Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey and Andy (3rd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Casey and Andy}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Casey and Andy}})

This article was deleted at AfD in 2010 as it was spammy and sourced to blogs and other non independent or non reliable sources. It was recently restored but seems to me to suffer from the same shortcomings as the previous version. NPP reviewers have attempted a redirect but this was reverted. I didn’t think there is enough in-depth coverage in RIS for this to remain as a stand-alone article. I’ve no objection to a redirect but we should also prevent it being recreated so it has to come back to AfD for a fourth time. Mccapra (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• 「Keep」 記事を保存する必要があります。 ここでの違いは、2010 年の Andy Weir は特別なものではなかったということです。 しかし、13 年後、彼は世界的に有名な作家になり、彼の以前の作品 (Casey and Andy、Cheshire Crossing など) はますます詳細なメディア報道を受け、記事を受け取り、数多くの記事を受け取りました。 議論。 シリーズの回顧展で、Tapas はシリーズ (および著者) の概要を説明しました。 首折り男のための協奏曲 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Google Translate: The article should be saved. The difference here is that Andy Weir in 2010 was nothing special. However, 13 years later, he has become a world-famous author, and his previous works (Casey and Andy, Cheshire Crossing, etc.) have received increasingly detailed media coverage and articles. and received many articles. discussion. In a series retrospective, Tapas gave an overview of the series (and the author). 首折り男のための協奏曲 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)''

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

::Could you please show which three sources are the best, offering in depth and independent coverage of the subject? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: I'm seeing non-trivial coverage, including Wired,{{Cite magazine |last=Sjoberg |first=Lore |date=12 December 2006 |title=After the Punchline |url=https://www.wired.com/2006/12/after-the-punch |access-date=12 December 2006 |magazine=Wired}} RPGnet,{{Cite web |last=Kitty |first=RP |date=27 May 2005 |title=Review of GURPS Casey & Andy |url=https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11293.phtml |access-date=27 May 2005 |publisher=RPGnet}} MIT,Beal, Jake. [http://mitsfs.mit.edu/reviews/Anthology-IfIWereAnEvilOverlord Review: If I Were An Evil Overlord]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Science Fiction Society, 31 May 2007. and Engadget.{{Cite web |last=Lefebvre |first=Eliot |date=29 October 2010 |title=Storyboard: Roleplaying in MMOs: The Unshuffled Mortal Coil |url=https://www.engadget.com/2010-10-29-storyboard-the-unshuffled-mortal-coil.html |access-date=29 October 2010 |website=Engadget}} WP:POTENTIAL for more. OPyoyonono (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: Sequential Tart and Wired are considered wp:reliable sources by the wp:wikiproject of webcomics' established standards. The Medium article looks good to me too. 93.107.190.194 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Final relist, I've decided to relist this discussion once more given the relative newness of the editors who have weighed in on this discussion thus far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: The existing sourcing in the article seems just about sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Bit of a mix of very old and new sources, but I'd lean towards keeping this article, or redirecting if it fails this discussion. Stowsgripe (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.