Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nukees

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nukees

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A webcomic series that appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (web). Several searches have not yielded results in reliable sources. Google News archive sources of the reliable variety consist of passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources at all, so this fails our notability standard of WP:NOTE. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - It seems this is an indie webcomic so I haven't found much but I found two articles from University of Berkeley here and here which may indicate he is rather well-known among the science community for this comic. Google News archives found one passing mention here which may have been the article the nominator mentioned, Google Books found one mention here though I can't see all of the preview's content. Regarding the article mentioning his cameo where he is duplicated a million times, this blog supports that (although this may not be the most notable or reliable source). I lean towards keep because receiving recognition from the science community may suggest something of notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked at the two University of Berkeley newsletter articles. The creator of this comic was a student at that school, the student newspaper printed the comic, this just looks like typical WP:ROUTINE school newsletter stories, not a sign that the the comic is "rather well-known among the science community" as the above "possible keep" commenter thinks may be the case. So, I still say "delete." Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at SwisterTwister's references, I don't think they are substantial coverage enough to base an article on, which means that WP:V#Notability applies. Sandstein 10:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.