Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComicsAlliance

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ComicsAlliance[edit]

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

This is just a random blog, a clear fact that this article has been trying to hide (I've since added the word "blog" to it), and the blog consists almost entirely of misc. opinion columns by a few regular but non-notable contributors. I'm highly skeptical that this is notable enough for an article here, per WP:N generally and WP:WEBSITE more specifically. It cites four so-called sources.

The first source is just site database information from Alexa, and does nothing to establish notability, nor verifiability of much of anything in the article (one might as well quote whois records).
The second is the site itself, so it does nothing to establish notability, nor verifiability of anything other than who the site editor is.
The third is a dead link, and would be a copyright violation if it actually worked (like everything else ripped from TV shows and posted to sites like YouTube and AOL's YouTube-wannabe), and thus is worthless either way. It's about a contributor, anyway, not the site (the site cannot inherit notability from an allegedly notable contributor).
The fourth would-be source failed verification; the page no longer mentions anything about the 2010 and 2011 Eisner Awards. While a usable version can probably be pulled from Wayback, it's a moot point anyway, since a simple nomination for (vs. the actual winning of) a notable award does not confer notability to the nominee.
Notability is not heritable hierarchically, either; being "part of AOL's Asylum network of websites" does not automatically confer any level of notability.
Finally, an Alexa ranking in the 18,000s, for a topic as overwhelmingly and globally popular as comics, speaks for itself. It's an interesting site, but that doesn't make it a good Wikipedia article subject. It may well become notable enough for an article at some point. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 07:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. HighBeam also turned up only two sentences of coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:37, 25 August 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.