MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Which article are we actually talking about? If there's new additional evidence in the form of the Wayback machine links it explains why a regular Google didn't work which would make it quite likely for the original decision to be overturned. Especially when the creator has another comic included.
The webcomic "The Jar": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jar
The archives used to be located here: http://www.montroseacademy.com/jar/ and some of it can be seen via Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.montroseacademy.com/jar/ . Kittyhawk's subsequent webcomic has an article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_Generation_Valkyrie_Yuuki with the old VfD discussion for it pasted on its talk page.
I'd try a VfU, but the policy right on the VfU page is quite confusing on this point. It says:
Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion /and/ the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. This process should /not/ be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about /process/, not content.
I've got new information and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article, but I don't agree with the deletion debate's reasoning and I think the debate was interpreted correctly by the closer (the result was clearly "delete", I don't fault whoever pressed the button). I'd like to see the policy situation clarified rather than just making an exception in this one case since it's not like this one case is particularly important on its own.