Deletion of Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (2nd nomination)

Comment: For all of the reasons and all of the sources that everyone has already mentioned. It may not have the sheer volume of reputable sources that, say, The New Yorker has, but what Webcomic does?  I can't help but feel that there is a certain sense of , both here and in the article talk section.  Also, I think that the sheer amount of time spent by people arguing about CAD, defending CAD, and attacking CAD, both here and elsewhere, makes its own subtle arguement for the webcomic's notability.  Also, not to beat a dead horse, but aren't we kind of beating a dead horse here?  How many times has this article met, and surmounted, arguments about its notability?  At some point, doesn't this just become a forum for people to say they don't like the article, and don't want it in Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I just expanded the article with referenced material. There is enought reliable source material for the topic to meet . That is masked by the excessive use of content connected to the topic (press releases, material from the series, fan based websites). However, if you discount those content issues, you'll still see that there is enought reliable source material for the topic to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Nothing has changed since previous delete outcome AfD, still no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, the bare minimum required to meet . Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Thanks to Sc for for digging those refs up, I had assumed they weren't available online since the ref didn't link to them. I've gone back and forth about this a few times and almost came down on the side of Keep. In the end I think the coverage of the webcomic in Reliable Sources qualifies as "trivial". I was going to say it should be kept because of the coverage in the Phoenix and the Journal-Star, (I am inclined to accept the Phoenix post as an RS per ) but it looks like those articles are really focused on the holiday that this strip spawned rather than the strip itself. The funny thing is I might have come down on the side of keep if the article was about "Winter-een-mas", but that's a debate for another day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:NEWSBLOG)

Comment: The article has a reasonable reception section, which allows us to treat this content |neutrally, without it being advertising. This is a clear indication of having received attention from outside, reliable sources, which is the essence of |notability. I don't read it, I didn't like it when I did look at it, but it is notable. Let go of your hate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: When it comes to the subject of "Media" items,  has regularly been |Ignored because the subject is well enough known that our coverage of it is expected even if |reliable secondary coverage is lacking - this is particularly true when there is substantial coverage in a variety of sources such as Blogs, Forums, etc. As a result we have substantial numbers of episodes on articles of TV series or on Films that use only the episode or film it's self as a source similarly we have articles on Published comics that are well known and possibly even important in the history of comics but have not been covered by secondary sources (or if those sources exist they are not cited) examples include both Fred Basset and The Far Side. While I've never read it myself, Ctrl+Alt+Del is substantially well known webcomic and as one of the first to become well known it is notable (even if it doesn't fit our definition of notability) . Reading the first AfD  many of the contents came across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and whilst this AfD is coming across at least on the grounds of Notability - In my mind Ctrl+Alt+Del meets critera 3 of the Web Content Notability in that it is syndicated by webzines with editorial checking (and possibly it's adaptation into other media e.g;animation independent of the comic's owner suggests further notability) but I think there should be a further look at the guidelines for Media Subjects on the whole in the way that we currently assess notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IAR||WP:RS)

Comment: It looks like there is plenty of coverage. Sounds like 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: there seems to be enough links in the article to show that it meets the 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: A well-known gaming-related web-comic. There's a certain  surrounding it like most things that pioneered on the Internet, but as far as I'm concerned, the notability is established. May be it does not match every point of  or , but it has received much coverage (but may be not in RS) and this -- to me -- is a case of IAR applied to notability guidelines. —&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:WEB)