Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that I thoroughly hate it when deletion discussions get over twice as long as the article itself, and that I'm closing this as a keep now and ask everyone who posted extra information about the comic here to add that to the article. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Able and Baker

I closed the original debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker as a "delete", having erroneously overlooked a few valid keep sentiments and arguments due to a deluge of sockpuppeteering. A request for the article to be undeleted was made, and I have decided to correct my original wrong decision and relist here for a hopefully clean debate. I have not done much research into finding out how notable this webcomic is so I am not voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've never heard of it either, but with hundreds of strips under their belt and a pretty decent sized fanart page it seems pretty notable to me.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely Keep - comic is on Dayfree Press, a notable webcomics syndicate of which almost every other strip has an article. As a result, [1] appears as a sponsored link from both Questionable Content and Daily Dinosaur Comics. Furthermore, the editor of Dayfree was named as one of the 25 notable webcomics people in Comixpedia for 2004, and used his interview there to mention Able and Baker as a hot strip. Since Dayfree membership is by application, its membership in the syndicate constittues a jdugment of quality and notability from a highly important source. I also ask whoever closes this debate to glance at User:Snowspinner/Webcomics - I believe I have qualifications that make me a particular expert on webcomics and their notability, which might be taken as relevent in determining consensus. Snowspinner 06:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Question. Does sponsored link mean advertizement, or something else? -- SCZenz 11:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In this case it means unpaid advertisement - the Dayfree strips all run an adbox that randomly serves up an ad for one of the other Dayfree strips. The adbox doesn't appear along with other ads on the site, but as part of the framing. It's probably best to go look at, say, [2] - the box that says Dayfree Press? Periodically advertises Able and Baker. (The other ad in that section is for QC merchandise - the point being that an ad in that section is a different thing from the top banner ads, which are generally for unrelated things) Snowspinner 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above, though i dont think Snowspinners presented qualifications necessarily mean his vote opinion should weigh heavier. The Minister of War 09:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And if this page were about votes, I would agree wholeheartedly, but I take the move away from calling it "votes" for deletion to mark a change in that. Snowspinner 10:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The wording change was made to recognize this is about consensus, not voting. I don't know of any reason to believe it was to give greater weight to one user than another; opinions here are intended to be grounded in Wikipedia policy rather than expertise or anything else. (Generally, FYI, any view either way is counted, whether grounded in a specific policy or not, with the exception of apparent sockpuppets.) -- SCZenz 10:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "consensus" beats actual expertise? That statement is, on the face of it, ridiculous - David Gerard 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Expertise beats consensus? Does that make any more sense? Agreed, its not a vote. Still think self-proclaimed credentials have no place here, and shouldnt weigh in. The Minister of War 12:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Expertise surely should beat people who know nothing about a topic but weigh in anyway. This isn't a "vote" - David Gerard 12:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
            • This seems to me to be a very anti-Wikipedian notion, Mr. Gerard. All of us voting, I hope, have done our homework as best we can. I think the most important expertise to have is to be familiar with general Wikipedia standards for notability. Experts can provide information, but according to Wikipedia:No original research#The_role_of_expert_editors they must provide sources! Nobody gives me a free pass when I write physics articles; I have to find sources both in and out of academia if someone feels like questioning what I write—and I've done so before. The problem here is that Snowspinner's primary source, Dayfree Press, wouldn't normally qualify as a reputable source per Wikipedia policy. This not being a vote certainly does not mean it's a matter for experts only to decide! -- SCZenz 16:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
              • You're applying a policy to a realm it was never meant to apply to, first of all - yes, it would be original research for me to go and start adding to Wikipedia articles, "In the view of Philip Sandifer, this webcomic is particularly important." It would not, of course, be original research for someone else to do so based on anything I were to publish on a given webcomic. But all of this is beside the point, because deletion debates are not article writing. It is absolutely not original research to consult with a subject expert on the importance of a topic to decide whether to write about it - it's a perfectly intuitive and obvious thing to do. Indeed, we consult with experts on a number of non-article writing matters in Wikipedia - Jimbo has done so in a debate regarding the creation of a separate Cantonese Wikipedia, for instance, and we have Template:Expert for a reason. Second of all, you misunderstand what a reputable source is for - Dayfree's website is a perfectly reputable source for the matter of "What comics are in the Dayfree syndicate right now," and consulting it is not original research - primary sources are acceptable sources, although assembling them in "novel" ways is not. I do not find any novelty in asserting that Able and Baker is on a syndicate that it is on, however. Snowspinner 16:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                • The point is, I am not sure that presence on Dayfree is an indicator of notability—and you are effectively using it as a "source" to assert exactly this. I think this is a point of legitimate difference of opinion, which is why we are seeing well-thought-out views on both sides—but I don't see how expertise makes one view count more. I claim that expertise in a field, in general, might give the expert a distorted sense of its importance, so that expertise is actually more relevant for article-writing than AfD's! This, combined with the explicit statement on consensus in WP:AfD, makes me pretty sure that "expert" views are not intended to count double. -- SCZenz 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • And them my question becomes, on what grounds of knowledge do you say that Dayfree isn't notable? I mean, to be honest, I have doubts about the quality of your view, since I remember explaining yesterday the nature of the Modern Tales syndicate. But no, expert views shouldn't count double, because this whole notion of "counting" misses the point. To use an extreme pair of examples, as a closing admin, if I find a nomination with five votes of "Delete nn" and one vote of "Actually, as a subject expert, this is a really important article in the field," I will keep the article, assuming the subject expert claim is decently backed up. On the other hand, if I find an article with five keep votes, the first of which is a subject expert claim and the next four of which are "Keep, agree with X," and then a lone delete vote demonstrating copyvio, as a closing admin, I will delete. Snowspinner 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • Normally, again, you would cite some sort of external source to indicate Dayfree is notable; my concern is that most evidence you provide is somewhat circular, or confined within a set of webcomics that assert each others' notability. I shouldn't have to be an expert to understand evidence that something is notable; if it's that obscure, it doesn't seem such a good argument of notability to me. I believe that the action you propose for closing a debate would be inappropriate and inconsistent with Wikipedia precedent; admins (and everyone else) should assume good faith and not discount arguments of established users because they make a personal judgement about the "quality of [their] views." -- SCZenz 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • However, I propose this as a compromise: your expertise, and arguments, seem to be swaying peoples' opinions to your side. That is part of consensus, and if that's how it goes then this is an AfD I don't mind "losing." I say again we should move forward on getting WP:COMIC up to snuff: I propose a set of criteria based on a list of syndicates and hosting services, along with awards and other critical attention, with Alexa used only as a backup. Maybe you could put a list of appropriate syndicates and hosting services on the discussion page, along with a bit about them, so we can put a new proposal together? -- SCZenz 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                      • Oh - so you're looking for a link like [3] where the founder of Dayfree is tagged as the 11th person in a list of 25 people in webcomics? Snowspinner 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                        • Yes, that's the idea. And then we should discuss. My question is: does one person/host being notable mean that everyone associated with him is notable? It seems to be that, in general, a notable host may not make a notable webcomic—for example, KeenSpace is clearly notable, but only some comics there are. It's not obvious, so we have to figure out how to decide. I think I'm likely to agree with you pretty substantially, but we really have to get these arguments ouf of AfD's. Guidelines will help a lot with that. -- SCZenz 18:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                          • In this case, yes - Dayfree is editorially chosen, Keenspace is "anyone can join." So the notability is that the comic was specifically chosen by #11 on Comixpedia's 25 people in webcomics list for a syndicate. Snowspinner 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Actually, you're flat-out dead wrong on this one: see what Jimbo says about actual expertise versus consensus. - David Gerard 22:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Jimbo said "reputation" and "credibility," not expertise. I see no evidence whatsoever he meant that established editors, who are acting in good faith and working actively to understand the issues, should be counted less than established editors who claim expertise. -- SCZenz 22:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • You appear to me to be saying "a good faith consensus of people who don't know anything about the subject counts more than someone who actually does." Is that what you're saying? - David Gerard 22:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • I'm saying that good faith means doing enough research to vote intelligently. That's what I do, and part of WP:AGF is to assume others are doing it too. I've asked about this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), because I'd like to learn more about the larger community's views on this issue. It seems pretty important. -- SCZenz 22:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • (resettin indent) Well, if our expert can cite a reliable, independent source that would be nice. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In the absence of a policy about syndicates, with reasons to consider or not consider membership in each one, I have to make judgements based on the webcomic itself—and I still haven't seen any convincing, verifiable assertions of notability for it. I'm happy to change my mind, so I'll look back here for arguments. For people new to Wikipedia, and/or relatively new to this debate, my views on this issue and explanation of relevant Wikipedia policies is on this page: User:SCZenz/Webcomics. -- SCZenz 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I am changing my view, somewhat. My arguments above are still valid, but I now think it is possible that the views put forth on why this comic is notable will count under a reasonable, consensus version of WP:COMIC. I keep a weak delete because those standards don't exist yet, and I don't know how they'll come out, so it seems difficult to use them. -- SCZenz 18:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I am now certain that the final form of WP:COMIC, which is still under discussion, will recognize this one as notable. -- SCZenz 06:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa of over one million for it's parent site, zero hits on Google news. Verifiable links that demonstrate notability might change my opinon. It is funny, though. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • [4] is verifiable notability. Snowspinner 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As per above, please cite a reliable, independent source. Is there a review of this comic in a print media publication, for example? - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm providng a primary source. Cited elsewhere in this debate is a secondary source establishing notability of the primary source. Snowspinner 22:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Snowspinner - David Gerard 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An Alexa rating over one million combined with no news coverage shows that there is a serious lack of reliable sources to verify that this is not just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 ^talk 12:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • [5] demonstrates that it is not just another website with limited readership and interest. Snowspinner 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Your reference's stated goal of promoting webcomics should lead to the question of possible bias. As a result I am not convinced that the they meet the guidelines to be considered a reliable source when it comes to questions of notability and influence. --Allen3 ^talk 17:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think you understand - they're an online syndicate of webcomics. One of the big ones, and one of the first ones. Their use as a source is that they clearly include Able and Baker. They are a primary source, not a secondary source. Snowspinner 22:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify -- in other words, you are asserting that dayfreepress is rather like the allmusic of webcomics? (For Wikipedia's intents and purposes, anyway) Jacqui ^{★ 05:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}
        • An Alexa ranking in the millions makes them one of the smaller collectives of webcomic artists. Having been founded about a year and a half ago makes them one of the newest collectives, not one of the first. Being nonprofessional (their mission states they have no businnes plan) makes your use of the term "syndicate" misleading. Dragonfiend 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Poor Alexa rank, no significant mainstream news coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• This was undelted out of process, while discussion was underway at WP:DRV. Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted content under WP:CSD G4, and so tagged. If not speedy deleted for some reason, delete as per the previous delete discussion. DES ^(talk) 14:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a speedy at this point would be little more than a bureaucratic move. Sjakkalle closed the first AfD and if he wants to re-open, it should be his call. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Sorry, I screwed up the closing" from the deleting admin is out of process now? Dude, what's in process then? Snowspinner 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I mis-read things, sorry. While I think allowing the DRV discussion to go to compeltion would have been better, the closing admin is in a unique postion to correct a percived error. No vote at this time. DES ^(talk) 15:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you fix your statement on VFU? - David Gerard 22:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As per my original vote and Snowspinner's arguments. Alexa's ratings are of dubious value. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Snowspinner. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Snowspinner and Freshgavin. Alexa is a statistical tool based on sampling, not the be-all and end-all of internet notoriety. This is a well written article that we should not delete. Unfocused 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I don't find "membership with Dayfree" a particularly moving argument for notability; after all, Dayfree is in and of itself borrowing notability (from comics like Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics). That said, I've been trying to talk to the people on the A&B forum to establish some other claim of notability, with some mixed success.
  For the record, deleting this article won't destroy it as a useful resource for webcomic fans or fans of the comic; this article is already on Comixpedia, and the fans of the webcomic already know about the Comixpedia entry. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The idea that the syndicate is drawing its notability from its member comics is strange, to say the least. It is not as though Dayfree is paying Dinosaur Comics and Questionable Content to be members and display the Dayfree logo - the comics and syndicate found the arrangement to be mutually beneficial. Snowspinner 19:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Virtually everything on Wikipedia is also available elsewhere on the internet. That it is also on Comixpedia is about as relevant as "I can find it with Google". The only relevant question is whether this is an article which deserves deletion or not. I say "not". Unfocused 19:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man In Black...well written article, but ultimately not notable enough for me.--Isotope23 19:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significance and verifiability. Friday (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per my original vote and the above; the 'evidence' presented above has only convinced me more firmly in favor of deletion. A website whose only claim to fame is a twice-removed link to Comixpedia is not encyclopedic material. As an aside, it should be noted that almost half of the original Dayfree Press comics and exactly one-fourth of the other current ones do not currently have Wikipedia articles. --Aquillion 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I count 6 out of 17 that don't have articles, for a total of 2/3 that do. And its claim to fame is not, and never has been, a twice removed link to Comixpedia - stop making a straw man out of it. Its claim to fame is that the editors of Dayfree Press, one of the oldest webcomics syndicates, judged it to be a comic worth making part of their syndicate. The Comixpedia is further support of Dayfree's notability. Snowspinner 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • One of the reasons it should be deleted is that other Daypress comics don't have articles? That appears to be ridiculously circular reasoning - David Gerard 00:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you say the same regarding this part of Snowspinner's "keep" vote? "...comic is on Dayfree Press, a notable webcomics syndicate of which almost every other strip has an article." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of people have brought up reasons on why Able and Baker is notable (which appears to be the main reason for getting rid of it). However I'm saying that notability shouldn't play a role as it is currently not Wikipedia policy (as shown by the header on Wikipedia:Importance). When I looked at the Wikipedia:Deletion policy I found no mention of non-notability on it, and while plenty of articles have been deleted for this reason, I think it should be stopped until an actual policy regarding this has been agreed upon and put into effect. When you take away the demand for notability, all of the verifiable sources become even more valid reasons for keeping it. While he shouldn't play an overly strong role in Wikipedian policy, the founder of Wikipedia (Jimbo Wales) disagree with notability being an important criteria. --John Lynch 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Mere policy is nothing to consensus and process! - David Gerard 00:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by that? Shouldn't policy dictate Wikipedia? Or as long as there is a consensus on something then that's okay? --John Lynch 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think he's on your side. ;) (Sarcasm doesn't always translate well on t3h in+arw3b) Jacqui ^{★ 06:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Weak keep - 10,000 Google hits (but mostly from blogs or other Webcomic sites) suggest at least notability within its genre. I remain unconvinced, however, that simply being part of a so-called "syndicate" makes anything notable. A "Webcomic syndicate" is nothing more than a Web site linking to a bunch of Webcomics. It's nothing like an actual dead tree comic syndication company. FCYTravis 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I should note that most of those hits are there because of other usages (military alphabet, NASA monkeys, etc...), if you limit the search by the artist's name you only get around 650 results. Nathan J. Yoder 08:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redelete, should not have been undeleted until the VfU time period had expired. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So, wait. The VfU shouldn't have gone through because the AfD was valid, the second AfD shouldn't have gone through because the VfU was incomplete, and the fact that the undeletion was done by the deleting admin who realized he had messed it up counts for nothing? Snowspinner 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The abscence of "mainstream" sources preocuppies me, but then, I don't know how else this could be source. I'm going to retract my VFU reasoning and believe Snowspinner on this one. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (and I'd do the same for any delete based on Alexa ratings, which are absolutely bunk.) My reasons are much the same as Snowspinner's, but I'd like to add this: we're building the sum total of human knowledge here. If you want to look something up, it should be here--not the Comixpedia wiki, though that's a fine place; not the cast page for the comic, be it ever so finely crafted; it should be here, because only here do we have the freedoms and the effort to provide excellent encyclopedic information for webcomics. It'd be sad if a proposed notability rule got in the way of that. (Able and Baker, at 400 strips, hits my internal gut-feel for "big enough." In writing this, I wanted to know more about the comic, and Wikipedia is where I found the best information.) Philip 04:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Snowspinner Nobody 06:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Snowspinner's remarks. Jtmichcock 10:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable, encyclopedic, and Snowspinner is right ➥the Epopt 16:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I do not agree with the fact that being a member of Dayfree Press equals instant notability. The dayfree press is a comic collective, motivated towards the promotion of its comics. Just because Able and Baker is linked from a notable webcomic, or webcomic portal, doesn't mean that it is instantly notable. What about saying that every signed band for the most minor of record labels should have an article? What about every book/pamflet/flyer printed by the same publisher as the Harry Potter publisher? The only argument for keeping this, is that it belongs to a comic promotion syndicate. It has not on its own done anything notable, there is no in depth coverage from either the mainstream press or even the webcomic press. In the previous deletion debate, the only assertion of notability were the fan's chimes of, "It was mentioned one in passing by the Dayfree Press founder on comixPedia", and so far, that's still the only thing I see. Whereas say, Little Gamers, also on the Dayfree Press, I think is notable, because it appears in a national magazine, PC GAMER. - Hahnchen 17:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you aware that your attitude (And I mean yours specifically - you're named in the article) is responsible for driving off, by my count, at least three Wikipedia contributors? Have a look at [6] - particularly the comments. It's truly horrifying. Snowspinner 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • From the third comment on that link: I have not seen evidence that user Hahnchen is anywhere near the bogeyman I've seen him painted as in some parts of the webcomics community. I recall from trawling through the materials on Friday or Saturday that he seemed fairly conscientious and willing to admit mistakes and let controversies die down.
      Horrifying indeed. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Where in Wikipedia policy does it say it's okay to delete an entry based on notability? Wikipedia:Importance is only being worked on to be considered a policy, it isn't an actual policy. I don't mean to attack you, but it appears as if you have a crusade on deleting every webcomic (or at least putting it through an AFD). Also your point on the Harry Potter publisher, yes. Every book that has been published by that publisher should have an article. Being published is considered notable enough (not my interpretation, I've seen it used in plenty of places). --John Lynch 22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE non-notable, as per brenneman and others. There is nothing in this article that would indicate notability -- the article explains only that this is a webcomic and it has characters. This webcomic is not award-winning, widely-read, critically-acclaimed, or in any other way notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Alexa ranking of 1,116,269 is far too high for a web site to be considered notable. The artist's output (someone pointed to 400 comics) does not indicate notability when almost no one is reading those 400 comics. Further, not all members of notable comics groups are notable (just as there are non-notable actors in notable films, non-notable bands on notable record labels, etc.), and the notability of this comic syndicate is itself questionable, as per A Man In Black. Being almost-sorta mentioned in Comixpedia is not any indicator of notability; Comixpedia allows comics artists to post their own news and regularly writes about non-notable comics (See L33t Pixels, etc.) Dragonfiend 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Philip Sandifer (User:Snowspinner)'s expert opinion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP I argued it a thousand ways in the original debate so I'm not going to type it all again. However, on the comment way up there saying Keenspot is a notable syndicate, I'd say NO NO NO! KeenSPOT maybe, but keenspace is a free hosting service pretty much like GEOCITIES! --Tedzsee 23:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep The page appears to have sources indicating notability. On issues of verifiability, and objective notability, personal opinion cannot be expert without sources. Anyone holding themselves out as expert should produce sources upon polite request. Consensus matters much than expertise because expertise is an imprecise term open to too much varying interpretation (especially in areas of pop-culture where objective certification) and abuse (by people claiming expertise without warrant.) Given what I said, I hold the statement "Censensus beats expertise is ridiculous" to be itself worthy of some ridicule. Xoloz 06:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Which verifiable sources on the Able & Baker page do you feel indicate notability? The only source I find on the article is the comic itself. Dragonfiend 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I used google (both as a search and with "backlinks"), alexa, searched various blog sites (myspace, livejournal and xanga) and got VERY few results for it, this comic is barely known by anyone. I also did the same for the dayfreepress, and it also is poorly known. This has been compared to a comic syndication medium, but really it appears just to be a glorified banner ad service from their mission statement. Snowspinner's "expertise" here is just him stating something that we should just accept as right without evidence, that these banner ads really have given them a significant following. Nathan J. Yoder 08:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak-to-middling keep. Snowspinner is doing his damnedest to give us what we need to know regarding webcomics, and I think he's doing a reasonably good job. Jacqui ^{★ 06:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete as a generic non-notable webcomic. I respect Snowspinner's opinion and work, but that doesn't mean I can't think he's wrong this time. Lord Bob 17:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a webcomic that appears quite reasonably notable to me, both based on my cursory perusal of the site itself (hundreds of strips over several years with quite a bit of readership evident) and on the arguments being made in this AfD. There's more than enough basis here. Bryan 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Credible Sources

A lot of this seems to center on what's a "reliable source". Websites about webcomics, unfortunately, don't meet the WP:Evaluating_sources suggestions about independance. The sources provided so far are dayfreepress and comixpedia. Sorry to be pedantic, but where are the sources that show these are reliable sources? Discussions of expertise aside, it's about verifiability, isn't it? Rather than this circular and incestous self-reference, do we have substantative external coverage in any print or other media per website guidlines?
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

*sputters helplessly*

WHAT?Snowspinner 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, could you run that one past us again? You appear to be asking for cites that the sky is blue - David Gerard 23:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:WEB is irrelevant, since it's only proposed and overly-strict, as people have noted on its talk page. But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources is absolutely relevant here. Incidentally, if someone asked you to cite the blueness of the sky, it would be silly, but you could do it. -- SCZenz 23:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And which part of Dayfree or Comixpedia fails to meet those criteria? I certainly consider Dayfree a reliable source on the question of "what is in Dayfree" and "How are things chosen for Dayfree." Comixpedia is a site devoted to reporting on webcomics, so it seems to me a good place for news and views on webcomics. By the standard Aaron is proposing, we'd be in a situation whereby we couldn't trust Popular Science on science articles, because they're too biased towards science. Snowspinner 23:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

But we'd be able to provide some sources that verified if it was or was not credible with regards to science. I wouldn't trust Popular Science to tell me that Popular Science was credible. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it ridiculous that websites about webcomics have been deemed invalid. Based on your guidelines then Otherspace should be removed from Wikipedia (which for anyone who is in the MUD community is a ridiculous suggestion) because there are no print guidelines and it has no Alexa rating. You've created a set up where tons of good encyclopediac articles should be disallowed. --John Lynch 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So you'd be looking a link like [7] where you can see T Campbell, Meaghan Quinn, and Wednesday White on the staff? Or what? Snowspinner 23:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's still self-referential. And please read my actual comments, I haven't said that "websites about webcomics have been deemed invalid". Are you saying that there is no reference for these related web entities outside their own circle? That would then fall under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics. Have none of these ever been mentioned in Wired or Salon for example? These are questions that go to the basic idea of encyclopedic. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• If websites about webcomics haven't been deemed invalid, can you link to some webcomic websites that do you think are valid?--John Lynch 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I have no doubt that you are a highly intelligent person with nothing but the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, this appears to be the most brain-searingly and breathtakingly idiotic thing I have read in some time. Are you sincerely saying that notability within its own circle is not notability? If so, will you be commencing your violent purge of most academic articles? Snowspinner 00:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, you have read our policies on Original Research, haven't you? What's so shocking about saying that if there only exist two sources that refer to each other for something that we shouldn't use them as reliable sources. If someone in Toronto somewhere is the next Issac Newton and publishes the new Theory of Everything we wouldn't include it until it had had a peer review, and preferably something external. And please, civility. I'm sure that you're not "brain-searingly and breathtakingly idiotic" either, so perhaps you could just put that back in it's box? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that all areas of human knowledge are equally notable? I would say that, for example, the monarchy of the UK is more notable than webcomics, which explains why we have articles about all of the former and not all of the latter. It does, as Brenneman says, go to the heart of what encyclopedaic means. -- SCZenz 00:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it self referential? Comixpedia is independant, the people in charge aren't members of Dayfree Press. Google News also includes Comixpedia in its searches. As for it being an Oscure topic webcomics have been mentioned in the news which makes it so it isn't an obscure topic. --John Lynch 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks for making my point for me. Comixpedia only appears when it mentions itself.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So the Quad City Times also isn't an acceptable source for things that go on in Quad City? Snowspinner 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't prove that everything that happens in Quad City that it mentions is notable, does it? -- SCZenz 00:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• No, unless the QCT is referenced by someone else as reputable, it's not. Please actually look at these links: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. This is why we discourage even famous people writing their own pages. I'm not even arguing notability. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I... see. And how, in your view, does notability start, then, if every source takes its notability from other sources? Snowspinner 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Are you even reading what I'm posting? See where I say "I'm not arguing notability"? - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• My apologies. How does reputability get established if all reputability is done by citations in other reputable sources? What is the root of all reputabiltiy then? Snowspinner 02:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please accept mine as well, that was far too snappy on my part. A valid question: From what aether does this magical stuff spring? For example, what makes The New York Times a reputable source? It is widely read, thus any mistakes are very public. It has history, in that if it had a long series of mistakes to its name, we'd know. It has a reputation based upon both of these things, and thus to some degree is bootstrapped by other reputable organisations. I really don't think that you're arguing that Comixpedia is to be regarded as being as reliable as the New York Times, are you? Even about itself. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

(Since we're talking about the NYT, why not move left?) On the other hand, between New York Times and Jayson Blair, we have around 3500 words on the mistakes and flaws of the New York Times. The Comixpedia article is a bit of a stub, but it doesn't even have a criticism section.

Which is mostly to say that verifiability isn't something that can be done by a robot - it takes the qualified judgment of subject experts, regular editors, and common sense. Snowspinner 02:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And, while I'm not disputing your expertise, "common sense" dictates that if (for example) you were claiming that expertise without any supporting evidence I'd be disinclined to believe it. Despite the flurry of "Keep per Snowspinner" opinions voiced above, we've yet to see a single source cited external to the webcomics world. It shouldn't matter if it's "Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum" or "Diesel Sweeties", we should be able to find reputable sources. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If it were "Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum", we'd expect to find that our sources were those which normally cover Neanderthals and/or autism. I don't know what "Diesel Sweeties" is. Webcomics as a whole are a form of web culture that hasn't attracted much mainstream media attention, so they are a much more difficult to find authorities on because traditionally reliables sources haven't chosen to cover them much. Some degree of self-referentialism is to be expected, just as Reuters, AP, CNN, et. al. all reference each other. Cite the best references available in the article, and allow the reader to decide the reputability of them. Tag the article to indicate your lack of faith in the sources if you need to. But since it is a webcomic, merely looking at the comic to verify its continued existence over a period of time, and seeing the public response to it satisfies some degree of verifiability. Inclusion in a known syndicate adds more. I think we have enough here primariliy because as long as they're working in an encyclopedic style, I prefer to offer other editors good faith in pursuit of their own interests, and see what develops. Snowspinner is clearly an editor working in good faith on encyclopedia articles that interest him. Unfocused 15:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that this would rule out a wealth of academic topics that are discussed only among academics? Snowspinner 15:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not actually the case. Academics have a thing called "peer review" which consists not only of discussions amongst themselves, but publishing in reputable (if not widely known) locations. If there do exist topics so obscure that only a handful of people know about them and that do not have a peer-review methodology, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I've said this above, but I'll say it again: that's what "no original research" says. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.