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. The arguments for deletion (no assertion of notability) far outweigh the reasons for retention given. –MuZemike 21:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power Point Ranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable webcomic Melaen (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• btw I'm not voting on this discussion. especially after discovering the vandalism.--Melaen (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Superman7515 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I still agree with deleting this article as it doesn't seem to be notable or mentioned anywhere other than Facebook fans, but did take another look at the article after the vandalism was reverted. Superman7515 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the webcomic itself is garbage, the article itself has some humor to it. Trayne13 (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)trayne13[reply]

• Note that Trayne13 has no edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - and was one of the 3 SPAs who vandalised it. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy was hacked and someone slandered him. Check the facebook page for PPR to see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.128.41 (talk • contribs)

• Note that 153.91.128.41 has no comments outside this discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SOCK? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7 and G10 -- nonnotable webcontent that appears to be an attack page. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth I've looked at this after the attacks have been removed and it is still completely not notable webcontent and should be speedy deleted. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - This is an attack page (CSD-G10)! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Vandalism reverted, but still weak delete due to notability issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was vandalised, and the AfD nomination and comments above were made after that. I have reverted the vandalism. I express no opinion on whether this strip is notable, but I see no other reason for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that the webcomic is carried, quoted and recommended elsewhere on the internet, e.g. here, here, here and even here, the subject is notable and the article should be retained. Daffodillman (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If being linked to from 4 web sites (and even a forum!) equaled Wikipedia:Notability then we'd have an article on my cat. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, is your cat WP:INTERESTING? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, at least 4 people with access to the internet think my cat is WP:INTERESTING enough to lol about. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the level of notability of other webcomics with articles we'd have to embark on another round of wholesale deletions if we got rid of this one. Those four sites were just the first few in a fairly long list. Daffodillman (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct in that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on Wikipedia that also ought to be deleted. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vandalism aside, the comic doesn't (yet) appear to be notable. That might change down the line, and an article might be warranted if and when - but for now, Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is nothing that indicates notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2011 (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.