Deletion of F@NB0Y$

Comment: WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: This AfD has clearly provoked greater strength of feeling, on both sides, than any other in which I've participated. It might be a good idea for the various users above - both pro- and anti-deletion - to stop arguing for a while and give everyone else a chance to state their opinion. Personally I lean towards deletion, as it would be a bad precedent to state that all webcomics with a large fan base are inherently notable (not to mention a fairly broad interpretation of ). Yet at the same time I can see the argument for keeping this article, so don't treat the above as a "vote" for deletion (not that we technically "vote" on these anyway). To any admin planning on closing this AfD, I certainly wouldn't advocate deletion now that it's provoked so much ill-feeling
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per nom, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I know you folks from the comic forum think this is unfair, but this is an encyclopedia not a directory. Once you have gained attention of multiple third party |reliable sources try again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: no indication why this would pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: ENOUGH WITH THE AD HOMINEMS ALREADY!''''' Yes, we get it, he's elisted an army of meat puppets. Stop bringing it up. Nmaster, as a personal bit of advice, I'd say go enlist your crew to go find some outside sources. That's the biggest issue with the article, so if you can get some good sourcing on this, then there's absolutely nothing to complain about. Oh, and the mass AFD of webcomics is moronic, if for no other reason then it's just |a giant glob of aimless google tests
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Search engine test (WP:GOOGLE)

Comment: Nmaster64, yo really need to read Wikipedia's policies. |sockpuppets used to cast more than one AfD vote is not allowed. You also can't solicit votes from forums, as it's meatpuppetry. Will be requesting checkuser once this closes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: It doesn't meet  yet, but it can. The article just needs a major overhaul
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: although I don't know that it is the best ''article'', the ''subject'' appears to meet the criteria of  -- Just barely.  I would like to see more outside references and significantly less self-promotional links
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Based almost entirely on primary sources and |original research which wouldn't pass  no matter who much you shake a stick at it. The article is also an external link fest to the webcomic. I can't assess notability of the award, but the fact that it is a popularity contest leads me to believe that the award isn't inharently notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V)

Comment: F@NB0Y$ is a notable webcomic, even under the current .  It does need some additional sources and information.  But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Destructoid and Joystiq are both highly notable and popular video game blogs.  F@NB0Y$ is a largely niche comic, but it's niche is significant and the comic is VERY WELL KNOWN within that niche.  You trot the Alexa number out without any sort of context to present it in.  The fact it, according to Alexa's website, F@NB0Y$ often has the same daily reach as El Goonish Shive and The Wotch http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=fanboys-online.com&site1=egscomics.com&site2=thewotch.com&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=500&range=1m&size=Medium&url=fanboys-online.com, both highly notable webcomics within their niche.  The people clamoring for deletion are looking at the breadth of notability, which is the population in general, people who are mostly casual readers and don't do much beyond look at it and occasionally chuckle.  This comic's notability is in it's depth, it does NOT appeal to a wide audience, which is what the people hiding behind  think is the only thing that matters.  The fact is, most people in the population at large would get the "Giant Enemy Crab" jokes, but those who do, would find them absolutely hilarious.  That, is the draw of F@NB0Y$' humor, and it has succeeded in carving out a niche for itself, if the weekly webcomic polls on Joystiq are any indication
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: Does not satisfy ,  or . The only thing that even attempts to satisfy |notability is the Joystiq award, which isn't notable itself either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:N||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: what evidence do we have that this webcomic is gaining in popularity? #CBALL|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This AfD has obviously become malformed with http://nwizard.com/blog/archives/122 requests for outside influence.  It is a sad day when |notability requirements are circumvented by |editors' personal preferences.  If USER:Nmaster64|one editor tries to refute every delete vote with broken logic like ''Just because wikigeeks DON'T like something does not give it NO notability'' then it seems his efforts are more hell-bent on keeping the article online at any cost instead of actually abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Just because it's a community encyclopedia does not mean anyting you like warrants inclusion... nor does justification come from ''well look at article XYZ
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: THe criteria at  is made so that we don't get 20,000 articles about every webcomic and video on the internet. While i don't believe that this should be an article, i don't see why we can't change the criteria in order to allow a certain alexis rating. (begin sarcasam) That And after looking at his comic strip, I felt i should do this after he called the people deleting this "Wiki Trolls".(end sarcasam
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: non-notable web-comic that doesn't pass ; no |reliable, non-trivial third party sources to back up  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:WEB)

Comment: What ''EXACTLY'' in this article is unverifiable and needs sources?  If this comic is as notable as people say it is, then it should be easy to back this up with evidence.  This could simple be a case of the article being worded poorly and in a way that makes it seem less notable than it really is.  Rather than run around in circles with keep vs delete, we should consider cleaning it up and adding more 3rd party sources to it.  I'm seeing people throw  and  around, but I would like to know what exactly in the article is original research. --skyman8081
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)