Deletion of Starslip Crisis (2nd nomination)

Comment: The last AfD was a  posterchild, and as far as I'm concerned, so is this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: if you want to learn about the cotton gin, grab a damned encyclopedia, but where the hell am i gonna go if i wanna learn spock’s stunt-double’s name? y’know, something important."... 43 kb arguing about notability is 40 kb too long. Its either notable or its not, if you need to argue over it - its notable. The original AfD may be making a  but it convinced me. Too many people these days abuse the deletion process for their own ends - thats why I stopped participating in them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: As per previous discussion, what we need are multiple independent reputable sources per , , , and , and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. Best I can find is a trivial mention in passing on Editor and Publisher's website (not their print edition) and a three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper that begins "To round out my list, I have to include the sci-fi humor strip 'Starslip Crisis' by my friend Kris Straub ..." I thought it might be worth merging a paragraph on this comic to Blank Label Comics, but can't find decent sources for that topic either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:N)

Comment: regardless of abusiveness of previous AfD, this still fails  due to lack of sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: You seem to have missed : "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Winning a WCCA and winning ''nine'' WCCA nominations in two years makes this a textbook open-and-shut case under 's criteria for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: That award that's so important to -quoting editors? It doesn't matter. And how do we know that it doesn't matter? There's no non-trivial reporting of the winning of the award. Or of anything else to do with this webcomic. What material in this article is |attributable, rather than being the opinion of the editors? The  requirement for sources is not optional, and it's not there for no reason. Absent sources we get left with stuff that ignores OR, POV, and assorted other OTs. Kristofer Straub, Checkerboard Nightmare, and Blank Label Comics aren't exactly poster-children for verifiability and sourcing either. If I had been the recipient of Wikipedia-hosted free advertising, like Straub was, and still is, I'd have kept stumm
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:ATT||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT)

Comment:  is easily met for a large amount of useful article content. E.g., the WCCA website can be cited for verification that the webcomic has been nominated for and won awards, and the Starslip Crisis website itself can be cited per  for any assertions as to its content
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: as per the  guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Doesn't matter if it is re-written.  It still fails |verifiability, not truth -  it doesn't matter where it was nominated, doesn't matter what it won, etc.  There are no independent reliable sources to verify the content of this article save from the nominations themselves -> delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: because it has been nominated for the WCCA in multiple years (and in multiple categories each year) and has won in one category last year (this year's winners to be announced). By the time of this writing, that is enough to fulfill 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)