Deletion of Jack (webcomic)

Comment: I'm not exactly sure which way to go on this one. On the one hand it is pretty clear that the subject has not received significant coverage by |reliable sources - the editors who believe the article should be kept do not even try to argue that such sources exist. Arguments based on popularity or page views are generally not highly valued and in any case articles on comics with traffic which is many times that of this comic have deleted or removed when no reliable sources exist (examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twokinds (2nd nomination)|1, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Days (webcomic) (2nd nomination)|2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del|3). Several source which can not really be considered reliable are currently used in the article and information based on them should be removed, this would lead to most - if not all - of the Jack (webcomic)#Reception|reception section being excised. The discussion then essentially comes down to whether the award (and nominations) are enough to form the viable basis of an encyclopaedia article. It is clear that the award won is |notable, after an initial deletion was overturned the article on them has been kept at three successive AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (2nd nomination)|one recent. As mentioned above  states that |notability is established if "''The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization''". It used to be taken that this standard incorporated any |notable awards. More recently this view seems to be changing, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic)|this discussion a |consensus was found to delete despite the award in question here being won - the debate included "delete" comments from at least one individual who thought the article on the awards should be kept at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (2nd nomination)|recent Afd. Of course |consensus can change and there are no binding precedents on Wikipedia so all this might be moot. I generally view comics which have received awards (or in this case nominations) over a period of years as more likely to be notable than those which have a one off - flash in the pan - good year. The lack of reliable sources though is a real issue, above someone describes the comic as controversial but none of that controversy should be discussed in the article without sources to back it up. On balance I think it is questionable whether there is enough |verifiable information available to create something which is a true encyclopaedia article rather than a simple description of "''#GUIDE|the nature, appearance... and services a website offers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NN||WP:WEB||WP:NN||WP:NN||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:CCC||WP:V||WP:NOT)