Talk:Dresden Codak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by the Comics WikiProject because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove auto=yes from the {{Comicsproj}} template above. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class= parameter in the {{Comicsproj}} template above and removing the stub template from the article.

Included in trivia- Kimiko "Thundrbolt" Ross, A reference to the comic book character "Thunderbolt Ross?

You delete-happy kids need to settle down.

Is it just me, or has someone basically been going through all the webcomic entries and marking them for deletion on the basis of insufficient notability? --TF

I think the main problem is that people create webcomic articles on here as character guides etc. rather than encyclopedia articles. Now we've got a reasonable article load there's a push to removing non-encyclopedic articles and making sure articles are properly referenced, rather than creating new articles. Take this article for example - lots of information which is boils down to summarising the comic and characters and providing spoilers galore, but not much about the comic in context. For example the comic was mentioned in Seed magazine, importance evidence of its appeal to scientists, yet the article here doesn't mention this at all. Character guides and plot summaries would be fine for a comics wiki, but this is supposed to be producing an encyclopedia, which means it's supposed to be of interest to the general reader. Sockatume 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the "problem" is one of formatting and not of notability. It's one thing to delete an article that is insufficiently sourced, but another to delete it simply because you're not satisfied with how the information is presented. Regardless, this problem isn't unique to webcomic pages, though. Plot summaries and character information are very common on wikipedia articles about various works of fiction including films, print comics, animation and even some novels. If you don't like the type of information being presented, then change it, but bon't pick on webcomics just because they're a new medium. Deleting this article would be unfair because it IS notable, and holds a great deal of relevance to the community to the medium at large. --RC

I think the two cross over, at least from the point of view of the reader. For example if I was to write about the mind-blowingly non-notable webcomic ICFF, I would necessarily be unable to include any material from webcomic critics, commentators etc. There isn't any material on there to include. Therefore it would be obvious to someone prowling the Wikipedia that it was a non-notable subject. However if I was to write about the notable subject "Citizen Kane", and just made it a character guide and story summary, it would look the same. So returning to the subject at hand, most of the Wikipedia webcomics articles are written as plot summaries and character guides, and therefore give the appearance of being about a non-notable subject, regardless of how notable the subject is. Sockatume 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares, is what I say. Bandwidth is (relatively) cheap and so is diskspace. Wikipedia is a great source of info on many bands whose only presence on the intertubes is a myspace page - and I think that's awesome. Why can't we spend our energies keeping the PENIS and OPTIMUS PRIME RULES out of good articles instead, and let entropy deal with the crappier articles? Notability on the internet, of all places, is so flimsy (and lord help you if your website has been profiled by the offline media). Finally, judging by the average amount of comments in the average deletion discussion, you could easily get 15 friends with long standing accounts to bully the vote your way, on low traffic articles. That one of the folks there tried to use Alexa rankings as a justification is just sad. You can only be so much of a pedant. hif 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Webspace may be cheap, but the goal of the project is to produce an encyclopedia, not literally record all knowledge in one place (the BBC's H2G2, which predates Wikipedia, was designed with that in mind). So conciseness is a key concern. Regarding the deletion discussion process: they changed it from a vote to a discussion basis a little a while ago, because of concerns like the ones you mention. If someone makes a particularly sound case for keeping the article which can't be countered by those arguing for deletion, it'll be kept, or at least their points will prevent a concensus for deletion being reached, regardless of how established the user making the case is. Sockatume 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)