Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/0

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1/0 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Notability concerns. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:34, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

  • I have no facts or figures, but I believe it was actually fairly notable during its run. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I move to bomb all webcomics to the Stone Age! Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:43, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Do you have a reason for deleting it other than the fact that it's a webcomic? Factitious 06:49, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Divide by zero is an error. (Yet another comic.) Geogre 05:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Do you have a reason for deleting it other than the fact that it's a comic? Factitious 06:49, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, and I'm glad you asked. Ok, past tense web comic. It was notable in its day, people say. Great. How long was that day? Is anyone, ever, going to want to search this topic to find out important information about this important thing? If it "was notable in its day," then it seems like it should be discussed in a "Emergence of web comics" article or a "Web comic innovators" article or a "Emergence of web comics" article, as that's where the importance lies, where the discussion is natural. However, if the reason think that the article should stay because they personally liked it or were entertained by it or because a lot of people viewed it at the time (and then, the next week, it was something else entirely), then I don't think that makes it encyclopedic. The lifespan of these things is amazingly brief, and there are no clear lines of influence. We don't keep to aid web lookups ("not a webguide"), and we don't keep because it was cool. Geogre 14:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Is anyone, ever, going to want to search this topic to find out important information about this important thing? Yes, as a matter of fact, I have had occasion to do just that. Since your objection seems to make the assumption that it was something popular for a single week ("and then, the next week, it was something else entirely") I think I can assure you, it was a strip that many people paid attention to for a lot longer than a week. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Not only did many people pay attention to it for longer than a week, they continue to pay attention to it. When Narbonic had cameos of the 1/0 characters, the ensuing discussion on the forums showed that 1/0 is well-known within the webcomics community. Factitious 05:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • My point wasn't that this particular strip was particularly of one particular week, but that ease of publication has meant that there are now so many competing groups with competing products with short lifespans that a "notable" one is probably lost to history very quickly. For an analogy, think of the early days of mass newspapers. There weren't two per city: there were 200 per city. They'd run for weeks, not years. Then they were gone. The most significant ones, even, are found not by their own names in encyclopedias or separate works, but in larger historical topics. The same, only much, much moreso, will be the case with "comics" that can be produced by anyone with software. They proliferate at such a pace as to outstrip attention. The most very, very significant that do not last will earn discussion in an article on webcomics (that was my argument). Imagine now an article on every single online retailer from the late 1990's. Amazon and BN won the battle, but remember when online bookstores were starting up at a rate of 3 a week? Geogre 17:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree with the claim that it's been lost to history. One of the external links in the article is to a review written after the comic ended, for instance. It's definitely something that people will search for on Wikipedia — I did so a couple weeks ago, and it appears that Antaeus Feldspar has as well. I also would dispute the statement that 1/0 "did not last". It's still online, and still frequently read. You might as well say that a book doesn't last if the author has finished writing it. Factitious 05:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Was reasonably notable in its heyday. Article needs work though. — Gwalla | Talk 06:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very notable webcomic, though not really one of the most popular ones. A couple years ago, I took a course on comics (including, but not limited to, webcomics). On the first day of class, the professor asked if anyone had suggestions for pieces they'd really like to see covered. I suggested 1/0, and his response was along the lines of, "Yes, of course we'll be discussing 1/0." Factitious 06:49, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable indeed. Often referred to, so the archives are probably still read frequently. Tim J Tylor 15:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --RJH 21:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. GRider 19:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge, notable. Additionally, One_over_Zero should probably redirect to this page, as "1/0" is the format of the comic's actual title. Chimerasame 02:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1/0&oldid=808011081"