Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 11 December 2005 and 04 January 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites)/Archive 05. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Hiding talk 12:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary of old webcomic discussions

At the request of Brenneman, a brief summary of previous discussion. Nifboy 14:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Syndication

  • Modern Tales - "Big Dick's Ball" was the most commonly cited example of why not all MT strips deserved articles.
  • Blank Label, Dayfree, Dumbrella, etc: Although these are major players in the webcomic community, it was disputed just how comparable these were to, say, minor music labels as noted by WP:MUSIC.
  • Keenspot: Discussed below
  • Some discussion on the role of webcomic syndicates vs. print syndicates.

Straw poll

A) voting is eeevil, and B) wp is not a democracy, but C) the syndicates are a big deal to someone.

Syndicates are out

Syndicates are in, but in some other form

  • How about just Keenspot strips (perhaps further restricted to active and archived strips)? I saw a lot of discussion on the smaller collectives (particularly Dayfree) and a lot of discussion on MT (particularly "Big Dick's Ball"), but I think Elf Only Inn is as close as you can get to worst case scenario. Nifboy 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Syndicates are in

You cannot hold polls to magically override consensus on other pages

  1. Phil Sandifer 04:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Quite. I'd also add that you can't change minds by holding a poll. Aaron really should have known better than to call a poll in the middle of a bickerfest.
  3. -MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC) Agreed. Transmogrification of such concensus on a grand scale is unthinkable.

Claiming that there is consensus does not magically make it so.

  1. brenneman(t)(c) 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    So can we stop with the WP:POINT subheadings now?
    I'm sorry, did the Checkerboard Nightmare, Able and Baker, Elf Only Inn, or Life on Forbez closes get overturned while I wasn't looking? Phil Sandifer 05:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. Able and Baker afd - 12 d 20 k massive debate, please examine it for yourself, but there is no agreement on syndication, only that "per Snowspinner" is pretty common.
    2. Forbez afd - 6 (+1) d, 4 k. The only person who mentions syndication as their reason to keep is Snowspinner, although Fangz mentions WP:WEB so that may be what he's referring to.
    3. Elf Only 1, Elf Only 1, Elf Only 3 - ignoring the valid delete and the flawed no consensus that was sctually a delete, the last AfD was 4 d, 13 k. Again, only two people mention Keenspot as reasons to keep. Oh, sorry, three because according to Snowspinner "All Keenspot strips are notable."
    4. Jaded afd - 8 d, 2 (+1) m to graphic smash, 6 k. Only two say "keep" due to syndication.
    Please, please stop. There is clearly no consensus that syndication equates to notability.
    brenneman(t)(c) 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    The point of these guidelines is to create a set of rules that describes how Wikipedia keeps and does not keep webcomics. Given that four webcomics can be found that are syndicated and survived deletion and none can be found that were deleted, a rule that would render all four of those closes - three in the time since we started this debate - "wrong" is a defiance of consensus. You are trying to insist upon a guideline that is more restrictive than the community is. That is wrong. Phil Sandifer 11:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Plato is a philosopher. Plato is Greek. Thus all greeks are philosophers.
    • The point of these guidelines is to create a set of rules that describes how Wikipedia keeps and does not keep webcomics. Given that four webcomics can be found that contain the letter "e" in their name, clearly this should be in the guidelines, "No webcomic with the letter 'e' in the title shall be deleted."
    • Do I need to produce further absurdities to demonstrate the problem with your claims?
    • As noted above, removing syndication as a "valid" keep reason would have changed none of the above decisions. Well, the one would have been 66%.
    • The "community" that favours syndication, as detailed pretty clearly by the examples above, is mainly you.
    • Is your contention now that no syndicated webcomic has ever has had a "delete" decision reached on AfD?
      brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • To add to the logical fallacies defending an non-existent consensus, snowspinner has repeatedly stated that consensus doesn't matter when he says so. He can't have it both ways, either consensus is supposed be meaningful and determine these guinelines in whole or not. Nathan J. Yoder 23:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe it was his point that no syndicated webcomic has never had a delete decision reached that wasn't overturned. If there is one, could you point it out, as I've not seen any example. More specifically, has a Keenpot comic ever had a delete decision reached, as I'd say that their guidelines for inclusion are strong enough to count for notability, even if other syndicates aren't. J•A•K 00:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but since you're making the claim the burden of proof is on you. Additionally, you appear to be making the same logical error as above. Wait! It's so obvious now: Snowspinner is just your sock, isn't he! ^_^
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was trying to clarify what I thought Phil Sandifer meant, and asking if there were any cases of syndicated comics or keenspot comics specifically, being deleted. As well as the fact I wasn't actually making the claim, what proof precisely do you want that there haven't been any syndicated comics which have been deleted (and stayed deleted)? Since I imagine it would be hard to give conclusive proof that there have been no cases of that, I'm asking if you know any off the top of your head which have been deleted. This would establish the statement untrue, which would clear it up. If not, I'd think the fact no one can give a response to this to indicate there is no such deleted article, as I'm fairly sure anyone who would know about this, would be here. I may be wrong with this assumption, I'm just wondering if I am. And why do you keep accusing me of being a sock for Snowspinner? I'll take an IP test to establish I'm in a different (I assume) location to him. Your accusations are getting irritating. J•A•K 01:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've never accused anyone of being a sock, prior to this attempt at humourously doing so. I assumed that by both saying that Snowspinner was your sock and using the smile emoticon it would be obvious that I was joking. Clearly this was not the case, and I apologise if you were offended.
    • Every positive example that has been put forward of a webcomic that was "not deleted due to syndication" has failed to make its case, see above.
      brenneman(t)(c) 02:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What I'm trying to say is that for a webcomic to be syndicated, it realistically has to be notable: if there are any webcomics which were syndicated but had their articles deleted, that would be an argument against it. I'm just asking if you know of any syndicated webcomic which was deleted, as I'm suggesting that syndication works as a good rule of thumb for notability, I'd have thought.
    • Of course, I doubt you'd agree to that, I would alternatively suggest that, for a start, all comics which co-founded syndicates should be accepted as notable. Would you agree that? Slightly more contentiously, I'd argue that something like Keenspot, which has a rather exclusive entrance policy [1], would tend to indicate notability. I'd suggest adding keenspot, and examining other syndicates to see if memembership of them could be taken as an indicator of notability. I doubt you'd agree to that, though. J•A•K 15:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Just because Snowspinner thinks something is notable does not make it so. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. This whole thing is a complete and utter clusterf -- well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense at all. What does syndication have to do with anything? Four comics passed AfD that were syndicated. Good for them! I'm happy! I love Checkerboard Nightmare! I also have it on good authority that they were illustrated by humans. Obviously, we should immediately start modifying policies to indicate that webcomics should not be deleted if they were drawn by humans. Snowspinner, you are utterly out of bounds here. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we change the policy to make syndication a determining factor in whether or not webcomics should be deleted. It is also perfectly unreasonable to simultaneously (a) propose that policy change, (b) imply, incorrectly, that that policy change has already happened, and (c) describe anyone who cares to point out that your reasoning is faulty as an enemy of freedom, motherhood, and apple pie. Can we start over, perhaps, and have you restate, precisely, the policy change you'd like us to discuss? Nandesuka 04:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Syndication in pen and ink cartoons might have been a factor in determining notability, in that being picked up by United was the equivalent of being signed by Warner Brothers for musicians. The reason this was an appropriate factor was merely that syndication meant distribution. Distribution is the most significant limiting factor for musicians and cartoonists. However, in the case of web comics, syndication is nothing, since distribution is equally certain with and without it. Inasmuch as consumers go to a site to get the strip (and the consumer can be a portal page or a mailing list), a "syndicate" is as meaningless as "big server" or "hosted at its own domain rather than at myspace." In other words, attempting to introduce this as a factor is based upon a false analogy. Secondly, a great deal of the buffaloing in this argument depends upon expertise. I totally reject the implication that there are experts who are animals more equal than others. A good many folks here specifically mask their own expertise by using screen names. Web comics live with screen names, so you can have screen name experts; this would not extend evenly to other forms of debate, and therefore it cannot be a legitimate part of policy deliberation here. Finally, there is no precedent of four. If we extend desseutude to precedent in policy, that's valid only until there is a policy debate. This is a policy debate, and custom can't be introduced as evidence. Geogre 10:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree wholeheartedly with Geogre. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[2] brenneman proposes "minimum conditions" that all agree on 23:35, 4 November 2005
[3] note that the only objection (to removal of syndicates)is snowspinner, with one editor explicitly agreeing and three tacitly agreeing
[4] brenneman's first request for compromise
[5] brenneman's second request for compromise
[6] brenneman notes that he's compromised, asks for flexibility
[7] brenneman notes that current 100K Alexa is higher than he'd like, but that "I'm trying to find something we can all agree on"
[8] brenneman again demonstrates willingness to compromise
[9] brenneman removes syndication 23:31, 9 November
[10] brenneman notes this on talk page 23:33, 9 November
This stands for 12 days, with seven people editing the guideline in the interim. There is no objection on the talk page [11] in this time, with 9 editors contributing.
[12] notes on talk page that he's re-inserting syndicates based upon Checkerboard Nightmare AfD 02:37 21 Nov
[13] reinserts synidcates 02:40 21 Nov
[14] State of AfD at time of re-insertion of "syndicate" (note Ravenswood's edit was afterwards, using this diff as it clearly shows the time)
Note 1 - The word "syndicate" does not appear in this discussion.
Note 2 - Based upon the admin's later discretion, the count at that stage was 3k, 2d, 1m. This includes the discounting of Eric Burns

Quality of minimal guidelines

  • Most previously cited examples passed criteria.
  • Objections brought up that Cat and Girl would not be included.
  • Discussion of whether a 50k Alexa cutoff would be better.
  • Discussion on the role of the guidelines.

Webcomics vs. Websites

  • Minimal discussion on why webcomics deserved to be treated better than websites, in terms of Alexa ranking.

WP:CITE and WP:V

  • It was repeatedly asserted that sources needed to be cited and verified for there to exist an article on Wikipedia.
  • Discussion on whether an AfD nom needed to prove an article was unencyclopediac.

Requested move

I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics again

The latest AfD vote, Greeneyes, has convinced me that no matter what criteria we come up for webcomics, those criteria will be ignored. Nifboy 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Look on the bright side: at least we don't have AfD trigger happy bozos using the policy to justify unsound deletions. That would be far worse. Xuanwu 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I always figured the point of policy was that, for any given nomination you can look at the policy and say "This is what the webcomic/Wikipedia group says should stay, and this isn't on the list", lending at least some credibility to the argument. WP:MUSIC came pretty darn close to becoming CSD criteria. I'm sorely tempted to put longevity criteria back in as a result of the greeneyes debate, since our current criteria clearly aren't inclusive enough for concensus. Nifboy 11:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of these things are just guidelines: an expression of a fairly widespread view on an issue. If there isn't a consensus, then any guideline lacks real teeth. And by a consensus, I don't mean a few chaps on a web page discussion. You need a pretty widespread consensus, really, and the traditional way of ensuring that this is the case is to hold a site-wide survey. This is how the Three revert rule block policy was made about a year ago.

Editors in deletion debates are expected to exercise their best judgement, which may include, but must never be limited to, looking up any related guidelines. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The Greeneyes discussion is pretty much farcical. The whole point in the refactoring of WP:COMIC into WP:WEB was to stem the tide of webcomic creation and get a lot of them deleted. And with Greeneyes, people are saying, it's a good article so let's keep it irrespective of its notability. I mean, there is a group of users who will block vote keep on any webcomic afd, and the reason this "consensus" is reached is just because the webcomic evangelists if you were, care too much. They will vote keep consistantly to try and crowbar open the guidelines so they can either get their own webcomic in, or make sure their favourite one gets an article.
What has now happened again, and exactly what I didn't want, is that webcomics are now treated with such high regard in comparison to any other website. Because they have a dedicated mobile online community set on promoting the entire field of webcomictry as a whole, whereas normal websites do not, their bar of inclusion is so low, that I could probably get one in after a few weeks of doodling.
This online community, with an eye on wikipedia, in case anyone would defile their cause has an overly large say in what is a pretty small group. If the webcomic rules are going to be relaxed to allow "good articles" with questionable or no notability, then the guidelines for all other websites must be lowered. And the Wiki is not a web directory should be altered to say that it is. I mean for example, I'm OK with the 5000 member forum guideline, but if a webcomic forum had even 1000 members, then that forum is smoking hot, it's given megatokyo a run for its money. What if a load of bloggers joined wikipedia and block voted keep on every blog, we don't let this happen? But it already has. - Hahnchen 11:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel you are missing something specific. A webcomic is not equal to a website. Perhaps it might be easier to think of it like this. Is a comic equal to a piece of paper? That the wikipedia is not a web directory is not in dispute regardless of what rules are decided for webcomics as long as that distinction is borne in mind. Just because your notability standards would not allow an article on a particular webcomic, it does not mean it is not notable within its field. It is worth remembering we should afford some little respect to those people familiar with a field. I certainly do not bvelieve I can have notability standards in fields I have no familiarity, for example areas regarding scientific theories and equations. Therefore I attempt not to judge such articles on any notability scale, and rather defer to those who have familiarity in that field. Areas where I feel I can comment on, regarding such articles, are ones of style and informativeness. I hope that helps clarify behaviour which you describe as having an overly large say. Hiding talk 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hiding has a very good point: web comics do not equal websites. Web comics are the same as print comics. The characters of webcomics have the potential to have as big an impact upon society and pop culture as Spider-Man, Batman, or any of the comic book figures of old. There are old comics from the 1930's that are notable not because of their major print runs, but because of their influence on other major comics. With web comics such as Greeneyes, the situation is similar: it's not notable because of its popularity, but because of the influence it has had on the development of other web comics. Movies are another good comparison: you have many obscure foreign films that served as inspiration to larger mainstream Hollywood versions. Those original foreign versions are therefore notable. Webcomics are an art form to be equated with music, movies, comic books, etc. Xuanwu 09:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional Criteria

Since someone insisted that I mention it here first (personally, I thought it was quite reasonable), here's what I propose to add. Comment on them as you see fit.

  • Add in magazine publication with print run. If being in print is notable, being run in a magazine should also count. Setting the circulation/subscription bar at 5000 should be sufficient, since that's the same number of people we consider notable for a web forum.
  • Listing in a Top 100 site as a substitue for Alexa. Since Alexa is statistically inaccurate, it makes sense to allow something else to be used in its stead. Webcomic Top 100 lists came to my mind. See my edit of the article for some of the ones I suggested. If anyone has better suggestions, feel free to pitch them. (Note: the comic lists I put in there were some I knew off the top of my head; there are probably better ones out there.) Xuanwu 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I personally have minimal respect for the top 100 lists I've looked at - they're click-through spamtraps that have never, to my knowledge, reflected reality as much as ballot-stuffing. Phil Sandifer 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • What about The Webcomic List? They measure traffic in and out of their site for rankings rather than votes. I think they're somewhat trust worthy since it's hard to rig. Xuanwu 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Good call - I'd missed the site founding (Probably thought ti was like most of the rest), but it's a good site, and its list is pretty fair. I'd consider more than top 100 there, actually - I see some pretty notable comics further down, even to around 400. (Piled Higher and Deeper is the last one I see that I think definitely deserves an article.) Phil Sandifer 08:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Specifically, they rank webcomics based on "visits per update," according to their FAQ. That Sabrina Online (Alexa rank well over 200k) ranks higher than Schlock Mercenary (Alexa: 43k) is pretty indicative of this, I think. I tentatively support this, mostly because I can't think of any reason not to (yet). Nifboy 11:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • For "The Webcomics List," how does a ranking of 400 or better sound as a cutoff? Might want to add in something like "in the top 400 for a period of time" for those comics that have ended or gone into hiatus that were notable when updating. I'd also suggest making it a substitute for Alexa, i.e. you can use either to establish substantial visitation. Also, can we agree that there is consensus for magazine publication with circulation/subscription of 5000+, since no one seems to object? Xuanwu 02:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • ...Um. Yikes. 400 comics given auto-pass notice? Nooo thank you. I actually want to say a cutoff of 50, given that 51 is El Goonish Shive filler strips. Now there's a blow to credibility if I ever saw one. Nifboy 03:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
              • ...Um, I have no idea how on earth the filler got there, but I would say 50 is probably too low: most of those in that list that high would probably get in on other grounds. Plus we need to make it clear that we are not saying that only a specific number of webcomics can/should be in the wikipedia. J•A•K 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've re-inserted the magazine criterion, I don't think there are many, if any objections to that.J•A•K 01:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have a serious problem with this, depending on its interpretation. I would be totally against a comic which has only appeared in say a college newspaper to be automatically kept on wikipedia. This is given over-emphasis on the comic. At my university paper, there are normally 1 or 2 comics a week, I would totally be against them having an article. No, they don't appear on the web, and even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference if no one read it. If you say that a comic appearing on a magazine with a run of 5000 is enough to warrant an article, then I could write an article for every contributor to our university magazine, every writer, reviewer, and editor. The comic is not inherently more notable than any of those. - Hahnchen 11:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The thought occurred to me after I added it, but I thought it might promote discussion if it was added due to lack of complaints. And if it wasn't then people who saw this would have accepted it, and consensus would exist. If the requested circulation was upped, or a requirement that the comic was originally published on the web? How are circulation figures for student newpapers generated, anyway? J•A•K 13:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • You're thinking in terms of webcomics here, but why is a webcomic that has appeared in a newspaper inherently more notable than a regular comic which appears in the paper. The student paper, that I have written for has circulations easily in the thousands, it's a major London university, but the comic which appears in it isn't notable, nor are the original writers, or editors. Not enough for their own article anyway. - Hahnchen 15:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • A comic that is printed would have to state where it was printed in order to prove notability. If it turned out they were only printed in a university newspaper, then the argument you just made could be used to remove the article - assuming there was no reason to keep it (i.e. it's a "My web comic is teh awesome!!!111!!one!" type). So I don't think that's going to be an issue. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that newspaper with high circulation, even college ones, do tend to have a high bar for inclusion (I'm speaking as a former college newspaper editor). I remember sorting through a dozen or so different comics before settling on one or two for inclusion because of their quality. So it's not like college newspapers will publish anything you give them. Keep in mind this particular point was to recognize that publication in a widely read magazine or newspaper can make a comic just as notable as if it were in a book. Also, college publications are not without merit; 8-bit Theater got its start as a comic for MIT, which is how it accrued a fanbase that made it a notable online presence. Xuanwu 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I contribute to a student paper, which is probably notable enough that it'll never even be considered for deletion at wikipedia. Yet I would vote to delete on an article about its news editor, I would vote to delete an article on Xuanwu, who once was a college newspaper editor. Yet you're saying that the paper's comic should be kept? And another thing which to me is one of my core problems with webcomics at wikipedia, is that I'm pretty damn sure that a comic strip appearing in a college newspaper would be deleted. Yet a comic strip appearing in a college newspaper, with a negligable online presence would be kept. Because the webcomic community at wikipedia consistantly vote keep on webcomics over print comics. - Hahnchen 05:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
              • If you want to add an exception to college publications, that would be acceptable to me. Non-college publications have to make a profit in order to stay around, so their criteria is based around choosing comics that will attract readers and make them money. So I think it's safe to say that publication in a for-profit magazine or newspaper is a good sign of notability. Xuanwu 06:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A new disclaimer I thought of from reading the Greeneyes debate: mentioning that comics currently published have to meet the criteria, but comics that have concluded or are on hiatus should be shown to have met the criteria while they were published. In other words, try to make sure people don't associate hiatus or conclusion with non-notability because the comic doesn't presently meet the requirements. It sounds like something obvious, but it looks like that misperception does exist. Having a guideline to specifically quote to counter it would be a good thing. After all, when Sluggy Freelance and Megatokyo end, they'll still be notable for what they did while around. Xuanwu 06:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Keenspot

Does anyone disagree with the contention that being hosted (or formerly being hosted) on Keenspot is a sign of notability in webcomics? Is this a generally agreed on point or not? J•A•K 21:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the contention that being hosted (or formerly being hosted) on Keenspot is a sign of notability in webcomics that automatically confers enough notability to warrant said webcomic's inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is surely a sign of notability, but is not dispositive. Nandesuka 21:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But, per the link above to their admissions policy, I think most think that their policy wouldn't let in webcomics not notable enough for an article. J•A•K 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Keenspot is welcome to whatever policies they want. Their policies don't (and shouldn't) affect the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may be that plenty of Keenspot comics are notable. But asserting that Keenspot comics are by definition notable because otherwise Keenspot wouldn't have included them is begging the question. I think the mere fact that there is such vigorous debate about various webcomics (including some Keenspot comics, which so far have been kept) is an indication that the community is perfectly capable of deciding the notability of comics without relying on the editorial board of Keenspot. Nandesuka 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The claim should really be read as "the editorial board of Keenspot is notable." They are, in effect, major critics, and their assertion of sufficient quality to join Keenspot is itself a sign of notability. Phil Sandifer 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Please WP:CITE a source that will allow us to determine the veracity of this statement. Who says that "the editorial board of Keenspot is [sic] notable?" - brenneman(t)(c) 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Please be reasonable. Phil Sandifer 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
              • What? Person a says, "the sky is blue", person b says, "please cite a source", person a then provides copious references from peer-reviewed reputable sources that not only show that the sky is blue, but explains why. If you cannot or will not WP:CITE to allow us to WP:V something, it's not me who's being unreasonable.
                brenneman(t)(c) 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
                • And that, for those of you who came in late, seems to be the entirety of the webcomics notability controversy, in a nutshell. Nifboy 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Yes - the problem is that most sources - peer reviewed or otherwise - do not talk about notability. Most discussions of the "X most notable Y" are not happening in hugely reputable sources. The argument is tautological at its heart - it relies on just ascribing notability to some sources off the bat. Aaron does so for fewer sources than I do, but there's no real standards of evidence here that are agreed upon, making the discussion sterile at best. What remains clear is that Able and Baker, Checkerboard Nightmare, and Elf Only Inn all survived AfD. Which tells us something - and we should try to tailor the guidelines to respect that. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • I think this glosses over the real problem, which is most notable among all X does not equate to notable enough for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. To take an example that has come up before, I am entirely confident that there is a vibrant community of authors of gay Star Trek slash fanfiction. Perhaps there are even websites dedicated to it. Perhaps some of these websites charge for access, or have ads, or are actual businesses. Certainly aficionados of gay Star Trek slash fanfiction could easily point to examples of the genre that they consider "notable" or "extremely notable" or "double secret super specially notable." No matter how credible those aficionados (or businesses) are in their niche, that does absolutely nothing to tell us that any given piece of gay Star Trek slash fanfiction is worthy of inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Now, you'll get no argument from me that more people are interested in webcomics than are interested in gay Star Trek slash fanfiction (if I am wrong, the world is a much darker and more horrible place than I imagined). But that doesn't free us of our obligation to evaluate the decision to keep an article in the encyclopedia based on its value to the encyclopedia's readers rather than its value within its community.
                    • On a final note, I really think that the success or failure of three AfDs is a fairly slim foundation upon which to argue that a potential change in policy necessary, valuable, or universally lauded. There are good arguments as to why many webcomics should be kept. "Look, these three Keenspot comics survived AfD" is categorically not one of them, so I urge you to let that argument return to the obscurity it deserves. Regards, Nandesuka 01:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • First, I don't think that anybody is suggesting that anything is "double secret super specially notable." Second, I think your argument doesn't avoid what is my central problem with any argument that begins to fall back on a general standard of notability. There are, within specific fields, ways to judge notability. The full list of proposed guidelines does an excellent job of establishing it within webcomics. But there's not a graet standard for notability in general. The argument we're having, if you want to push a "webcomics are inherently less notable than X but more notable than Y" argument, isn't one about webcomics at all - it's about a universal standard of notability for Wikipedia, which this isn't the page for. And there is no page for it, because we don't have one. There is no overarching policy in which to phrase this argument. If that's the rede you want your argument to stand on, there's no way to pass this guideline, period. Which is why I don't particularly depend on that - I'd just as soon see Wikipedia have all the verifiable information of any note on major topics in any definable field. Third, if you did want a general standard of notability for Wikipedia, you would have to turn to AfD and attempt to draw the line where it is drawn on AfD. In this case, that line is clearly on the side of including several comics that would not be included under this guideline if the syndicates requirement were dropped. Phil Sandifer 02:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                        • Two notes: One, this is WP:WEB, and as I recall the point being made that we are already saying, with separate criteria, that "Webcomics are inheirently more notable than websites in general." Two, the question was (and still is) often raised on whether these AfD discussions are representative of concensus at all, and whether they were kept because they were syndicated or whether they were kept because of some intangible, un-generalizable, and un-guidelineable factor that, for the individuals voting, elevated those comics above other syndicated comics (saw a lot of keep votes for greeneyes based on the quality of the article, for one). Nifboy 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • I'd argue that all of the Keenspot comics that have been AFD'd being kept is an indication that Keenspot is notable, and generally considered so. There's less than 100 (I think) comics that are or have been hosted at Keenspot, the fact that those which most agree are probably least notable of them are being kept on AFD (Elf Only Inn, I'm thinking of particularly) means that we should probably assume that it's safe to say that webcomics which do meet the notability standards of Keenspot are notable enough for wikipedia. J•A•K 04:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree that it is a sign of notability, but disagree that that sign should be an automatic pass to an article in Wikipedia. Notability is a continuum. Compared to three guys on an internet forum about yak-wrestling, the editorial board of Keenspot is very notable. Compared to the editors of The New Yorker, the editorial board of Keenspot is so non-notable as to practically not exist. Were Wikipedia a wiki dedicated solely to webcomics, Keenspot's opinion would have very strong weight. But it is not: Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia. In that environment, I would propose that they are far less notable than you seem to think they are. Others, of course, are free to feel that I am mistaken. Nandesuka 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying the board of Keenspot should decide what webcomics are notable, I'm saying that, in interests of finding ways of reducing the number of nominated webcomics (and hence acrimonious AfD's), since the board of Keenspot is made up of people who are experienced in web and other comics,[15] who tend to be rather exclusive in inviting people in, it is a safe assumption that any comic in there must have been notable to get in. J•A•K 22:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally think webcomics are uncomfortably wedged somewhere in between the two words in "commercial art." On one hand, the most successful webcomics tend towards businesslike behavior. On the other, most webcomics start out as an artistic endeavor, either for fun or as something to do, and many never move over to the business side of things even after many years. I think the current guidelines are somewhat biased towards the businesslike comics, and adding Keenspot as a criteria would give a little more weight to the "art" side of things. On top of that, I don't think any other Keenspot comic is less notable than Elf Only Inn. Nifboy 23:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Speaking of the "commercial" aspect, a wikipedia article can make a large difference to traffic on a site. I recall on websnark one purveyor saying that 15% of his traffic was from wikipedia. I'll try to find the link. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The sad truth is that if we judge by notability, and popularity, as it seems we must, we're going to have more business focussed comics in, as they are going to be more popular (due to the fact that the business focusses on them becoming more notable, and popular, and recognised. I'd actually say that, since Keenspot tend to only recruit strips they think are artistically well done, and recognised, Keenspot as a criterion would get more art comics in than simple popularity contests such as the [deeply flawed] Google and Alexa tests. J•A•K 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • On a completely unrelated note, Scott Kurtz's rant today asks of the self-appointed ambassadors of webcomics, "Can't you guys just let the work speak for itself? Seriously." I don't think I even need to comment on this. Nifboy 01:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm not objecting to Keepspace at this time, I'm just asking for more citations, like the one that J•A•K provided, so that it may be evaluated be everyone involved. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I say that Keenspot's position as a publisher of comics and its historical role in the web comic community (as per the "History of Webcomics" by T. Campbell, one of the foremost experts on webcomic development over the years) certainly makes the editorial board of Keenspot notable. Their decisions to include/not include have impacted the web comic community in many ways. Exploitation Now, Wendy/Girly, and others all received large publicity thanks to Keenspot which in turn led to their notability. Keenspot's refusal to accept Sexy Losers sent it and other comics (like Ghastly's and Tsunami Channel) out of Keenspace. So the notability of the editorial board is not in question. When it comes to "does being on Keenspot automatically mean it's notable" I'd say the answer is no; Look What I Brought Home is certainly not notable despite its former Keenspot status. I would say, though, that since a large majority of Keenspot comics qualify for notability, being a memeber of Keenspot should be used as a "positive" reason to keep an article (i.e. it's on the fast track to notability). And then, only if there is some overwhelming reason NOT to keep the article (it's promotional, poorly written, etc.) that it should then be deleted. So, auto-keep? No. But strong justification for an article's presence? Yes. Xuanwu 02:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that's a much better expression of what I was trying to say, Xuanwu. I was hoping some better writer would say something like this. (Aaron, unless you've suddenly changed your tune and decided to open the floodgates more than anyone else has suggested, I take it you mean Keenspot? :-) ) J•A•K 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That would indeed have been a startling development, wouldn't it? While typing that, I was thinking of keenspace as an example of pseudo-syndication that didn't mean much, but of course I intended to give the more restrictive section. Thanks for that, I'm a grammer/spelling/prolix masochist, I always like being corrected! - brenneman(t)(c) 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Forums

I have gone ahead and been WP:BOLD in updating the forum criteria. I do not believe that a mere usercount can make an argument for encyclopedicity. Therefore, I've added "has made a verifiable impact beyond its own community." I base this on the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The forum site, where an article was written about a forum that had more than 5,000 users... but had absolutely no encyclopedic information available about it, and thus a consensus developed to delete the article. For an article about a forum to have verifiable sources, it must have had articles, blogs, papers, whatever, published about it outside its own userbase - thus the new criteria. I invite discussion. FCYTravis 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

      • Undelete The forum site and then we don't need this discussion. Very simple, very obvious. The only conceivable reason to delete the forum site was because it was an incomplete article. The site itself is extraordinarily notable, and this was one of the most ridiculous AFD decisions yet made. Sometimes I get the feeling that people vote against me just to make a point. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Why not copy the bit about webcomics forums in there? I'm sure that those guidelines should be acceptable as well.

"5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read. Forums which require a user to sign up to read or see messages should instead be gauged by the total number of postings. (A good rule of thumb is three times the number of unique members; so a forum with 5,500 members would need 16,500 posts.)" J•A•K 03:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    • That's a good addition, but it doesn't get to the root of the issue we ran across with The forum site. It doesn't matter how many users or posts something has - if all it is is a chat board, then there's absolutely nothing encyclopedic to say about it. Slashdot, Fark and

SomethingAwful have all made a verifiable impact outside their own communities and gained broader notice and notoriety. Thus, there can be encyclopedic articles written about them. But if something is just a chat forum with 6,000 members, 30,000 posts... and that's it... then what are you going to say about the forum other than "Hey, it's a forum with members. Here's how to go there. Here's the moderators. Here's what the forums are called. It's cool!" - which, as Uncle G noted, is a directory entry and not an encyclopedia article. FCYTravis 03:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

      • Yes ... to be honest, when I first read this, I thought you were talking about the webcomics forums criterion. I typed a response, then realised that it wasn't. I'd probably agree with you on this, with the proviso that if there is content on the site beyond the forum, that a 5,000 membership of a forum makes it worth being added (unless it's the site of someone famous, in which case it might just be worth noting on that person's page that they have a highly used forum on their site). J•A•K 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It seems the issue with the Forum Site article was its lack of good content and writing. I would say that the 5000 cutoff should stay, since that decision reflects certain circumstances. I see no reason to change the criteria based on this AfD; I say change it back to how it was. These are, after all, guidelines. Each case must still be considered individually on its own merits. Though, if you're proposing that we eliminate the lower member limit completely and have it based solely on whether some notable factors can be proven concerning the forum, that I might support. Xuanwu 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I don't think we need to change our rules every single time they're not adhered to the letter. Nifboy 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • It's not one single circumstance - it's the overall idea that we can't have encyclopedic articles on forums for which there are no reliable sources available to base the article on. WP:NOT a directory of forums and "hey we have a cool tablature forum where tablatures are discussed." That's not encyclopedic. If we can't find more to write about a forum than that, then it shouldn't have an article. That's what that entry says. Obviously, that's a point to be discussed on AfD. It's not a speedy delete criterion - only a reminder that inclusion encyclopedia cannot be based on pure numbers. There has to be something encyclopedic to say about the subject, and if there isn't anything... then there's no article, just a directory substub. You could throw the best writer in the world at The Forum Site and still not come up with an encyclopedic article. FCYTravis 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Both of these views are presenting valid arguments. It's a bad idea to change policy based upon a few AfDs because the sample size is too small. Instead, let's see if we can locate other "forum" articles and list them here. This also allows us to scope the problem. No point making a change to the guidleine if there are only six. Then we can make a better judgment. See Wikipedia:Websites/Example webcomics. It's evidence based medicine- brenneman(t)(c) 05:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Another one, same deal. This one, you can read what's there... and decide for yourself whether it makes for an encyclopedic article. "Its really easy to join this forum. Just simply click the log in button on the toolbar and then click sign up. Very simple and I'm sure that you will have a great time." Compare with an article about a forum like Fark, where there is clearly evidence that the forum and related site have encyclopedic merit. FCYTravis 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Actually, looking at Fark, I don't see evidence that it merits inclusion. Some citations that mention Fark in media or elsewhere? I see one link to wired, are there more? I'd just like to establish that we have to back up claims for the ones we like, too. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Added another one. A forum full of people who argue about which game system is better than the other. Non-encyclopedic to a fault. FCYTravis 10:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of example forums

Note that The forum site actually passed WP:WEB quite easily by having well over 5,000 members (and many other claims to notoriety), yet was deleted. It should probably be undeleted, and hence is a poor example of something to be used as an example here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

On Merrimack, New Hampshire, there's a webforum on there that somebody put up there that is very borderline when it comes to even having as a link. I live there, and it's becoming something of a joke except for those who use it considering that there are about 20 active users out of the town's population of 28,000 or so.

What do you think? Is that notable or not? Until that's decided, i'll WP:AGF and make sure it stays up there since it's been put back a few times. karmafist 05:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Question regarding online groups

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but does this policy cover online 'non-forum' groups (ie gaming clans)? If it does, could someone explain how? If it doesn't, would it be worthwile expanding the proposal to encompass these web-based entities? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't think these guidelines need to cover every different type of web-based "thing" in the world. I think normal standards of verifiability can answer most questions about what belongs. Friday (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Google

Shouldn't we have some guideline as to what should be the minimum number of related google hits a topic should have to be declared notable.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The immediate problem with that is, how do you determine whether a "hit" is relevant to the topic at hand or not? How many websites are named after ordinary objects? Nifboy 06:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The other problem is that something can have eleventy trazillion Google hits and still not be encyclopedic. Blogs and linkspam farms make it easy to inflate a Google count. FCYTravis 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Notability vs. Uniqueness

Reading the other parts of the discussions, I get strong feeling that most people here want entries to be unique, not just notable. Do you think that it's more important for a site to be big, or to be first to accomplish something? - CorbinSimpson 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

For me, entries must be externally verifiable and they must say something of interest to a broader community. Both *big* and *first* are good first steps, but I could have the first and biggest box of Triscuits in my trophy cabinet and it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. FCYTravis 06:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
But remember, unlike triscuits, web comics are much the same as print comics. Web comics are a new twist on an old thing. So those who are the first are notable as much as those who have a great deal of impact are notable. Xuanwu 09:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Web comics are not much the same as print comics. Print creates a quality of permanence and implies a substantial cost to publish and print thousands of copies. Web comics can come and go as a flash in the pan - one need not have any sort of backing, recognition, money, publisher contract, etc., just a free Web host. Now of course, in general this is good, as it encourages creativity outside straitlaced confines of what might be accepted by a print publisher. But it also means that it's quite easy to "publish" a Web comic that is utter dreck and keep doing it, for unlike traditional comics, one need not actually be "successful" to keep being published. The result is that you get more interesting stuff, and a plethora of utterly uninteresting and entirely non-notable imitators. FCYTravis 11:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That basically sums up the entire argument that seems to be going on here. A webcomic is both a website and a comic. By virtue of being a website, it is one of a vast multitude of its kind, easily acquired and simply maintained. By virtue of being a comic it is an artform, albiet an artform that is primarily thought to be commercial in nature. Nifboy 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd disagree that webcomics are primarily commercial: unlike print comics, they need not worry about selling, and thus don't have to do what is popular to get by. J•A•K 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That's why I said "thought to be". Before webcomics, the most applicable analogue was indie comics, which the general public wasn't exactly aware of. They knew Garfield and Marvel, the industries in which both reside being highly commercial. Even for webcomics, almost all of the most notable are the most successful, commercially. Nifboy 07:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
A webcomic is a webcomic. It is published on a website. A comic is a comic. It is printed on a piece of paper. If a webcomic is notable, it will have coverage in reputable sources. Those sources should be such sources as are respected within the field. Once it is possible to cite such a source, it is permissable to have an article regarding the webcomic. We are currently too close in time to determine what is and isn't of use to future scholars, and we should not attempt to. If a webcomic is utter dreck but keeps on running, that fact makes it notable. Once someone comments on this fact in a reputable source, it is recordable. As to the idea that webcomics are somehow different in that the model of publication allows an awful lot of imitators, I would have to contend that any new medium or form exhibits the same tendency. Merseybeat? Britpop? Heavy metal? Punk? Impressionism? Modernism? Let us rely on afd to eventually dictate our inclusion standards on a case by case basis over an extended period of time. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. There is no publication date, there is no deadline. Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Hiding talk 09:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
But it is easy enough to print a webcomic using a printer. Arguing that a webcomic is not a comic seems rather misguided: most reputable definitions of comics include webcomics, most definitions of webcomics refer to them as comics. Sources reputable withint which field? Many people are unhappy with those sources generally considered reputable in webcomics (due to the fact they are of blog format, and could include anything to boost popularity). By your logic there is either no distinction between comics and webcomics, in which case we need a Notability (webcomics) page, or a webcomic is by definition not a comic, which, as I've said, goes against most respected sources on the subject.J•A•K 10:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
A webcomic is neither a comic book nor a comic strip. The three different "comics" play by entirely different rules, although they use the same visual medium. The argument I've seen put forth several times, however, is that a webcomic is a website, and should play by the same rules as websites, in regards to Wikipedia. Nifboy 13:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I don't dispute that a webcomic is neither a comic book nor a comic strip, however neither was that what Hiding said: webcomics are comics. I'd argue webcomics have more in common with comic strips than websites in general. The field of sources respected in websites is not the same as that for sources reputable in the field of websites. A webcomic may be a website, but it isn't just a website. J•A•K 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some arguments regarding a webcomic being a website. A website can definitely be built around a webcomic, and a webcomic needs a site to exist, but as per comics and paper, they are not analogous. A website, when all is said and done, is a location on the web. A webcomic is a comic stored at that location. And this page already makes it clear webcomics do not play by the same rules as websites, and I'm sure we'd agree it's fair to say webcomics have always had differing inclusion criteria to websites per se. Wikipedia is not a web directory does not mean we do not list webcomics. It means we are not a directory of the web, just the same as we are not an A to Z or a phone directory. Hiding talk 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be good, could anyone provide some arguments that webcomics should be classed with websites? J•A•K 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The apparent facts that criteria for websites are mostly consensual, and those for comics are (1) different and (2) heavily disputed, makes me believe they should not be classed together. Radiant_>|< 22:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am suggesting that some of the guidelines are a bit arbitrary - based on what research, if any? In order to allow a level playing field, perhaps more flexibility about 'uniqueness' and 'usefulness' should be allowed for to even it up? I suggested this on the page (hope it wasn't over-stepping - if so, please feel free to re-edit). BobbyRay 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

State of play

We've had some archiving that cut it off, but the talk page had indicated that the current guidelines are out of step with the discussion. I'll refactor and make some summaries. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Old Alexa

Is there anyway of establishing old Alexa rankings? If so, a link to it would be rather useful. J•A•K 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Alexa rankings

One of the problems is that Alexa just doesn't have the juice to crawl the web often enough. Second is that Alexa are now leeching entire copies of the web and selling access to it by the hour - so many website owners will likely block it (using robots.txt) for both performance and ethical reasons, making their rankings completely unreliable. This doesn't cripple the guidelines though, since there are lots of other ways that an Alexa-blocking site could be demonstrated to be WP-worthy, but it's something to think about Cynical 20:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Until I came to Wikipedia, Alexa was one of those sites I habitually blocked because of its spyware affiliations. When I found many references to it as an authoritative source for Web site notability I gave it another chance. Not for long, though. A good Alexa score may provide some proof of notability, but there's no doubt it can be gamed, and certainly having a bad score isn't creditable evidence against notability. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I've altered the Alexa warning to make note of this. Thanks for mentioning them. If something that's being considered as a criteria could be inaccurate, it has to be noted so people don't make a mistake. Xuanwu 10:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PageRank

I'm a super-inclusionist myself (see my user page section on the issue), but if we're talking about notability, why isn't PageRank included? The PageRank of a page is what determines the world's most popular search engine's results. It can be easily determined for any given page by installing the Google Toolbar. Unlike Alexa, it is based on meaningful criteria: not "which users of my spyware visit this site", but "how many sites link to this one and how reputable are those sites".

If Alexa ratings of 10,000 or better are okay, I'd suggest that perhaps any page with PageRank 5 or better should be notable according to these guidelines. (The scale is sort of logarithmic in spread; there are a scarce handful of PageRank 10s, a few dozen PageRank 9s, and so on.) An example of a site with PageRank 5 is nyc.gov (Alexa ranking 2,933). Then again, another example of a site with PageRank 5 is rometotalrealism.org, a computer game modification site (Alexa ranking 252,726), so perhaps PageRank 6 would be a better line to draw.

Just keep in mind that Google's PageRank holds a finger to the pulse of the Internet, Alexa does not. If a lot of people link to something, barring link-spamming, it's probably important to a lot of people, even if people with Alexa toolbars don't visit it much. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Um. Before I get into a discussion of the merits on PR, is there a way to find a page's PR without installing the Google Toolbar? Nifboy 14:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware, no. Is that a problem? Slight nuisance, but I find it kind of fun to see the PageRank meter bounce everywhere. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I like this idea. Deleting Alexa completely and instead using Page ranks could be a very good idea, especially since it may be more reliable. Xuanwu 10:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't support this until and unless there's a non-toolbar method of finding this. Not everyone uses IE or Firefox, and not everyone that does wants to waste the screenspace on Yet Another toolbar. —Cryptic (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:CON vs WP:BOLD

I've removed the sections from the main page that did not have support on the talk page, or had not had support demonstrated in AfDs. This page has been very active, and we haven't been making much progress. Could we please discuss any further additions to these guidelines before we put them on the main page? - brenneman(t)(c) 12:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, I thought that the above discussion seemed to have some consensus that Keenspot seemed to be an acceptable degree of notablilty, which seems to have been held up on AfD. J•A•K 15:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added back a clause regarding syndicated strips being notable. I don't see any consensus for removal. I can see only discussion with no consensus reached. I'm also unconvinced by the argument that this page needs to be dictated by AFD's. As to the argument that additions should be discussed on the talk page, so should removals, surely. I am aware that the wording of the syndication clause I have reinserted is not the same as what was removed. However I believe it reflects a consensus that syndication of a webstrip is a sign of notability. Hiding talk 16:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, since this guideline (or at least the webcomic part) is still under development, it makes a lot of sense to strike parts that aren't consensually supported. Once a guideline is stable it can be assumed that what it says is consensual (and therefore removing anything would require consensual support) but this isn't nearly stable yet. Radiant_>|< 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the use of the term "syndicates" is a misnomer. A syndicate is a business that sells content to multiple providers (see syndicated newspaper columnists, syndicated television programs, etc.) I believe the examples that have been used are more properly "publishers" in the case of Modern Tales and Keenspot, and "collectives" in the case of the non-professional artists groups. That said, neither is an indicator of notability. -- Dragonfiend 16:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, some quick responses. Radiant, is this page a guideline or not? If it's not stable it is not a guideline, do we agree on that point? And Dragonfiend, as to whether they are syndicates or publishers, I would suggest that they are probably better termed subscription services or perhaps purveyors, but since you do not believe that the picking up of a strip by such a site denotes notability, I see no merit in arguing about the name. And one last point. If webcomics are collected into print editions, they then become comics as well, is that not true? Why then should these notability guidelines apply? Hiding talk 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • A somewhat convoluted answer... I think the part of this page referring to webpages is both stable and a guideline - whereas the part referring to webcomics is not yet stable and therefore not a guideline. Arguably we should split the page in two to make this easier. Radiant_>|< 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, because then they could diverge even further. We don't have WP:PUNK and WP:ROCK, so we should avoid having WP:WEB, WP:COMIC, WP:BLOG, and WP:POD. Keep them together. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)**
      • Why, out of interest, don't we have WP:PUNK and WP:ROCK, out of interest? J•A•K 01:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Because we have WP:MUSIC, and it is generally agreed upon that those guidelines apply equally to all kinds of music. I can see the point of keeping WP:WEB together, but then it should be clear that the part of it referring to websites in general is a consensual guideline, and the part referring to webcomics is a proposed addition that is still the subject of some controversy. Radiant_>|< 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well,they were separate before and worked fine. I also fail to see how it matters if website notability guidelines and webcomic notability guidelines diverge further, since they are separate things. Hiding talk 09:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • They aren't separate things. 85% of the problem here is that we're treating them like they are. I've heard the "art" angle a few times, but what about sites that showcase the work of graphic designers, would we want a seperate guideline on those because they are art? How about a website that hosts images of paintings that aren't for sale? And isn't fanfic "art" to? Why don't we have WP:FANFIC? I'm yet to see any compelling argument for why we should seperate them. - brenneman(t)(c) 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
          • We don't have WP:FANFIC because fanfic is almost without exception unverifiable non-notable trivial vanity with tendencies of copyvio. That's five reasons to delete it in a single sentence :) But anyway, you have a good point. I think the main issue is that winning a Webby or being put on Keenspot is in fact (inter)national media attention. Hence, reworded as such. Radiant_>|< 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Radiant, I believe you are correct in that the issue is whether or not Keenspot or Modern Tales are to be considered "(inter)national media attention." I don't think that they are, but I think that's the basic discussion we're having. Also, your use of parallel structure in bulleted lists is very much appreciated. :) -- Dragonfiend 18:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Great :) then let me ask you, what would you consider significant media attention for a webcomic? Radiant_>|< 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Significant media attention for a webcomic artist would include Derek Kirk Kim on NPR, Shaenon Garrity in The New York Times, Svetlana Chmakova in USA Today, Demian5 in the Guardian, etc. Web sites such as Comixpedia are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. -- Dragonfiend 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • See, Derek Kirk Kim straddles both comics and webcomics, and has, I'd argue, been notable since at the very least the award of a Xeric Grant in 2003. This is why I believe we have to have at the bare minimum flexibility in these guidelines. Otherwise, do you seriously suggest that Wikipedia should not have an article the day before such media coverage is published, and yet have it the day after? If wikipedia is itself being used for research, do we not complete a vacuous circle? Surely if we can create a sourced article on a strip which uses other sources than the strip or the creator for it's information, then I fail to see a problem. I would also argue that The Comics Journal is a notable source, and fail to see why Comixpedia is not a reputable source, having been published since 2003. At a glance it covers webcomics in an unbiased way, and includes critical commentary on the medium and of strips. It doesn't seem to interview or spotlight any old strip, there are judgements made, and it appears to be the leading magazine of the form. If we limit such sources to national newspapers, I'll go tell the science crowd to stop citing New Scientist, will I ? Hiding talk 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • Also, are Derek Kirk Kim, Shaenon Garrity or Svetlana Chmakova webcomics, or people? Are we including people in these guidelines now? Hiding talk 23:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • Derek Kirk Kim, Shaenon Garrity and Svetlana Chmakova are people who have had articles about them and their webcomics in reliable sources such as USA Today and The New York Times. There seems to be this weird undercurrent to these discussions that seems to assume that webcomics are never discussed in reliable sources and so we therefore have to look to unreliable fan blogs and web sites and such. This simply isn't true. In response to your other comments, I think The Comics Journal, with its Utne and Eisner awards, its practice of running corrections and clarifications, and its 20-year publishing history give you a good case for using it as a reliable source (I've used it myself for articles). I'm less familar with New Scientist, but its 50-year publishing history seems to suggest a similarly strong case. Comparing either to a couple-year-old webzine seems like a stretch. WP:RS warns against using such web sites as sources for encyclopedia articles. Dragonfiend 02:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comixpedia

See, again we're back to what constitutes a website. Does Slate constitute a website? It's getting rather circular. I'm not disputing that webcomics do not garner mainstream media interest, I'm merely stating I do not believe it is necessary to wait until an artist has before we write an article on them, that notability can in fact be achieved without such attention, and that such attention can be caused by notability. I would also add that if a critical assesment of a webcomic is made, then an article can be written on that webcomic using that critical assesment as the base. I would also argue that WP:MUSIC allows as nnotability coverage in major music media. Now given webcomics is a new medium, it seems unfair to discount a publication simply on age, the medium it covers isn't too old, so it seems rather unfair to disbar on that criterion. To my eye a lot of comics coverage seem to source Comixpedia as the most noted of the webcomics media, and so I would argue that it should be thought of as a reputable source in this instance. This doesn't mean I am arguing for a strip to receive an article at the merest mention within the magazine, simply that I don't think it is overly important where the critical assesment is published, but rather the value of the critical assesment is. But I would figure we are fairly likely to be on the same page, in that afd is the place where we decide an article's worthiness for inclusion, and not in these guidelines. I just feel these guidelines are instruction creep, and that we should trust afd to weed out the non notable articles case by case. Hiding talk 20:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Regarding online sources, see the Using online sources section of WP:RS. "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia." So, yes, we can use Slate as a reliable source. No, we can't use Comixpedia. --Dragonfiend 15:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You have to read the page in entirety and contextualise your quoted section, which does not make the assertion you claim, but reads:
    • Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.
    • Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.
    • At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
    • Now I hope you'll agree that Comixpedia exists between the two stools outlined above, it is neither a publication with teams of fact-checkers" nor a "personal website, weblog (blog), bulletin board, or Usenet post". So the site exists in a grey area where we must exercise judgement and evaluate the magazines content. The site does cite sources for its content, through hyperlinked words which lead you to the external source in its features, and I can't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the interviews. The reviews are personal opinions of course, but I see no reason why we shouldn't cite those reviews when writing articles on strips. Like I say, I see no reason to not allow Comixpedia as a source, and I see nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources which means we have to exclude comixpedia as a source. A rough count of their reviews section looks like they have reviewed 130 strips in the last two years, many of which already qualify under other notability criteria, so I can't see any reason there not to believe that strips reviewed there have achieved notability. I would also point out that the magazine has run features which would make interesting sources for articles, there is a roundtable discusson on the Creative Commons approach to copyright with legal scholars, copyright activists and webcomic creators] which includes Lawrence Lessig amongst its contributors, and would, I believe, make a good source to use in any articles regarding the roundtable's discussions.
    • So I hope you can reconsider your refusal to even consider the magazine as a source and instead evaluate the site and judge it and articles using it as a source on their merits. Hiding talk 08:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
          • They are separate things, Aaron. As to your examples, I'm not sure what point you are making, since they are such generic examples it is impossible to offer any opinion on them. But try some of mine: How about buildings which display art that isn't for sale? How about books which showcase the work of graphic designers? And note, I have yet to see any compelling arguments to combine the guidelines. Hiding talk 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Really really bad form to anyone else, or just me?

[16] - brenneman(t)(c) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that it's now "publishers", but can someone please give me a link to somewhere even that was agreed? - brenneman(t)(c) 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I made the change to "publishers" -- "syndicates" is a misonomer as I stated above. I don't think the publishers criteria ought to be in there either. Publishers often sign non-notable artists in the hopes that the artists will be come notable; in many cases the artists do not become notable. A publisher choosing to publish a webcomic does not make it notable. We have multiple reputable, verifiable sources to determine the notability of webcomics; we do not need to rely upon a publisher's potentially incorrect business decisions. That said, major changes to this page ought to be discussed on the talk page, and edit summaries should not contain comments about other users. Per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." -- Dragonfiend 17:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Dragonfiend, although your arguement about "syndicates" being a misnomer is correct, I'd say that since "syndicates" is the term they are best known under, there's an argument for that to be made. Mind you, since Keenspot, the [insert preferred term here] we have closest to consensus on, identifies itself as a publisher, it's equally arguable that that term is correct. (I can't find a mention of either term on Modern Tales, although I'm not a member.) J•A•K 18:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe "syndicates" is the term they are best known under. You correctly point out that Keenspot is referred to as a publisher, and Modern Tales is generally referered to as "the leading commercial webcomics publisher" [17] by themselves and others. Dragonfiend 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Referring to Snowspinner specifically, or me re-adding Keenspot as well? Your edit seemed to be a bit more of your bias than current consensus, to me, though that's my POV showing, and I'm sure that you were acting in good faith. Snowspinner's revert did make me groan a bit (despite being roughly on his side), due to the fact I knew suspected this would happen. As it stands, this edit seems to be roughly consensus, though I'm sure we have issues with it. Still work to be done, and that Pagerank suggestion is a good idea. J•A•K 18:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner's more recent edit, with his justification, makes his earlier edit more justified to me, although it still seems rather abrupt. J•A•K 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It was surely no more abrupt than going in and taking them out again after they had sat there undisturbed for a week or two. As for the edit summary, it would have been inappriate to leave it blank, and I had nothing else to add to the discussion, which has, at this point, covered and recovered all available arguments. Phil Sandifer 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Companies

Just before Aaron did his big edit, I removed the part that said a website of a company notable according to the notablity guidelines for companies was notable. Wasn't there once a bit on this article that said that there shouldn't, or it should redirect to the company's entry? Anyway, if anyone actually thinks that that either of the statements should be back in, please explain your reasoning here here. EDIT: Oops, the warning's still at the bottom. 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) J•A•K 15:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

5000?

In my honest opinion, this should be changed to 1000. Many of the forums with articles here don't even have that many members. --Revolución (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please cite some examples of forums we have articles on that don't have that many members? 1000 is not a lot for any serious webforum (especially considering the fact that up to 75% of most forum users isn't particularly active). Radiant_>|< 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And as someone who has ran a forum in the past, I can tell you that there are spam-bots that auto-signup for accounts (I even had a few that signed up and made some random posts/replies) that will inflate the user count. 5000 is very reasonable to be included in an encyclopedia IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 5000 sounds good to me based on the forums I frequent. Maybe if examples of forums with membership under 5000 were given, I'd change my mind. -- Dragonfiend 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

5000 members = 16500 posts?

Any objections to striking the bullet "5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read" as m:instruction creep? Basically it encourages us to make an arbitrary guess after data we cannot verify. Radiant_>|< 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it's necessary: on more than one occasion I've seen forums where access was totally restricted except to logged in users (forcing you to signup, thus inflating their user count). Such forums need another metric judge notability, and the most reasonable (assuming the statistic is available to view) IMO is the total number of posts. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be reasonable to have some metric, but the equation "amount of users = amount of posts divided by three" is silly. Radiant_>|< 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • And being divided by 3.3 (as the 16500 posts seems to indicate) is thus even more silly. J•A•K 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a good thing it doesn't say that then, huh? =) It says "a good rule of thumb ...", e.g. - a suggestion/example of how to deal with totally private forums. What do you suggest? Is there a way to reword it that still notes that totally private forums should be held to a higher/different standard than forums which are open to all? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, yes, my point is that it really isn't a good rule of thumb. If it is not verifiable how many active members a forum has, then we shouldn't guess at it. That would be original research no matter which way you turn it. Luckily, the amount of forum members is not the only benchmark we have here, we can still check the site's Alexa rank and media presence. Radiant_>|< 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Perhaps we should do away with the forum member count requirement altogether, and instead gauge notability by the amount of traffic/postings the forum has? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Published in a paper magazine

I'm probably being dense here, but if an online strip is being published in a paper magazine, then doesn't that mean the strip is no longer a webcomic? The same can also apply to the fact that a webcomic has a collected edition, surely? Hiding talk 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not if it was published in vanity press. Otherwise, while you're technically correct, people tend to still consider that a webcomic. Radiant_>|< 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Welcome to the world of comics then Radiant, where self publishing is the norm. Hiding talk 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Megatokyo, on the other hand, is published by Dark Horse Comics. Radiant_>|< 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • With the advent of Lulu, what does self published actually mean? I think we would all agree that something being published on Lulu is not in and of itself evidence of notability. (I understood that it's not really cost effective to do large runs there, so going there indicates an expectation of low sales on the part of the author, it seems to me.) Fred of MT, I thought does a lot of the prepwork for publishing at Dark Horse that normally is associated with what a publishing house does for you (page layout and the like) so is there a line here? But if there is, is it a distinction without a difference? Isn't the sales figure what really matters about publishing as a metric for notoriety? n.b. I think publishing in magazines is a valid guideline and it's why I added it back after Dragonfiend removed it. (it had been discussed farther up the page as well, prior to the removal) ++Lar 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Magazines were previously included as part of coverage by major media and they still are. A 5,000 or 10,000 publication isn't very major; there are high school newspapers with circulations of 5,000. -- Dragonfiend 19:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Radiant, Image publish PVP, and I believe someone else is picking up Penny Arcade. Despite which, PVP's very much thought of as a webcomic. Generally, Hiding, if it started (or gained notability) while being published on the web, it's thought of as a webcomic. J•A•K 19:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Even if it isn't. Okay. I'll drop this line of thought, it seems to be circular. Hiding talk 19:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Formerly with a publisher

Dragonfiend, I see you have removed my note that webcomics formerly hosted on a publisher's site are still defined as notable by this, on the grounds that ""having been picked up" makes this clear". While it's true that that phrase implies it, I thought it would be useful to add this as a clarification, because it might not be immediately obvious to everyone that this was intended. With this in mind, don't you feel there can be a place for this note? J•A•K 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so -- the number of notes and "other" on this guideline are very instruction creepy to me. Maybe there's a better way to phrase "having been picked up" that is even more clear, but it seems clear enough to me as is. -- Dragonfiend

Webcomics Artist Collectives and Co-ops

Some are suggesting that some part of this guideline ought to deal with webcomics artist collectives. Please discuss the reasoning behind the inclusion of artist collectives in general as well as specific artist collectives (I'm presuming that all artist collectives shouldn't be included). Thanks. -- Dragonfiend 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we just be clear that this is still a proposed guideline? Hiding talk 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hiding, "proposed guideline", in this case, means that it is used as justification to delete anyway. Practice informs policy-makers' decisions, so those guidelines which are adhered to are generally made into policy. So it is still a proposed guideline, but people will continue using it in practice as justification for deletion. J•A•K 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing a trick, people can use it as an argument to delete, but it should never be justification. The article's merits should justify the decision, reached by consensus. I ain't going to dictate to people what is up for inclusion and deletion, and I don't expect others to do so, that's against policy. I know full well how policy is made, and I also understand the difference between policy and guideline, and I also understand that if there's still discussion abouit what shape a guideline is, it isn't actually a guideline. All I can see here is discussion on what shape the guideline should be, which means there isn't actually a guideline, since you don't actually have the consensus of many editors. Looking through the history of this debate, there never really has been consensus amongst editors on what would constitute notability for a webcomic, and so it's disingenuous to suggest there are. What worries me is that nobody should cast a vote on the basis that these guidelines form an inclusion policy. Hiding talk 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Dragonfiend, Snowspinner's edit summaries say that Dayfree Press membership is explicitly endorsed by the Able and Baker AfD decision. Dumbrella and Blank Label Comics are of roughly equal significance, so should be included too. Plus, of course, Blank Label was formed by ex-Keenspotters, so they're in anyway. J•A•K 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, it was the Dayfree membership that I based my vote on Able and Baker on, and it was my vote that was roundly cited in "as per" votes, so I think there's a clear enough desire for Dayfree. Phil Sandifer 21:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I can see a case for Blank Label. I'd need convincing on the others. Hiding talk 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatlinkshere indicates that this guideline is in fact heavily in use. I believe it follows, then, that it is an accepted guideline that we're discussing and possibly amending the specifics of. I believe the only true point of contention is a disagreement over whether certain kinds of media attention for webcomics are significant. Radiant_>|< 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem, Radiant, is that two pages have been merged into one. You have the established guideline of WP:WEB, and WP:COMIC, which has never been a guideline and has always been a proposal which never found consensus, on the same page. One is a guideline, the other has never been. It's disingenuous to describe it as a guideline based on what links here, when what links here may not be linking to the section in question. Hiding talk 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In your earlier statement "Can we just be clear that this is still a proposed guideline?", I thought you were referring to the entire page. If you in fact meant only the part of it relating to webcomics, then I do agree. Radiant_>|< 23:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Quality. It's also worth noting that afd's which link to the webcomic guidelines refer to guidelines we no longer include, so I would be wary of using those as a guide to any consensus inherent in those links. I would suggest it's also slightly unsettling that articles are being listed for deletion on the basis of not matching these guidelines when they've never been adopted. The purpose of the development of notability guidelines for webcomics was to "prevent the multitude of new or unencyclopedic web comics from using Wikipedia as free promotion." That fact seems to be missing from the current page, and casts a different light on the goals of such guidelines. They are an attempt to prevent spamming of wikipedia, not an attempt to delete articles on grounds of inclusion standards. The goal of these guidelines is to prevent the abuse of wikipedia through the introduction of promotional links. Hiding talk 23:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the preamble got changed, but the new version suggested that the website criteria had to be met by webcomics, which wasn't the case, and I see no consensus that it is the case. Webcomics aren't websites. We seem to have established that even after printed collection they are still thought of as webcomics if that is where they originated, and a printed collection is certainly not a website. Hiding talk 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"But how are you defining "unencyclopedic"?", is the question to be asked. Some think that it's these guidelines which make something unencyclopedic, or vice versa. J•A•K 23:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not. I'm pointing out that the intention was to prevent such strips using Wikipedia as a promotional tool, not to create standards for inclusion. If a website is notable, the article will make the assertion, or such an assertion will be made during the afd. If neither is forthcoming, there will be consensus to delete. However, it shouldn't be thought that guidelines can be extrapolated from such discussions and adhered to, since each afd is unique and individual. One strip may be notable because of the influenec it has, whilst another, it's equal in every other respect, has no such influence and passes into the sands of time. Van Gogh was nothing during his lifetime, and yet now is highly notable. Think of the information that may be lost on today's art, simply because we cannot recognise the notability. Therefore we should err on the side of caution, and allow each case to be debated and argued over individually, without recourse to imposed standards that allow robotic voting and disengagement with the subject. Hiding talk 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive. If people nominate or vote in a certain way then we should base the guideline on that, not the other way around. Radiant_>|< 00:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Votes on afd tend to depend pretty much on who is reading it on any given day. If people nominate or vote in any given way we should allow them to do so. We shouldn't grant their opinion greater value than opposing voices by building guidelines on such views. Plenty of people avoid afd because of it's nature, do their voices not count? Shouldn't article creators have as much of a voice as article deleters? Note guidelines are merely words, it is in people's hands that they become either pre or de scriptive. Hiding talk 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Devil's advocate, Hiding. Would Van Gogh have deserved a wikipedia article in his lifetime, had it been around? [And I'd agree with you on the deleters vs. creators thing: except that AfD is a community thing.] J•A•K 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Depends on your interpretation of Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field, part of Wikipedia:Notability (people), doesn't it? I'd say his work with Gauguin would be enough. Who knows what afd would have decided. It doesn't matter either way, really though, does it. It isn't important if we include these articles or not, what really is important, I am sure we can all agree, is that the articles we do include are well written, present information of use to a potential reader and are verified, sourced, neutral and not original research. The rest can be sorted out at afd. Hiding talk 01:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your points, Hiding. I think mentioning in the guidelines that preventing self-promotion is the main goal would be a good idea. The Greeneyes debate, for example, certainly pointed out the fact that the article was not self-promotion and was kept on the basis of it being a) a good article and b) being notable. (Admittedly, I had a role in that.) Maybe rewriting the guidelines from scratch and instead applying WP:NOT to webcomics might be better. A list of times when an AfD could be considered, as opposed to times when it shouldn't be considered, since AfD should only happen in rare and exceptional instances. Xuanwu 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
In regards to our goal of minimizing self promotion, please note that User:Xuanwu is the creator of Okashina_Okashi and is editing this proposed guideline to specifically mention how notable his or her own webcomic is [18]. --Dragonfiend 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As for Co-ops and Collectives ... A case can be made that all the Blank Label Comics are notable, as they are descended from Keenspot. Also, it seems AfD has consensus that Dayfree Press comics shouldn't be deleted.J•A•K 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The only way any case can be made on Wikipedia is with verifiable, reliable sources. Can you cite a verifiable, reliable source concerning any collectives you think are notable? This is the thing we have to keep in mind: We don't determine what is notable; reliable sources determine what is notable and then we write encyclopedia articles based on them. -- Dragonfiend 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Alexa rankings over 10,000 may not be accurate," etc.

This entire "note" is extremely problematic. If "Alexa rankings over 10,000 may not be accurate," then why would we use Alexa rankings over 10,000 when looking at webcomics? Giving webcomics a special pass for having a higher Alexa ranking than other web sites is already problematic, but especially so if the higher rankings are innaccurate. There's also an unsourced note about "some [unnamed] websites and comics block it due to its association with spyware" -- isn't spyware blocking done primarily at the user level, not the web site level? Also, in regards to "Alexa can not be used as a basis for a valid AfD with webcomics on hiatus because of the inaccuracies in a comic's true ranking," Alexa has kept their data since they started, so you can see a website's ranking at any point since late 2001. This section ought to be removed as completely incorrect -- I'll be doing so unless some valid reasons for keeping can be given. Also, any valid warnings about Alexa are better suited for Alexa test. -- Dragonfiend 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Dragonfiend, I asked a few days ago if there was any method for getting old Alexa rankings. No one replied. Where do you get them from? (I didn't add that part of the disclaimer, though.) That may be some of the source of confusion. J•A•K 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I missed your question. For example, here is Wikipedia's all-time Alexa ranking graph[19] -- Dragonfiend 15:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • So there's a way to do it then. But it may not be obvious, I tried a different site and could not determine what buttons to push to get all time ranking graphed. I got reach but not ranking. Would it be worth documenting how one gets to this point somewhere( maybe in Alexa test ?) ++Lar 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Dragonfiend, that doesn't seem entirely reliable: [20] and [21] disagree as to whether Checkerboard Nightmare was in the top 100. I realise this is more a problem for lower ranking sites, but it's still worth pointing out,as that's where the trouble will be. J•A•K 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Amazon ranking guideline is so extremely easy to pass that it's meaningless

The current webcomics guideline offers as one of it's options a ranking of 100,000 or better... Sorry, but I don;t think that cuts it. Amazon rankings over a certain number (don't remember the number offhand) are simply total guesstimates based upon the last time a copy sold. Simply selling one copy, just one, in the last month gets you well above `00,000. That's nowhere near notable enough by itself to be justification to be listed on Wikipedia. I don't know that we could even come up with a number that makes sense here the way Amazon lists slow-selling products, as it'd be quite difficult to be listed in the zone where they actually keep track of a real sales rank instead of an estimate and quite easy to get on the estimate list.

And if this guideline is used elsewhere, for like normal books, please let me know so I can place the same comment there... I know people self-publishing books who haven't sold more than ten copies ever who are constantly listed with multiple titles above 100,000. Frankly, none of them deserve Wikipedia articles, so I can;t see that that's a good guide at all. DreamGuy 01:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, most webcomics will only produce print collections after significant success, and enough popularity to justify printing the books. The fact that most of the copies aren't sold on Amazon means that even a few copies of a print collection on Amazon can be an indicator of notability. I think. J•A•K 04:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Text removal from "Other" section

I removed the following text because I wanted to discuss the consensus regarding it and also whether it was covered in other clauses:

If a webcomic has played a role in setting an artistic trend within webcomics (such as Bob and George's role in popularizing sprite comics) or have had an impact in the real world (such as Okashina Okashi's use in Asia to teach children English), they should be included with evidence provided in the article. A webcomic created by a notable person can also be considered notable.

I would imagine that anything likely to meet the above criterion would more likely have been caught in the clause regarding coverage in the media. Therefore I think it is unnecessary, and would like to see if there is consensus on whether to include this. As to the specific examples included, I cannot source Okashina Okashi's use in Asia to teach children English outside of Wikipedia. Anyone else? Hiding talk 10:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. neither one of those examples establishes real notability, those are just unsupported claims. I agree that that should not be in there. DreamGuy 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with Hiding and DreamGuy. -- Dragonfiend 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with Dragonfiend, Hiding, and DreamGuy. We're a tertiary source, we don't determine ourselves what "set[s] an artistic trend" or "ha[s] had an impact", that would be WP:OR. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
However, surely if something like comixpedia states a comic has set a trend, a la Bob and George, we should be able to accept this as proof of notability?J•A•K 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the best "source" I can come up with for B&G. Nifboy 04:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Comixpedia is an unreliable source, especially for unverifiable judgment calls such as "setting a trend." -- Dragonfiend 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That link isn't Comixpedia, it's the Webcomics Examiner, which only puts out a handful of articles on a quarterly basis. Nifboy 21:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
My remarks regarding the reliability of Comixpedia in regards to webcomics that "set trends" was in response to J•A•K's comment about "comixpedia states a comic has set a trend." Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm aware of where your link goes, Nifboy, and what the publishing schedule of the Examiner is. I've been reading it since the first issue. Anybody else here remember Graphic Novel Review? those were the days. -- Dragonfiend 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I said "something like Comixpedia". I wasn't sure what would be thought of this, but my point is now "what if a reputable source, such as TWE says that something set a trend?" Surely that would merit its inclusion? J•A•K 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still unclear as to why such sources are unreliable, especially when sourcing external opinion. Hiding talk 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Blogging

Since we have special requirements for Webcomics, we should have some for blogs as well. Blogs are much more notable and I would say we need special requirements for them as well. I'd like to hear other opinions on this. Thanks. - User:VanillaX

Not sure what would make blogs "much more notable" than webcomics. Both are web-based projects that could just as easily have nobody reading or be popular. The standard policies on determining whether they are notable or not should apply. DreamGuy 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer that we find a way to fold the webcomic points into the general web points, as opposed to further Balkanisation. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Balkanisation? Phil Sandifer 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
With american "Z". - brenneman(t)(c) 03:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Because both are content generators, as opposed to websites notable more for their creator than themselves (CNN, MSNBC), link aggregators (Slashdot), message boards, or ad sites. And we are biased towards content generation, because generally creating something new is considered more important than, well, not. Phil Sandifer 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, CNN doesn't generate any content? The vast majority of websites are "content generators", although I think that's a terrible phrase. The content may come in several flavours, that's all. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
CNN's website is not the content generator - CNN the major news organization is the content generator. Phil Sandifer 05:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make an overall change to this guideline, maybe make it less limiting. Like you said, CNN.com gets a lot of hits but it's obviously not as important as CNN itself. For somethings though, we need to recognize that a site or blog above 10,000 may still be notable enough to get an article. This site is about free knowledge, I hate to see that knowledge being limited and biased against some things and not others.
Yes, it may, and that's why WP:WEB is not a speedy delete criteria - it simply creates presumptive guidelines for deletion. As in, if a given site doesn't meet the guidelines, it needs to have an especially good argument made as to why it is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely it's a guideline for what many think might constitute notability, an even finer distinction worth making. An article on a webcomic might be deemed worthy of inclusion even if it fails the suggested criteria in this guideline, and it might be deemed worthy of deletion even if it passes. Hiding talk 10:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A random observation

I have no idea what it means, but Comixpedia now shows up in Google News searches. Nifboy 05:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it's another argument for using Comixpedia as a source. Any chance of getting a bit more discussion on that? I feel there needs to be a source within each area which we turn to when deciding notability, for example if we were discussing, I don't know, skateboarding, I would imagine there's a skateboarding magazine that we could use as a reputable source for claims of notability in that field, and I haven't seen a good argument presented as yet for not considering Comixpedia worthy of using as a reputable source for testing claims of notability with regards webcomics. I am only suggesting the use of the magazine, which has an editor and cites sources as inline links, not the wiki of webcomics they are also building, nor the news and views section which to my eye seems to be a press release based blog. Hiding talk 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm. I think the views of the more established participants (that is, those of us who have been arguing since webcomics had their own page at WP:COMIC) are colored by the fact that one of the previously proposed criteria read as follows: "Being the subject of a major feature in Comixpedia, the Webcomics Examiner, or Websnark." Personally, I think making it inclusion criteria is bunk, but if TWE (and to a lesser extent Comixpedia) makes a statement of importance regarding a webcomic, it should at least be allowed as evidence. Nifboy 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Before Comixpedia can make a statement of importance that we pay attention to, Comixpedia would have to be declared important, which it hasn't. You are making a circular argument here. Webcomics need to be held to be important by important sources before being listed here. DreamGuy 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get Comixpedia listed here (for one, I don't know what purpose it would serve, or what kind of list it would be listed in, nor do I think Comixpedia is a better source). I'm just saying, my name is nifboy, and I trust this source for my own reasons. Nifboy 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
So you're happy with Comixpedia and TWC to be used as sources? Is TWC The Webcomics Examiner? I apologise for not having been as involved in these discussion as others. Hiding talk 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I meant TWE because I'm an idiot. It has been fixed. Nifboy 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Comixpedia from Adam, but getting listed in Google News in no way indicates overall established usefulness as a source. I am a professional writer and use Google News reports to try to track the latest info on topics I cover, and I have been appalled at the quite often extremely low quality sources that show up as alleged "news sources" from Google News, e3specially within the last six months or so. It's frankly like anyone with a blog that's regularly updated can get in, and many of them are just press releases spit out and dutifully picked up as if they were news people would care about. We need a much more reasonable bar for what constitutes notability or authoritativeness than the fact that Google indexes it. DreamGuy 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa rankings

I dispute the use of Alexa's spyware to measure a site's notability. All it does is show the number of incompetent people to visit the site, not the true total number of visitors. Anyone with half a brain will take the basic steps to prevent Alexa from tracking them, such as using Firefox or another browser that doesn't have Internet Explorer's multiple security holes. Rogue 9 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • All forms of polling have margins of error and biases. According to Alexa, their sample size is in the millions, making their margin of error relatively small. Alexa rankings may under-represent certain groups including people who are afraid they're being spied on; people who are afraid of being spied on probably aren't installing Nielsen boxes or turning in diaries of their radio listening habits or telling strangers on the phone how they intend to vote either. -- Dragonfiend 18:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite an independant source for Alexa's "millions of tracked users"? Nifboy 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
A brief search turned up the following regarding the number of Alexa users: "The navigation tool Alexa['s] ... 100,000 active users are pruning the data through their collective paths," according to The Village Voice on June 23, 1998. "Alexa ... compiles monthly rankings of top sites based on the aggregated, anonymous traffic of over a half-million Alexa users," according to The Korea Herald on April 10, 2000. "Alexa offers ... insight into what sites the more than 10 million Alexa users in the world visit," according to The Daily Record of Baltimore, MD on October 1, 2004. My original point was that the number of Alexa users exceeds the 1,000 or so used for a typical opinion poll. -- Dragonfiend 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Dragonfiend: those who don't want spyware aren't just paranoids, as you seem to imply. I'd say it more represents those who want privacy.J•A•K 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, here's where I get to fly my expert flag and talk about sampling. First bear in mind that I provided this link initially. Then have a look at the brief talk on Alexa at User talk:J•A•K. In the end, the message is that while Alexa'a base is large (ignoring the aspersions cast on those it samples) for sparse populations (like webcomic veiwers when compared to all all web users) the projections are very very loose. There is a reason that they don't publish the confidence interval for these rankings. Anything over 50K is total horsefeathers, and means essentially the same as "no ranking". - brenneman(t)(c) 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
While we're Alexa-bashing, I'd like to ask if anyone's worked out a way of finding the highest Alexa Rank a site has had, or just a specific past ranking? This is going to be crucial for this to work. J•A•K 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, bashing? I cry foul... Alexa is very good for the bottom 1000, almost a dead cert. But sadly, no. Last I looked, the ranks went back for 3 years, but if I recall correctly only for something like ones currently in the to 50K. Some way to trick the Google cache of an alexa page into spilling it's secrets, perhaps? Or even, crazy thought, sending Alexa an email asking them? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, Ok. Actually, I just noticed Dragonfiend pointed a way some way up. Unfortunately, after exhaustive testing (my first random example), I found a problem. J•A•K 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
We should probably have some mention of the fact that Alexa is a biased sample here. Since we're showing off statistical terms :) J•A•K 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe we have our Alexa threshold set low enough that we're avoiding any real problems with sample size and margin of error. -- Dragonfiend 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
With your average web page, sure. But then you get to sites that tend to attract more tech-savvy people, who tend to seriously dislike spyware eating their system resources and/or use a more advanced browser than IE for the convenience aspects and pick up the Alexa blocking incidentally. Any tech- or geek-oriented website is going to have a lower Alexa rating than the total number of visitors would normally trigger. Rogue 9 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, you're not actually going to have the average person care enough to download the toolbar. Thos who have the toolbar are those who try to improve their browser, but don't worry about privacy, or use non-IE browsers. Which I'd think would be a rather small, specialised-ish subset. J•A•K 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm on the record as disagreeing. If I can make a fake website and get it to have an Alexa of under 100K will that convince anyone? Wait, that would be amazing... I mean a real website, but with no real content, of course. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(reseting indent) I'd note, with kindness, that any supposition about the characteristics of the sample are just that, supposition. We might guess that some people/groups.etc have different patterns of behavior regarding installation of the toolbar, but it would be nice to WP:CITE sources. Additionally, once we've hammered this out here, it should all be copied to the "google test" page as noted above. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Google test " page? Shome Mishtake shurely? J•A•K 04:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test I meant. We can't put it on Alexa Internet because it's all WP:OR. But if we use OR to convince ourselves of something that goes on a policy page, it's a grey area. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course. I'd forgotten that "Alexa Test" was in Google Test. (How many times can we link to the same article in this discussion?) J•A•K 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

These guidelines are primarily designed...

I'd like to remove this preamble. We don't have a similar caveat on WP:MUSIC, or even on the general web section.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First, it isn't a caveat, it is merely a contextual introduction to the guidelines. Second, both WP:MUSIC and the web section have such introductions:
WP:MUSIC - Many of us who spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band) to deserve an article here. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.
Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability.
So I can't really see any reason to remove it, although it might be an idea to introduce a caveat along the lines of WP:MUSIC which states Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. I'll rewrite it to reflect that. I can't see any reason to remove the preamble though. Hiding talk 10:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I mostly like the re-write. I could have been more clear, my objection was the "primarily to prevent free promotion" concept. While that's a useful side-effect, I'd dispute that that is the primary aim, and contend that saying so gives an entirely different slant to the guideline. How about us leaving everything else and taking that part out? - brenneman(t)(c) 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it the primary aim? I'm not sure what slant you feel it puts on the guidelines, to my mind it echoes WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. The primary concern with webcomics is that if they do not meet these notability guidelines, then providing an article amounts to advertising. That is the starting position we are all working from, isn't it? Note also that that aim has been included in the guidelines since they were initially formed, so I would argue it is the underlying reason for the creation of these guidelines. I've rewritten again to better reflect the original text used, as it reads better than my hamfisted attempt, and I've included links to the 3 key inclusion policies, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Hiding talk 10:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC ought to have lots of caveats. That it doesn't is not praise. Phil Sandifer 04:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It is, however almost universally accepted. Look how little it has changed since 10 March 2005. That's fifty edits in nine months. The only place I haven't seen WP:MUSIC accepted without question is in the ongoing Conglomerate AfD, and that's probably a fluke of low participation. I would faint with delight if we could get this guideline as stable, widely accepted, and genreally useful as WP:MUSIC. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Are we at a relatively stable position with these guidelines? Or are their areas we still need to thrash out. I would feel confident in removing the proposal spiel, and leave a note that further additions must be discussed on the talk page first. Hiding talk 10:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummm, I've been so busy complaining about the trees that I'd lost sight of forest. Kick myself in the bumm, step back a little bit: the guideline looks very good, nay excellent. Awards could be made generic, and points 2 could be combined, but that quibbling. The only real question is what happens when we next have a trial-by fire *cough* Greeneyes *cough*. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, looking at it, I don't think that it will be very acceptable: it's been agreed that webcomics aren't the same thing as websites, and so should be given seperate guidelines. The amazon ranking should go back in, I'd say, and the Alexa rank should still be higher. On this you have problems with things like Order of the Stick, Something Positive, Nothing Nice to Say, Overcompensating, which I'm certain many, many people would have problems with. Possibly dropping the Alexa to 50,000 here might help? EDITED a bit. Should research better when not supposed to be doing other things. And I'm sure others would like many less notable webcomics than these in. Perry Bible Fellowship, Irregular Webcomic!, Road Waffles, No 4th Wall to Break, Alien Loves Predator, White Ninja Comics, Mac Hall and many others are all definable as non-notable by this. As far as I can tell Sluggy Freelance only makes it in on the basis that the graph here crosses the line of 10,000 rank at some point, which is hard to tell. I mean, I know you want to purge webcomics, but I'm fairly certain you aren't wanting to go that far, are you? If nothing else, the fact Keenspot's on there but others of similiar notability to some comics on the list wouldn't be classed as notable means this is inconsistent. And I'm pretty sure that someone'll change it back to something which has more support on AfDs, and general consenus. J•A•K 11:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Perry Bible Fellowship is syndicated in The Guardian, that qualifies as notable under these criteria. No 4th Wall to Break, Alien Loves Predator, White Ninja Comics and Greeneyes would be ones where a case of notability due to artistic impact could be argued at afd. Greeneyes has also been reviewed in Comixpedia, which the consensus on this page seems to be leaning towards using as a source. I fail to see the merits of Mac Hall and Road Waffles, personally. Pete Abrams has attended major conventions as a guest,[22] so answering any claims of notability there. It is worth remembering these guidelines are just that, and that if consensus at afd doesn't agree with them, that is unimportant, as they are only here as guidelines on whether to start an article on a webcomic or not. The most important point, at least for me, is that an article is able to demonstrate, verifiably, why a webcomic is notable. That was why Greeneyes passed. Hiding talk 12:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, you seem to have a different idea as to what this is for from most other contributors. Most people see this as a use for AfD, where they will cite non-notable by WP:WEB, and say it's the end of the story. Other people will see this and agree to delete on those grounds. I'm not saying people won't disagree, but this will largely not be consulted when creating articles, I think. J•A•K 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's been made clear through discussion on this page that that shouldn't happen, and as long as claims for notability are made at afd discussions, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. If people do pile-on votes without considering the merits of the article then that would be somnething a closing admin will take into account. Nobody should ever nominate something as an end of story nomination either, that indicates either bad faith or a lack of understanding of the deletion process, and I'm sure people debating here are well aware of both the deletion process and good faith. I am sure both sides would respect an afd consensus whichever way it came down. It appears there is consensus to have guidelines on webcomics, is that not the case. I tend to oppose such guidelines personally, but I thought there was consensus on having them. Hiding talk 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(reseting indent) I'll WP:AGF, whilst reserving the right to say "I told you so" at some later date ;). Seriously, though, if people have changed, that's cool, but a lot of the people editing here have had bad experiences on this. J•A•K 13:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding J•A•K's list of webcomics that supposedly require the use of a special lowering of the bar for webcomics: Something Positive has been covered by The Fort Worth Star Telegram. Sluggy Freelance has been covered by The Washington Post. Perry Bible Fellowship has been covered by the New York Times. White Ninja Comics has been covered by The Boston Herald and I'm really bored with doing research at the library right now but I hope I've made my point again that webcomics aren't some third-rate art form that nobody cares about except a few nerds on the internet so we have to try to start using unreliable sources for encyclopedia articles and try to create the Special Olympics of notability guidelines. Webcomics have had mainstream success and are covered by reliable sources and to suggest otherwise really disrespects the artform. -- Dragonfiend 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Right. What do you think about the statement that this should not be used to justify AfDs for webcomics, which was in the part you removed? J•A•K 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you referring to the sentence about "the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"? I removed that because it's redundant with the big box at the top of the page that says "This page is considered a guideline ... it is not policy ..." etc. -- Dragonfiend 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I added it back again since both WP:MUSIC and WP:FICTION have similar caveats, and have been accepted far longer. Hiding talk 18:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... webcomic Alexa 100,000

I've just noticed this. The edit summary seems a bit misleading, which is why I didn't notice before. I'm going to re-instate the old thing about Alexa guidelines for webcomics, which had been there for quite a long time. I expect there's going to be discussion about this, but since that change seems rather over-WP:BOLD, and isn't discussed on the talk page, I think it's reasonable. I know we've just discussed lowering the minimum Alexa rank and I think there's a good case to be made for it. However, I don't favour chucking out a heap of webcomics articles which are perfectly good and notable, just because the tool isn't good enough. Your arguments, please, good people? J•A•K 12:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I hadn't noticed that either until thirty minutes ago. I'm just glad it wasn't me who did it or my arse would be back ing the wringer! - brenneman(t)(c) 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Huh. I'm all for WP:AGF, but I'm curious as to why Cryptic did it without mentioning it on this page. I'm so glad Snowspinner didn't notice: he'd be angry at me for letting the side down. At least we seem to have picked up on this before there was much unpleasantness. J•A•K 13:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see what happened. Aaron, you mentioned something about trying to merge the guidelines for webcomics and websites, Radiant removed the Alexa ranking mention on webcomics specifcally here because here the main webpage ranking was changed to 100,000, for no reason I can fathom by User:Revolución. Hmm... we should read the page we're arguing over more. "Webcomis" has been there a week. This is awkward. What do you say to a revert of earlier that day, as this seems a bit of a mess? J•A•K 13:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Alexa cut-off at 10,000 makes sense to me. I've seen no reason given for why webcomics require a lowering of the bar, and seen plenty of complaints that Alexa is not accurate beyond 10,000. -- Dragonfiend 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Dragonfiend, since webcomics are not just websites, as discussed above, they should not be tested as though they are no different from other websites. That was one reason given above. J•A•K 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • What kind of website is just a website? Is a blog just a website? Is a forum just a website? Is a personal homepage just a website? Is a search engine just a website? Is a small business' website just a website? Is the site where I download podcasts just a website? Is my congressman's website just a website? Maybe someone needs to refactor whatever is "above"? I see a note that there's been "Minimal discussion on why webcomics deserved to be treated better than websites, in terms of Alexa ranking," [23]. I see Hahnchen write that "webcomics are now treated with such high regard in comparison to any other website." I see Hiding write that "A webcomic is not equal to a website. Perhaps it might be easier to think of it like this. Is a comic equal to a piece of paper?" I don't follow the "webcomics are to websites as a comic is to a sheet of paper analogy." And Xuanwu writes that "web comics do not equal websites. Web comics are the same as print comics." I think every "infinite canvas" webcomic creator, reader, and reviewer would disagree with that. So, no, webcomics are not remarkably different from other types of websites, and I haven't seen enough discussion here to suggest there is a consensus otherwise. -- Dragonfiend 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
            • The only reasonable argument I've heard on how they're different is that due to syndication, looking at traffic on a certain URL may not reliably indicate the audience that a webcomic has. However to me this doesn't justify setting the bar at Alexa of 100,000. As others have pointed out, some webcomics are widely discussed elsewhere. I think normal standards of verifiability help out here - if there aren't enough secondary sources about a webcomic to write a neutral, verifiable article on it, then it's not an encyclopedic topic. To me, having a seperate guideline for webcomics does seem a bit silly and unneccessary, but I'll admit I'm no expert in the field. To the extent that some editors are proclaiming themselves experts and trying to single-handedly decide what should be included, the webcomic guideline is downright harmful. Friday (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I've got to agree, to be honest. I'd also point people to Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance where Jimbo expressed this opinion with regards to any concepts of notability:
  • what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_4&oldid=1080293971"