Talk:Evil Inc.

message: I'd like to add some facts to argue in favor of re-establishing this page. I am the creator of Evil Inc.
Evil Inc is a daily comic strip that has roughly 11,000 daily readers (as of Jan. 2007). It is a spin-off of my first comic, Greystone Inn, which was launched Feb 2000.
Later this month, I will celebrate seven years of creating a daily comic strip on a Monday-through-Saturday schedule. That's over 2,000 comics. 
Evil Inc appears in several daily newspapers -- as did Greystone Inn and my two other comic projects, Courting Disaster and Phables.
The largest newspaper to carry these comics is the Philadelphia Daily News which has a daily circulation of roughly 130,000.
There are two Evil Inc graphic novels, distributed worldwide by Diamond Distribution.
I would very much like to see this page re-established. It is not a webcomic. It is a comic strip with a Web presence.
Thank you
Guigar 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In my own defense... 

message: Somthing has obviously gone horribly wrong here.
What can we do to fix this? Jack Cain 08:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide citations that it's the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't done this before, but there are instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion_review.  I'd suggest first listing here in the talk page the places the comic has been published and the places it's been cited, so the evidence for why we should have the article is clear.  (Alas "EI could become a cultural icon in the superhero comic genre" won't win any arguments; it'll just be refuted with "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball".  So we need present-day references.  I'd also point out that publication by Lulu doesn't mean anything - they'll print anything if you pay them - though of course the Philly newspaper does.)  Looking at the archived deletion discussion it seems the only reason the article was deleted was because sources weren't cited in time, so fixing that should fix the problem. --Zeborah 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong. 

message: The new article, with all its citations, etc, appears to have been deleted again with no comment as to why.--HowardTayler 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It currently points to the deletion review, which is still open for commentary for the next few days. Nifboy 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but that page contains no reference to the fact that the page was restored, and then deleted again. This is confusing. At the very least somebody should say "page restored out of process, returned to deleted state pending review," or whatever the appropriate WP jargon is for that.--HowardTayler 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know it'd been re-created out of band. I'm going to transfer the latest (good) version to my userspace, pending the final results of the deletion review.TomXP411 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The DRV nominator just needs to withdraw the review and create a sourced article, is all. An AFD deletion decision is never an injunction against a better article, so if there are sources available that establish notability and that weren't brought up during the AFD discussion just ask the closing admin to restore the article to user space, source the claims and move the article back to mainspace. It's usually considered prudent to double-check with the closing admin if the sources are sufficient (a lot of people have a tendency to overestimate the quality of their sources). As long as the article is under review the decision of the AFD stands, and recreation is out of process. So this nomination was not only frivolous but also counterproductive. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted again?