Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irritability

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Move and write a new article.. – Rich Farmbrough 14:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does longevity equal notability? Just because this comic has been running online since 1998, it does not mean it is more notable than any other website which has been running since 1998/9. You can find the website here, its Alexa ranking is over 600,000. A google search for irritability webcomic, without quotes gives 100 links, and nothing which suggests notability. And if we take a look at what links here for irritability, we find that the majority of links are for the medical condition! Looking at this, we must ask ourselves, why does this website deserve an article? What makes this website any more notable than every other website out there? Just because a website has been running for 6 years, does that instantly make it notable? Hahnchen 01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'd say between longevity and veritability it's worthy. — Phil Welch 01:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't even seem to fufill Rule 3 of the very lax alternate proposal. There's also no evidence of a large following. -Nameneko 05:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. However, If Kept, Move per Mgm. -Nameneko 22:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to admin: If kept this should be moved to Irritability (webcomic) and a stub put in place here for the medical condition, so the whatlinkshere links are saved. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, Keep, but move and replace with a medical article or possibly a digambiguation page. Usrnme h8er 08:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete longevity does not equal notability. Dottore So 11:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure why User:Nameneko thinks that it doesn't fulfill rule 3: I see 6 different non-anonymous users contributing to the article, none of whom is the comic author. This is a long-standing comic with a sizable archive and it's certainly verifiable. DenisMoskowitz 13:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep good articles about marginally notable topics. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per Nameneko. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 19:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely longevity does not equal notability. Marskell 22:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Per Mgm|^(talk), and I'll add that it is not only long-running on the web, but also formerly appeared in the Daily Texan, the student newspaper of one of the largest academic institutions in America. Surely this sort of exposure nets a bit of notability.ret3 01:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether this should be kept. I only said that if it was it should be moved. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I meant to convey that I think it should be kept, but altered in the way Mgm|^(talk) suggests.ret3 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, good article about marginal topic. Vizjim 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Question can we go ahead and move the article? I don't think anyone would mind (I certainly wouldn't) as long as it won't throw off the AfD links. DenisMoskowitz 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be Bold! - Although I still feel it should be deleted. If this wasn't a webcomic and just a website, I'm sure it would have gone - Hahnchen 04:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has been moved. DenisMoskowitz 14:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Of course, now we need something better than "Irritability is a medical condition" for the new page. Hahnchen, you're planning on working on that, right? Factitious 19:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominated it for medicine collaboration of the week. Even if it doesn't get nominated, it will still increase visibility. There's already some stuff there. Wow, afd is being constructive! - Hahnchen 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, cool! It's already getting pretty informative. Factitious 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 08:42, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.