Deletion of Everlasting Wanderers

Comment: per nom. The argument to delete this page, based on the premise that the subject does not have many hits on Google, is a very ''strong'' one. As this is Internet-based content, a lack of Google hits or a low Alexa rank shows that there may not be enough interest in the webcomic for external independent sources to write about it. Wikipedia requires all information in articles to be |verifiable from external reliable sources. Unless it can be proven that this webcomic has been mentioned in multiple such reliable sources, this page ''should'' be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: If this is meant to satisfy the  requirements for Notability, would there really be any difference in Notability if the author had posted this comic on Comic Genesis instead? That should satisfy the #3 requirement for Web Notability, despite ''nothing really changing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Doesn't fulfill webcomic guidelines from 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Hahnchen, are you the one who determines what is notable and what is not? Did you create requirement #3 on the ? Comic Genesis does exactly what Requirement #3 states. It provides an independent third party online publishing site for web works. Your opinion may be that Everlasting Wanderers, Killer Robots from Space, Friend Bear and whatever other comics are not notable and should therefore be purged from Wikipedia, but that is it. It is your opinion. The rules that Wikipedia have put forth regarding notability do not agree with you. Rather than mark entries for deletion that clearly meet the existing notability requirements, perhaps your time would be better spent lobbying to get the notability requirements themselves changed. Obviously, it is in need of amendment. But not only is it stupid to continue attempting to delete the Everlasting Wanderers entry by spitting in the face of the very rules you claim to be deleting them for, it is hypocritical
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: non-notable webcomic. Large amounts of |sockpuppets don't really help the situation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: There is a difference between "being distributed" and being hosted on free web space.  Criteria 3 on  refers to cases like Little Gamers which is distributed by Custom PC magazine (as well as others).  Some take this criteria to refer to all "keenspot" comics to be notable, although I myself to not subscribe to that school of thought
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Using Alexa as a gauge to rank webcomics is not an accurate gauge. Many comic hosting sites, such as Comic Genesis and Smack Jeeves get blanket Alexa rankings for the domain itself, while their individual comics may not necessarily receive the listed high traffic. Furthermore, while there may be only 95,000 google hits for Everlasting Wanderers, the top hits are obviously the fancomic and related information. Fans of Everlasting Wanderers also know it goes by the shortened name "Everwander, which net a few thousand more hits that are almost entirely dedicated to Everlasting Wanderers. If you utilize only Google hits and Alexa rankings, The Lounge piggybacks from Comicgenesis.com's Alexa ranking, and obviously does not share the majority of google hits from the rather generic title, yet it (and more like it) would be allowed to maintain a wikipedia entry. If you mark Everlasting Wanderers for deletion based on these two criteria, you are being unfair and discriminatory, simply because there are many other webcomics in the same situation, but happen to be hosted on the correct domain to provide an aggregate Alexa rating. If Wikipedia is going to crack down because of the  requirements, that's fine. However, if Wikipedia does so, it should affect *all* offenders, and not just this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: If you do any research on the List of webcomics, you'll see a large number of comics listed that not only have extremely low Alexa ratings (over 2 million), but also fall under the same criteria. Furthermore, some webcomics can maintain a wiki entry simply by having met the  standards at some point in the past, but have since stopped updating. Some have even maintained their wikipedia entries (such as Acid Reflux (webcomic))) for over a year. Acid Reflux was added to Wikipedia 3 years *after* it had stopped updating, and has not met any of the requirements for . Everlasting Wanderers' entry has existed less than three months, yet WP moves to strike it down now? That seems not only unduly harsh, but discriminatory
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)