Deletion of Ugly Hill

Comment: satisfies  and is printed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: As repeatedly stated, this article meets . In addition I believe this AfD should be rescinded as OT#BATTLEGROUND|Wikipedia is not a place to run a personal vendetta against webcomics, which appears to be the case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,  an internet guide. No sign of impact or historical significance, or Wikipedia:Notability's "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Plenty of independent literature, from the blog interview to the award recognition, which is well-cited throughout the article. I don't see how this could fail 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: No "here" here, just character descriptions/plot summary without critical commentary, which is the sort of thing that |Wikipedia is not for. The reason for 's requirement for non-trivial third-party sources is that those are a necessary precondition to writing an encyclopedic article (see ). This one doesn't have those sources, and sure enough, the result is non-encyclopedic. Entirely fails to meet the basic requirement for inclusion: verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:FORGET)

Comment: E&P doesn't seem to say much about the comic itself and none of the other sources are independent.   requires reliable independent sources, and this just doesn't have it.  If the creator had told his readers "go out and find sources!" I'd welcome that, but piling on keep votes that show a gross misunderstanding of how wikipedia decides what to include is not helpful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)