Deletion of The Whiteboard (3rd nomination)

Comment: TPH nominated this last time, no new information has come to light, and is re-nominating it even though it ended in a keep? That's not an argument about the notability of the sources, that's second-guessing the admin who closed the last AfD. Remember, looking at an AfD and going  is not valid grounds for re-nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Fails our current notability requirements. The suggestion above that we develop some sort of alternative "unconventional" notability standards for webcomics so that we can keep articles like this could have some merit, but until we do this falls well short of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 1) "Seen print publication" in this case is a series of self-published books that fall far short of Wikipedia:Notability (books). 2) Merely being "reprinted in third-party publications" (two paintball magazines) does not provide any coverage of the subject that would meet , and "two-time contributor to paintball magazines" widely misses the mark of standards like .  3) "reviewed by third parties e.g. the Howard Tayler link" is just http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/this-run-of-the-whiteboard-needs-your-attention two sentences on a blog. "If you're not already reading The Whiteboard as part of your daily trawl, I hope it's not because you think the comic is only funny to paintballers. I've only paintballed once (an experience I found miserable) and the comic is one of my favorites." There is no significant coverage here at all
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: no evidence of ever meeting , nor any evidence that the sources offered by Dream Focus and Veled are significant, |reliable coverage needed for GNG. Special:Contributions/74.233.245.2|74.233.245.2
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: no reception in reliable independent sources to . The reception section is the right kind of information, but definitely not a reliable source. Otherwise we could start using testimonials on peoples' websites to verify notability, which would open a floodgate of garbage articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:verify notability)