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. (non-admin closure) CaptainGalaxy 23:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Yes, I see the green X in the upper right hand corner. But this is one of many webcomic articles that got promoted to Good Article way the hell back in 2008 and has not been touched since.

The sources are completely atrocious. To wit:

1. Paragraph-long mention in an article on gaming webcomics

2. Reference to a print article, but this ref so incomplete that I can't verify the article even exists

3-8. Interviews, which fall under WP:PRIMARY

9. Translation of the comic into another language

10. The comic itself

Every other source is just the comic itself.

The only sources I found on GNews were random grab-bag listicles from The Verge and Kotaku Australia, neither of which is a harbinger of notability.

In short, I think the comic is so far below notability guidelines, never mind GA guidelines, that there is no reason to drag it through good article reassessment first (especially given how slowly the wheels tend to turn there). I'm fully aware that this is an "ignore all rules" scenario, but the lack of notability is so obvious here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Previous AFDs were in 2006 and 2008. This is actually the comic's third nomination, and I don't know how to unfuck the sidebar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The links work if you click the archive that shows them. [1] is ample coverage in a reliable source. Computer Gaming World Issue 258 gives them a full page of coverage [2]. And the interviews count towards notability. The reliable sources thought them notable enough to interview them, same as writing about them. Primary is only a concern for information that may be in doubt in an article, it has nothing to do with notability. Dream Focus 17:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dream Focus: Interviews don't count if they're all that's there. And the Globe and Mail source only dedicates a paragraph to the comic, which is hardly significant coverage. The CGM coverage is hardly a "full page", as 2/3 of said page is taken up by graphics. And most of what exists is just the comic's creator talking about it; i.e., a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They count just fine, no matter how much you want to pretend they don't. Notice how once again you started an AFD where everyone else says to Keep the article? Kindly stop making the same arguments when everyone else points out you are wrong. The coverage is sufficient. Dream Focus 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely notable. There a lot of interviews to be sure, which "don't count" towards notability, but the Computer Gaming World mention is absolutely SIGCOV and also commentary. In the Globe and Mail article there is an example of commentary towards the webcomic from the author, saying "'Concerned' stands out from most other gamics by virtue of the quality of its writing and presentation." This article calls it a "hilarious comic". The Romanian magazine Level said the comic is "a recommendation to every fan of the game and anyone looking for a good daily laugh". So yeah, absolutely notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zxcvbnm: I didn't know a one paragraph entry in a listicle was considered "significant coverage" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, it's not a listicle whatsoever. That said, upon checking it further the CGW mention is also an interview so I will admit it does not support my argument. I still believe the scattered opinions can indicate notability as they are part of larger non-trivial interviews of the author about the comic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:INTERVIEW:

  anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it is primary or non-independent, it does not contribute to notability.

  Therefore, the interviews themselves are not reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, but opinions of the intervewers stated in them do count as secondary. That is what I am noting contributes to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Read the sentence after the one you are quoting for when it says interviews do count towards notability. Also that's an essay, not a guideline or policy, so no bearing here. Dream Focus 00:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I consider that the Globe and Mail article and the Computer Gaming World article set out enough coverage to each be considered independent, substantial coverage and so this article meets the notability criteria. (Yes, it needs serious improvement and shouldn't be rated as a Good Article, but that's another matter.) HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, a third of a page in a magazine article is enough these days, huh? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am pretty sure a few paragraphs was always enough? WP:N's definition of trivial coverage is one sentence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage still seems incredibly trivial to me. It barely saays anything other than "this comic exists". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman per WP:NATDAB but otherwise leave it alone. casualdejekyll 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not require disambiguation however. There is nothing else called "Concerned" and no obvious primary topic for the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Primary topic is concern. Aircorn (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While "concern" can have multiple meanings, "concerned" does not. There is a difference. Unless you mean the definition of "concerned", in which case please see WP:NOTDICT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean if a reader or even editor types "concerned" into the search bar they are probably not looking for a gamic article. Aircorn (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If they want the definition of "concerned" they should be going to Wiktionary instead, so we have to ignore that and choose the next best thing they might want. And someone who typed "Concerned" and is not looking for the definition probably wants the comic strip. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Who says they want the definition? Being concerned is a pretty common emotion and we cover these emotions in an encyclopaedic way, not just as dictionary definitions. Anyway this is sort of tangential to the AFD, but there obviously is a more primary and enclopaedic topic that "concerned" can point to other than a barely notable comic strip. Aircorn (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This is one of the Webcomics articles I am less proud of, and I don't think it's a good GA. I think this is a good-faith nominaiton, but I have to agree that there's just enough reliable sources (in which I include interviews) for the subject to meet GNG. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:08, 14 April 2022 (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.