I don't think I've seen an Article for Deletion go so resoundingly (10 against nominator) in one direction.

The nominator must have a screw loose.

Nah, just kidding. Kudos to Guy for being bold.

And AfD now closed...oh so tempting.

Lol he tried to afd VG cats? That was a foregone conclusion.

Giggy for bureaucrat!

Frankly, I'd have recommended deletion. I don't understand "eventualism." If an article is junk, what's the trouble with it being deleted, then recreated later? Why does it have to be published in the interim? Does WP really need this article anyhow? Would a scholarly publication be obviously incomplete without "VG Cats?"

There are two issues with this. 1) Is Wikipedia a scholarly publication? Really? 2) Does having a webcomic article in need of improvement harm Wikipedia?

1) no, but it was supposed to be - see "encyclopedia." 2) yes, it degrades the brand.

1) Encyclopaedia != scholarly publication. 2) Only if you're operating on the assumption Wikipedia is completed - but that's an inclusionism/deletionism thing that has been chin-stroked over thousands of times.

I don't see how that follows logically at all. Of course Wikipedia is a "brand," and all brands can be degraded by poor quality, not matter what state any products under the brand are currently in.

If I release version 4.0 of a software program, and it has a bunch of new bugs in it, and people start griping about the new bugs, do I get to say "those bugs don't count" just because I know in advance that I'm eventually going to release version 4.1, or 5.0? Of course not - the need for quality control in the real world applies to anything you put your name on and make available.

WP may not adhere to those kinds of quality-assurance standards, or even act like they exist... but that's because the labor and the product is free, it lacks any kind of pre-publication review process, and above all, nobody is accountable. It's not because the whole thing isn't "finished."

There are huge numbers of articles that could do with substantial improvement, even some of the allegedly good ones. I doubt that one more matters.

"Includes a free-use image gallery" - so FIX IT.

I don't believe I've ever encountered someone so negative as Guy Chapman.