Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and Happiness
You bring up a good point in determining the reliability of a source. I do understand where you are coming from, I personally have used the  and  recently myself, though I might comment on the links. I see no fan blogs anywhere, a blog by Kris Wilson one of the editors of the strip yes, fanblog? No. All it is doing is establishing the fact that another book is being self published. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves| Self Published It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability, It is not contentious, It is not unduly self-serving, It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject, and There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it. Joystiq is a notable video gaming weblog, notable enough to have it's own wikipedia article, given the fact that it has established notability for itself it would, I hope, establish notability for any polls, articles, etc it publishes. But the main point of inserting that citation is to point out the fact that it has gotten word about about Cyanide and Happiness and does have a reader base. Additionally if you look through the 'what links here' a few articles do use Joystiq as a reference. The "Press Release" I assume you're commenting on the Brand Republic article is not a press release and Brand Republic has been cited before (in Arsenal F.C.|a featured article) without comment, additionally while it does not have "Cyanide and Happiness" it mentions 'web-comic team Explosm'. According to Haymarket Publishing, Brand Republic is ''UK's leading website for news and jobs from the advertising, marketing and media industries. It is also the home of Campaign and Marketing magazines online.'' http://www.haymarketgroup.com/products/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowProduct&productID=47 The Marketing Society says ''With over 150,000 articles from 12 leading industry magazines, Brand Republic also contains more than 1,000 jobs, book reviews, industry data and reports.'' http://www.themarketingsociety.org/main.asp?page=enuggets-content-provider&id=3. A not for profit company ABC Electronic has audited BrandRepublic for traffic and it has established that it is indeed a high traffic site with over a million page impressions over the period of 30 days. http://www.abce.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=abce/abce&type=page&p=brand_rep.html&menuid=about_abce%7Ccase_studies%7Cbrand_rephttp://www.abce.org.uk/ABCE_PDFS/BrandRepublic1105w.pdf  To me it sounds as if this is an established UK marketing website. Not only that but the writer is on staff at Brand Republic so it has not been imported from another article, sounds notable enough to me. College Newspapers might be toeing the line, but featured articles such as Cornell University, Duke University, and Michigan State University all use their own newspapers as sources and citation for themselves not only have they been used like that but college newspapers have been used in several other articles (not just it's associated school article) , I don't see a problem here as college newspapers have been accepted as reliable sources in the past. Not only that but I believe that it is held in good regard in not only the community but the state as evidenced by http://www.utdallas.edu/news/archive/2006/mercury-awards.html. It has been established for 25 years and has an established record having won at least 32 awards for journalistic excellence in state along with the National Pacemaker Award http://www.utdallas.edu/news/archive/2005/pacemaker-mercury.html amongst others. As you've said
— User:Masamage, 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Verifiability)