The result was delete. As it stands, the article seems like a lost cause. No prejudice toward re-creation if a more encyclopedic page can be created with adequate secondary sourcing. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of 92.25.131.125, who says: "I'm thinking this article Something Positive probably should go. I look at 'improving' it & come to the conclusion that every single part of it, judged alone, should be deleted. It doesn't seem notable, there are a few very minor possible RSs about the author, but none about the comic. Other than it having been nominated for the barely-existing WCCA, the only sources are comic pages themselves." I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Cautious delete. It appears I've accidentally stumbled into yet more nonsense wiki drama, where the group that cares the most wins. As far as I can tell, from what I've read after suggesting the page be deleted, it is taken that any comic to win a WCCA thing is notable, because the WCCA is (very very dubiously) taken as notable. There's some sort of article jenga going on, all resting ultimately on a paragraph in the New York Times mentioning the WCCA. The multiple previous AFDs for the 9 (or more?) WCCA articles seem to have come up keep more as a result of lots of editors getting angry and accusing others of being biased against webcomics as a genre, than of any....thing. I don't care. I ran into the shit that is the something positive article because I was reading SP archives, and wanted to know if the quality decline of the late 2000s(decade) reversed. You decide if it's notable, I don't care....I don't hate webcomics, jeph jacques didn't eat my hamster. 92.25.131.125 ( talk) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)