Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concession (webcomic) (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Concession (webcomic)}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Concession (webcomic)}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Concession (webcomic)}})

Extremely heavy on the trivia, extremely light on the sources. The only non-primary source is Cracked.com, a humor website. Absolutely no relevant hits on Google News or Google Books. It won an Ursa Major Award, which says absolutely nothing for notability since that very award had its article deleted for lack of notability. Last AFD, in March 2010, also resulted in deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with above, looks like one editor was a devoted fan of the series, but this subject seems far from being notable based on the information in the article. --NDSteve10 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I'll be honest, as an Inclusionist I simply don't understand the purpose of blocking content on an infinite plane of resources like Wikipedia. Aveilleux (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY completely. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources in order to write an encyclopedia articles. Only secondary sourced material is a single sentence based on trivial coverage of humor website Cracked making fun of the alleged pedophilia themes of the comic, which probably runs afoul of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP as well. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Apart from the Cracked article, there are no reliable secondary sources of some kind in the article which indicate notability. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Although the Ursa Major awards have lost their own notibility (which I think is stupid in its own right but won't get into here), it is still an outside source, it is an award recognized by the furry community and demonstrates, well as the Cracked.com article, how Concession has generated positive and negative publicity both in and out of the community it was made for. Two outside sources should be sufficient I think. Honestly, I just think this is another furry witch hunt, just like the Ursa Majors, trying to remove anything 'furry' from Wikipedia. But it is my opinion and hopefully a good one, that the two outside sources should be enough to keep this article on Wikipedia. --DarkMask(talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010
• Don't Delete Really, I agree with the above. This is all just a furry witch hunt to get everything furry off wikipedia. --Xandrez192 (talk)23:39 EST, 15 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

: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.