Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonetoss

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. Daniel (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stonetoss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG (and WP:NARTIST for good measure, though it would be a stretch to apply that here). Only reliable sources that give significant coverage to the webcomic, both currently in the article and in a WP:BEFORE check, are a pair from The Daily Dot.[1][2] That's scant on it's own, but per WP:RSP and previous RSN discussions, The Daily Dot is also probably a bad indicator of notability given the high volume of articles it churns out about obscure parts of the Internet. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if you say so.You can delete it of you want. If Stonetoss reveives more notability in the future, though, I hope we can reinstall the page. Dunutubble (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It has to be taken into account that it just seems like a non-notable web comic. Even if it was notable, deletion would still probably be preferred for WP:TNT, since it's in a very poorly written state right now. Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing but passing mentions in reliable sources, just some vaguely controversial Twitter user. Pretty sure there's no notability standard for vaguely controversial Twitter users, but still. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if we must have an article about them then noting the qualities that the dailydot articles not would be essential, and I'm not convinced they would be off limits for sources, but not having an article solves that problem also. Artw (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Fails WP:GNG. the creator Dunutubble seems to be a fairly new user and I don't think the user intends to act disruptively. I believe the user should be invited to read WP:RS, as the article has some non-RS non-expert user-made links such as Medium. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 19:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources just don't add up to notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough sources Sahaib (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2021 (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.