Deletion of Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination)

Comment: the main article, I've rewritten it and it meets our policies of |verifiability and |no original research. Other arguments are subjective
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: the "by year" articles, merging them into Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards would only create |listcruft and the lists themselves provide no context and I would go so far as to declair them as #IINFO|indiscriminate as well as violate #DIRECTORY. As for the main article, it barely passes  by the thinnest of margins. However, I still have concerns that there is not enough coverage by reliable sources to build a proper, verifiable, encycopedic article from without using primary sources or |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:WEB||WP:NOR)

Comment: the main article;  isn't in question, and I feel the sources given are sufficient to meet ; I don't see them as trivial.  The daughter articles don't seem necessary; I'm leaning toward '''delete''' for them, but a merge or partial merge and redirect might be an option.  No strong opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: #Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves| also states that "dubious" and "self-published" sources can be used as verification for articles about the sources themselves given some very minimal conditions. As I've pointed out earlier, it is trivially easy for an article about a webcomic - and I'll point out this applies to any content primarily distributed online - to satisfy ; the only question is whether or not it meets notability standards in the first place to merit an article. The standards for notability are outlined fairly clearly, and resoundingly met in this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per Dragonfiend and Brenneman, who have established that there is not sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources to form the basis of an article on this topic, be it from the point of view of  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: the main article -- I think it meets  now -- but I don't think we need to keep lists for the individual years.  A link to the WCCA site should be sufficient
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)