Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looking for Group (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Looking for Group}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Looking_for_Group_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Looking for Group}})

Nothing but primary sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources on Gnews, just one-sentence name-drops. The awards are not sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Much as I like the comic and wish it were notable, I haven't been able to find anything. The only possibly reliable reference I could find was http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/10/web-comic-spotlight-looking-for-group/ ... which while a blog posting, at least is a CNN blog. But, that's just one reference, hardly enough. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete—Good call, TPH. Doesn't meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. ChromaNebula (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep This appears to be the same basis as last time. The Shuster Award, given by a group independant from LFG, is sufficient for notability. Footnote 69 is a link from the Shuster Awards, not LFG. The criteria for notability still includes a single award, see Wikipedia:Notability (web), and note that criteria is listed in the disjunctive. Finally, a subject never loses notability. IMHO (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep For all the reasons here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Looking_for_Group. As far as I'm aware this is a well known and widely read web comic. If you do a Google search for 'looking for group', you will see plenty of evidence of fan created sites, which is evidence of fans, i.e. notability. This article may need improving, but it's existence improves Wikipedia (Wikipedia:IAR) Garemoko (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 03:47, 9 June 2012 (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.