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 keep. –  Joe ( talk) 08:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interjectcite84 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Wouldn't the mention of Erfworld, and Balder as the writer of Erfworld, in this citation https://web.archive.org/web/20071212161244/http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1686244_1692143,00.html meet the basic criteria for notability? There are other articles about Erfworld by other sources, like https://www.wired.com/2010/01/erfworld-geekiest-comic-ever/ and https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/07/living/web-comic-spotlight-erfworlds-rob-balder/index.html as well. In the previous proposal for deletion there were comments along those lines. YourBestFriendFromMySpace ( talk) 23:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment As the author himself has worked to remove the series from the internet, Erfworld's status as a "significant or well-known work" is questionable. The scant support of multiple independent reviews or articles is highlighted by the post above. Interjectcite84 ( talk) 02:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment The first book made a splash and was commented on by writers with Time and NPR. Balder withdrawing from interaction with the internet and closing his fan community isn't the same thing as the work being removed from the internet. The books were published and remain in print. Balder took the first book off Giant in the Playground's website, but the whole work is still available on the archive on Balder's site. Balder is not generally famous, but he made a work that was noteworthy at the time of publication. His handling of the IP, most particularly the cryptocurrency funding attempt, was also noteworthy simply because as near as I can tell it was the first time anyone had tried to do that with a graphic novel or web comic. Regardless of Balder's personal wishes about wanting to disappear into obscurity, he's achieved a measure of notability through that authorship and his handling of the Erfworld IP which will outlive him. YourBestFriendFromMySpace ( talk) 05:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Erfworld as a series seems to have gained notoriety through its association with Rich Burlew and Giant in the Playground. Its removal from that site and seclusion to a static archive that is not prominently featured on its own site's landing page reduces its cultural significance. As far as I can tell the books are not in print and were self-published. That the comic generated a couple minor articles on the internet a decade ago does not make it notable. The author is also not notable for having used print-on-demand services to sell his work to fans or his attempt to use his fans to mine cryptocurrency. The existence of a few die-hard fans of a discontinued webcomic does not necessitate an encyclopedia article for its author. Interjectcite84 ( talk) 14:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Both Interjectcite84 and YourBestFriendFromMySpace appear to be single-purpose accounts. The former has only made edits relevant to this AfD, while the latter has only edited at the AfD and the related Erfworld article. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 04:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment I've had wikipedia accounts in the past and made a handful of edits, but it's been years. I've also made some unsigned edits here and there, but you can't participate in an AfD conversation without creating an account, so yes, I created an account to participate in this discussion. I don't believe that invalidates my comments. Interjectcite84 ( talk) 13:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm confused by what you're saying. First of all, unsigned edits are still recorded in your edit history, so that doesn't make any difference to my previous point. If you mean that you sometimes edit while logged out, be careful that you're not violating WP:LOUTSOCK. (If you edited solely from an IP address before creating an account and now edit solely from your account, you should be okay.) Additionally, if you have used other accounts in the past, review WP:CLEANSTART to ensure there are no potential sockpuppetry violations. You are correct that single-purpose accounts can contribute to AfDs, but those accounts are often used as sockpuppets, which is why it's important to at least tag them when they appear. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for letting me know. I maintained an account over a decade ago and don't know what email address I used back then, but I'll review WP:CLEANSTART. I have never edited any Erfworld or Erfworld-related pages. I have made minor grammatical edits in the intervening time, but have not edited logged out since creating this account. Interjectcite84 ( talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I'm going to ignore the odd conversation above, and stick to evaluating the subject based on notability policy. Seems to meet criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE per the sources given above. That was the consensus at the last AFD. Notability is not temporary, so later changes in the availability of the work online don't matter. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Looks notable to me. — Qwerfjkl talk 14:46, 18 September 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.