Deletion of Last Res0rt

Comment: Fails .  A brief mention (or "name dropping") in a college newspaper is not significant coverage.  The ''palaceinthesky.com'' site returns a HTTP 404|404 for me, as do the versions on archive.org (but at any rate http://palaceinthesky.com the domain itself looks to be a , not something to establish reliability on).  The only reference that helps establish any real notability is the http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/1492/further/ New Times article, which comes from a local alternative newspaper.  This single source does not give the article's subject the notability necessary to satisfy the |general notability guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SPS||WP:GNG)

Comment: Veled, are you personally acquainted with Rachel Keslensky?  You both seem to be grad students at Georgia Tech with highly similar interests.  A google search on Rachel Keslensky Veled suggests some further connections.  I could go on....  If you have a , at the very least you should acknowledge it before editing an article or voting in an AfD such as this one
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I don't think that the Technique reference does much to establish notability per .  It's just one sentence so I don't think that's significant coverage.  The source is just a student newspaper, so it's hardly national coverage or even the professional media.  In fact, it's the Georgia Tech newspaper when the author of the comic was a student at Georgia Tech, so arguably it is not even independent coverage.  It is one student writing one sentence about a fellow student's comic.  As for the New Times article, it's three short paragraphs in a weekly local paper with a circulation of 37,000.  If this coverage was repeated in multiple local papers, that would help, but this seems to be a one-off.  The point that the paper reprinted some comic strips is nice but I don't see how that is relevant to establishing notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: all this arguing and still no RS.  I will also add that trying to drag the nominator into AN/I was a very good oomerang. Instead of complaining about an editor pointing out lack of sources, improve the article by adding sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: a lot of sources previous identified were either unreliable (self-published, affiliated with the subject), or didn't provide the necessary coverage to independently  (which is different from verifying its existence). It's fair to say that in previous AFDs, some people thought this article could improve as more sources were found. But after this much scrutiny, giving people more time to find appropriate sources 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:WONTWORK||WP:verify notability)

Comment: Misses  and  by several kilometres. A few paragraphs in a single small local weekly newspaper is not the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources we are looking for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:GNG)