't see any of them here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus Stage

The article was undeleted by W.marsh (talk · contribs) as a contested prod. The article does not assert the notability of the subject per WP:WEB anywhere. I suggest deleting the article unless and until the notability is proven, not just asserted by blatant assertion on the talk page. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn per nom, and recreate as redirect to Bonus stage. Confusing Manifestation 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a notable webtoon, as the last episode was sold for a dollar and is on KeenTOONs, a notable website. The fansub being done in Japanese is also another reason why it's notable. ChunkyKong12345 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, not effort to prove notability; lots of Pokemon arguments on the talk page; but, no real proof as to why it should be kept. --Simonkoldyk 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, Mukadderat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are nearly 90 episodes, and daily/weekly awards whenever it's been submitted to Newgrounds. The former alone is no small feat. --Frankenroc 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's one of the longest-running webtoons out there, with a very large fanbase. It even had its own wiki at one point. How is that not notable?~Shippinator Mandy ^{(For best results, use twice daily.)}

Keep If it's not notable, how did it get such a cult fanbase? If anything, you should mve it to Matt Wilson's Bonus Stage, to keep it less ambiguous. --BSCozza^{The something and only...}

If it's that notable it should be asserted in the article. There's no reliable third party coverage, the See also's are redlinks, etc. If you are correct about the subject's notability, this article still falls in the category:Subject is notable but the article doesn't make that clear. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should make it clear, then. ~Shippinator Mandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.26.39 (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete - I am sick and tired of seeing these Keentoons articles be recreated. IT FAILS WP:WEB, IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED. Some large fanbase does not change the fact that Bonus Stage isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Does Legendary Frog have an article? No. Why? Because even though he has this huge fanbase, it is not enough for an article on Wikipedia. How about Knox? He gets at least 3 views on his website per second. It changes nothing. WP:WEB specifically states that for such a thing to have Wikipedia notability, it has to have media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. Bonus Stage has no such thing. Legendary Frog has no such thing. Knox has no such thing. Space Tree has no such thing. Bonus Stage is simply cruft on Wikipedia and is not notable enough. --FireV 02:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a month. I want to see if Bonus Stage can be shown to be a verifiable site, and I want to allow the editors of this article some time to find sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FireV. Dionyseus 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB, no third-party coverage. Sandstein 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a WP:WEBA Bonus Stage is a part of it. It's simple as that. Bonus Stage should have NEVER been deleted! Joelon 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because the article is part of a Wiki project dosen't mean it is saved from deletion. --Simonkoldyk 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEBA is not a policy, so your statement holds no water, Joelon. --FireV 18:02, 19 November 2006 (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.