Deletion of Okashina Okashi

Comment: Doesn't quite seem notable enough within the webcomic community.   arguments are silly in this case though, what's to verify? Applying  to a webcomic is like applying  to the battle of the bulge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V||WP:BIO)

Comment: fails , , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:VAIN||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: 1) Being about the 10th most popular webcomic on a particular free webhosting site is rather trivial when you consider the tens of thousands which are not on that site.  If being number 10 on this website were that big of a deal then their would be plenty of reliable sources writing about this webcomic and the creator of this webcomic probably wouldn't have to write an article about themselves. 2) This is not flagged for  because the webcomic's author simply corrected some errors in the article. It is flagged for vanity because the webcomic's author created the article and has edited it heavily ever since. Check out the history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Okashina_Okashi&limit=500&action=history which clearly shows the webcomic author creating the article and making about 60 edits to it, more than all other editors combined. Check out this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Okashina_Okashi&diff=19071017&oldid=10948734 which shows the webcomics author making 14 consecutive edits to the article over the course of several months in which they add 20-some odd paragraphs of completely new content. This is the furthest possible thing from someone simply correcting mistakes in an article about themselves; this is the absolute definition of   where someone creates a lengthy encyclopedia article about themselves. 3) We don't have inclusion standards for web sites based on their traffic. If an extremely low traffic site has a huge impact on culture that is verifiable through reliable sources (it's written about in the New York Times and Wired Magazine, for example) then we might write an article about it. If a high traffic site is unverifiable through reliable sources, then we can't have an article, because we're building a reliable encyclopedia. 4) Simlar to your first point, being just outside the top 100 on a site that measures a fraction of all webcomics is rather meaningless and trivial. 5) This isn't up for deletion because it "isn't popular enough." it's up for deletion because it violates a large number of guidelines and official wikipedia polices, from Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to Wikipedia:Verifiability and beyond.  Finally, are you the same "Kisai" that's listed as being one of the two "folks behind Comic Genesis"? http://www.comicgenesis.com/about.html If so, that would be a good thing to disclose in order to minimize any conflict of interest issues inherent in telling people how notable the webcomics hosted on your site are. If not, sorry for the mix-up
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:VANITY||WP:VANITY)

Comment: per nom's citation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Non-notable. Fails , , , , ,  &  per nom and others. '''Discount''' votes from ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/new "editors" per Ifnord
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:VANITY||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:AB||WP:VERIFY||WP:RS)

Comment: It's not one of the really big-name webcomics, but it certainly seems to be fairly well-known online, as far as I can tell. By the way, I can't follow the reason for  being mentioned - it doesn't seem to contain original research (it seems to be pretty much the same as the other webcomic articles in terms of sources used, AFAICT) - could someone please explain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)