Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viper Comics

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 Keep IronGargoyle 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Viper Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There's no indication that this publisher is notable per WP:CORP, i.e., that they are the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, and reliable. I'm not speedy deleting this article outright per WP:CSD#A7 because, who knows, such sources may still turn up during this discussion. Sandstein 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Webcomic notability guidelines for published webcomics JackSparrow Ninja 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not guidelines. They are an essay of yours which nobody else thinks is of any relevance and are completely incompatible to WP:N. Also, Viper Comics is not about a webcomic, but a publishing company. Sandstein 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one because they're 4 days old, and in development. Just consider that my reasoning for the strong keep ;-) Viper Comics is a company that, among other, publishes webcomics. JackSparrow Ninja 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also keep per below given comment on notability.
• Keep. Ugly Hill is non-trivial, with a source independent of Viper Comics. --Master Forcide 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugly Hill is also up for deletion. It is also a product of Viper Comics, not a source covering Viper Comics, and thus does not by itself provide notability. Sandstein 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. Ugly Hill is itself not a product of Viper Comics; Viper only publishs it in print form, at the cartoonist's discretion. This does provide notability. Furthermore, Ugly Hill is only up for deletion because you personally nominated it; hardly unbiased on your part. --Master Forcide 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on notability: IGN considers them noteable enough for a news report. JackSparrow Ninja 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a report, but a press release by Viper Comics themselves, as it says at the top. Press releases are not independent sources under WP:N and its derivative guidelines. Sandstein 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I used to work at a Barnes and Noble and would constantly see their books on the shelves. Since their books are carried in major brick and mortar retail chains I wouldn't go around calling them some tiny, unnotable business that is run out of the owner's basement.--Stranger Dan 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your memory is not an independent reliable source as required for notability purposes. Whether or not retailers carry their books is also not relevant under WP:CORP or WP:N. Sandstein 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I certainly didn't imagine that their comics like Daisy Kutter, Emily Edison, and Oddly Normal are published and carried in major retailors. I've seen them in Waldenbooks too. So tell me what is it that makes them any less notable than a company like IDW Publishing, Top Shelf Productions, or Oni Press?--Stranger Dan 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be properly sourced to show topic's importance, meet WP:N. -- Dragonfiend 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I'm still trying to feel my way through this notability thing. It's a publisher, so not something that will be reviewed. I mean, take the company Dark Horse, I've read a lot of articles about Dark Horse's comics, but not many about Dark Horse itself. Most of what I read about Dark Horse came from them. So to me, if the comics a publsiher has are getting meantioned, with the publisher's name attached, then it's notable. For example, Viper Comics is mentioned in this article from Newsaramma, a well know comic site. http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=98749 It got a mention in Best Surprise. Also, this publisher is particpating in the 2007 Free Comic Book Day http://www.freecomicbookday.com/sponsors.asp. To me that is notable. Just because it's a small independent publisher, doesn't mean it is not notable. JediAutobot 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Adding to above, I did find this review of the publisher from 2003 http://www.comicbookbin.com/viper01.html JediAutobot 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep The only reason anyone nominated this article for deletion is to make it easier to delete the Ugly Hill page.Lessthankate
• Strong Keep This habit of deleting anything related to webcomics is getting out of hand. Come on people, Viper Comics? What next, Penny Arcade? -- Zaron 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's Viper freakin' Comics! They publish many popular books! Just because they're independant doesn't make them "not notable." -- S
• Comment: it took me a while, but I was able finally to find several somewhat small coverages in one reliable source Wizard (magazine) and several more sizable coverages in more borderline-reliable sources online. On the other hand, tcj.com The Comics Journal seems to never once have mentioned Viper. The article itself contains information sourced from the vipercomics home page, rather than the sources - the sources say Viper first published in 2003, whether or not the company was "founded" in 2001. It seems to me to be teetering on the edge of notability. The article, however, makes no actual claims of notability. And I wasn't able to find enough reliable information that I felt confident in adding such myself. Felisse 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Just because a publishing company has decided to publish a few webcomics does not make them non-notable. It has well reviewed works, and the only way that the publisher of those works would not be notable is if none of it's works are notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Viper Comics is notable, if only due to the fact that as an "independant" publisher, they compete successfully with mainstream comic publishers. I agree with Lessthankate - by being able to delete the publisher, it makes it easier to delete Ugly Hill too. Just like the ill advised deletion of the WCCA opened the floodgates to the current webcomic purge. Timmccloud 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Deleting articles about publishers is a new low ! John Vandenberg 06:57, 14 February 2007 (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.