Deletion of Sexy Losers

Comment: per , , .  I have strong doubts about the assertation that this is the basis for a lot of "Internet culture".  I've been using the internet since before this comic started, and this is the first I've heard of it anywhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: The references seem to links to related websites with the possible exception of M.O.M. If independent |sources are as easy to come by as folks are claiming in this AfD, why haven't they been produced
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: the find by TexasDex, in the Webcomics Examiner, is very strong. And as Shirahadasha said above, the M.O.M. source counts. So that's multiple, and it fulfills  criterion 1. Even if it didn't have that, the plagiarism by Maxim would automatically fulfill  criterion 3, "''The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.''" Plagiarized distribution is still distribution. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: Webcomic only has one author, author claims to have edited the article only to remove mention of his family name and an unflattering picture.   is a reliable source away.  Also, nominator appears to have withdrawn AfD, nomination confused "Unverifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: It'd be hard to research if it's won any awards or has been mentioned by mainstream media, but you can search google for the following string: "sexy losers" webcomic (note the quotes) and 15,600 estimated pages pop up. If you dig further you'll find that virtually all of those pages are legitimate and truly discussing the webcomic. How can the criteria (taken from ) fairly judge cultural significance when mainstream media is unwilling to acknowledge certain styles and genres
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: unless non-trivial third-party sources that can pass  are found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I nominated this article for deletion so interested parties would get off their asses and find the |verifiable references to establish |notability.  These should be included ''in every article.''  I am glad my effort produced the desired result.  Now go out and fix more articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: If it is |verifiable, then provide the |reliable third-party sources to back it up. Don't give us the ''"Trust me, it's verifiable"'' routine
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: There's much talk below about the supposedy notability of this but not one reference.  To quote , "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  I'm not gunning for this article, but it needs references not fans
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Exuses, exuses.  Quote : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."  Those who believe the article (as it is now) shouldn't be deleted simply fail to understand the deletion criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Should be |verifiable with minimal effort; numerous KeenSpot artists have mentioned in news posts or otherwise expressed their respect of and/or inspiration from the comic.  Not created by the comic's creator, just edited once.  -- |Y'''&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:IKNOWBEST)