Talk:Wally and Osborne

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Webcomics.

Untitled

I just deleted some random guy's name from after "Major Characters". Hope you don't mind. Bpenguin17 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt this aritcle good enough? how does it not fall under ficton? just give me a reason and I'll be fine, but I just dont see whats wrong with it! dilbert is a comic, garfeild is a comic, this is a comic.- Jedi of redwall

I had a webcomic article deleted because it wasn't considered "notable" enough. I'd personally consider On the Rocks notable, but it's only been going for 7 months and generally WP only keeps articles on webcomics if they've been going a lot longer than that. BTW, there's also an article on On the Rocks at Comixpedia, so in the event this one does get deleted at least there's an alternative. Lee M 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, if it hasnt yet it probabley won't be - jedi of redwall

Wally and Osborne is great!

It's funny and wity and an all out laguh riot! It's also been runing form 2005 to 2007 and is still going! HOORAY FOR CARTOON VIOLENCE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sputnix (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Refuse Deletion!

I personaly refuse deletion of this article! You can find me on the comments section of the wally and osborne website as Eric.

I just deleted some guy who wrote his name after "Major Characters". Thought you ought to know. Bpenguin17 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Freedom License 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicated on Funbrain, part of Lunchbox Funnies collective. Lee M 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looky, now Funbrain is also being considered for deletion. Why doesn't that surprise me? Lee M 14:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Admins don't care. I put a hangon tag on the funbrain page. Maybe I should run for being an admin? More Freedom License 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon tags are only for contesting WP:SPEEDY deletion. They are not for use with WP:PROD or WP:AFD.--Isotope23 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the deletion tag? More Freedom License 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't going to be deleted - the deletion debate resulted in no consensus. WhisperToMe 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Let's hear it for no consensus! Lee M 13:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!! Whetever it means! More Freedom License 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

The material from the reviews needs to be integrated into the article itself, rather than being provided as external links. At that point it can reasonably be made class C. GreenReaper (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove a lot of them because they were either written by non-notable blogs or they were dead links. The bad thing about blogs is that unless they're by someone incredibly notable (ie, someone so notable that they have a wiki entry for themselves), they can't be used as reliable sources. Most of them were 404'd, unfortunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]