Deletion of Darken

Comment: as failing . I do not agree that Keenspot is a "site which is well known" for the purposes of . For starters, the article Keenspot itself does not meet  because it makes no claim to notability and has no links to third-party coverage. In this state, it certainly can't confer notability to subsidiary content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I expect at least one independent source -- beyond the numerous scenester blogs / web-comic indexes.  Listing on Keenspot ''is'' important, based on  #3, but the current article still fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.  '''&there4
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Per , distributed non-trivially through Keenspot, a notable online publisher
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I have begun chronicling evidence of Keenspot's notability at Talk:Keenspot#Keenspot notability. If Keenspot's notability is established, then, as a simple consequence of , Darken is undeniably notable and deserving of a "keep" recommendation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per  and previous statements, as I believe Keenspot itself is notable (and have made a note of such on Keenspot's talk page about some possible examples in favor of its notability), and that this notability does in fact apply to its member comics, too. As a business, there's a standard applied to get into Keenspot that generally means its member comics are also going to be known to a fair number of people already, a standard I think is high enough for recognition here. I also question the insistence for verifiability - on what information, specifically? Darken's wiki page makes no claims on its pageviews or other statistics that traditionally are considered to need extra sourcing. Is it just a matter of having to go through and cite specific pages of the comic where mentioned events happened? I'm not being snarky, I'm seriously curious if that things happened in the comic and can be pointed to on the site are enough or not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Non-notable webcomic, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: this article is completely unsourced, and no reliable sources have been identified from which the facts in the article may be substantiated, because as far as can be seen from a quick review there is no reliable source which gives details critique of this comic.  If such sources do exist, feel free to cite them in the article, but right now it is an unambiguous delete per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: does no meet our content policies. Seems to be all original research  as there is no third-party coverage by nontrivial reputable sources. Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Not that the  guideline could ever be stretched to circumvent the official policies of ,  and , but Keenspot is definitely not a generally well-known publisher
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NOT)

Comment: Agreed, per , Keenspot's very well known and most other Keenspot webcomics have not had an issue keeping their wikipedia articles, neither should this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)