Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites)/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


This archive page covers approximately the dates up until 29 October 2005.

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

Contents

Websites

Articles on websites, forums, internet memes and flash animations appear regularly on VfD. It strikes me as odd that we have inclusion guidelines for bands (WP:MUSIC) and people (WP:BIO), among others, but not for websites. It has been established that Wikipedia is not a web directory; in other words, the vast majority of websites likely do not deserve a Wikipedia entry. On the other hand, sites such as Yahoo and eBay obviously do. So, I'd like to open discussion on what criteria would work for inclusion of websites. Radiant_>|< 12:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's because Yahoo and eBay are major corporations with large amounts of real-world assets and not merely websites. Perhaps a better example would be YTMND or Something Awful or Slashdot. — Phil Welch 03:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about The Best Page in the Universe? That article recieves plenty of traffic and is an article with a relatively busy discussion page. I think it should stay. A good example of an article which I think should be deleted is .hack//G.U. GameFAQs Boards. There is a line to be drawn and I think that VfD is a method which can accomplish that. -Haon 03:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Google/Alexa

Interestingly, the Google test and Alexa rating of a website are arguably a strong indication of the site's popularity, even if they are less informative for real-world matters. Radiant_>|< 12:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Alexa test#Alexa test. --cesarb 13:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The guidelines we already have on the Google test and Alexa test have always been sufficient for me when evaluating websites. Both those tests have weaknesses but they are remarkably reliable for websites. The few exceptions (where, for example, the site is successfully gaming the rating agencies) get dealt with as exceptions. I don't see us having much luck trying to write rules for those exceptions. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So do you think it possible to summarize these guidelines to make it useful as a 'speedy' candidate for such things as the average webforum? If so, how would you word it? Radiant_>|< 19:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of: "An article about a website may be a candidate for speedy deletion is it has an Alexa rating of less than 100,000 and does not otherwise establish its notability" (not quite sure how to incorporate the Google test into that though)? Following on from the webcomics guidelines we could also have something along the lines of "An article about a website may be a candidate for speedy deletion if the website has been online for less than 9 months". --G Rutter 19:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the list- at least most of the articles you've listed do however seem to claim notability on grounds other than number of hits. Based on what's already been said and on WP:MUSIC I've had a go at writing some criteria for websites- see below. --G Rutter 28 June 2005 08:37 (UTC)
The main thing to keep in mind is that Alexa it does not give the full picture of the trafic on a web site. Far from it in fact. It can be usefull to compare sites of roughtly the same type, but for estabilishing notability it's a weak indication at best. Most extimates put the world wide number of internet users at between 600[1] and 800[2] million. Alexa claim about 10 million downloads, so even if we asume that every single download of the Alexa toolbar result in an active user then Alexa still only map the habits of 1.66% - 1.25% of world's internet users. I understand the desire to have a "benchmark" for how notable a site have to be to be listed in the Wikipedia, I also understand that the Alexa numbers are very convenient to use (rather than looking for counters and trackers on the individual sites or asking the webmaster for a copy of the recent logs or such), but with the fairly low sampeling pool the Alexa rank should never be the last word on a sites notability (and fortunately so far it doesn't seem to be). --Sherool 15:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
A sample of 1 million out of 800 million users is highly reliable, IF it is unbiased. But that's a very big IF there. Nabla 19:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Criteria

If the Alexa rating is less more than 100,000 and the article does not otherwise establish the notability of the website then the article may be considered a candidate for speedy deletion.

If the Alexa rating is less than 50,000 and/or the article only claims limited notability (eg "forum with 75 registered members") then the article may be considered as a candidate for listing on VfD.

A website may be considered notable if is meets any (one? two?) of these criteria:

  1. Has an Alexa rating of over under 50,000.
  2. If appropriate, has over 1,000 [more? less?] registered members
  3. Has been featured in a major broadcast medium (eg BBC, New York Times)
  4. Has been discussed on major websites (eg Slashdot)
  5. Has won a recognised award (eg Webby)

Obviously this is only a first draft, so feel free to criticise at length! (But do people think this is on the right lines, whether or not you agree on the numbers, etc) --G Rutter 28 June 2005 08:41 (UTC)

  • Okay, it's a good start. However, let me give some counterexamples. By the way, perhaps trivial, but a better Alexa rating is a lower Alexa rating. We've had people on VFD in the past that assumed something with a rating of over a million must be good.
    1. I am not convinced that all of the top 50000 websites, according to Alexa, are notable.
    2. 1000 memers is rather low (especially as non-active members tend to be included in the count). A fan forum I'm a member of has about 2500 but is not otherwise notable. Wikipedia has slightly over 10000. Slashdot has over 100000 IIRC.
    3. Major broadcast medium, that sounds about right. Anything that gets major press attention is notable.
    4. Discussed on major websites is not a good criterion. Something Awful is a major website, and makes a point of discussing the 'awful link of the day', most of which are to extremely NN sites. Also, being slashdotted does not make your site notable.
    5. I'm somewhat in doubt about rewards; there are zillions of web awards, most of which are only self-gratification. A Webby would be a good standard, but note that by winning one you receive sufficient media attention to pass criterion #3.
  • Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 08:54 (UTC)

For #3: If it is possible to measure active users rather than registered ones, that is preferable. Slashdot, for example, will probably soon have its 1,000,000th registered user, but only a fraction of those users are actually active. For #5: I'm not convinced that "web awards" are worth having a criterion for. Do people still pay attention to those things? If a website received some award back in 1998, does that mean it's automatically notable enough for inclusion? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 28, 2005 12:33 (UTC)

  • What about this requirement? Website must have some proof of impact beyond its core group of users. I think it manages to stay somewhat impartial, checks for notability, and covers most of the mentioned sites, both thoes with offline existance and those like zombo.com. humblefool® 29 June 2005 03:39 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments- I've fixed the mistakes over the Alexa ranking (I was trying to do it too quickly!). Humble- I agree entirely with your comment, but the question then arises: what counts as "proof of impact"? I think that the five criteria I came up with above is attempting to answer this question (though if we ever get this to guideline status I think we should start with your definition and then move on to the crtieria).
Comments on the five criteria:
1. I agree not all the top 50,000 are probably notable- so, I think websites need to meet two of these criteria.
2. I don't know of any way of measuring active users rather than registered users- eg is there any way of doing this for Wikipedia? Again, I think websites are going to have to meet two criteria- what number of registered users do people think would be sensible? 2,500? 5,000?
3. Seems uncontroversial!
4. How about "recognised as notable by a noted website" - that eliminates Something Awful and doesn't automatically include being slashdotted. It would basically be the web equivalent of criterion 3.
5. I think this is a useful crtierion as it clearly shows that the website has had an "impact beyond its core group of users". If this is accepted I think we might have to develop a list of notable web awards.
So, do we think these are broadly on the right lines? How do we need to change them to take into account the problems with them? And, can anyone think of any more criteria we could include to test whether a website is notable? Also, what do people think about the criteria for speedy and vfd candidates? --G Rutter 29 June 2005 07:49 (UTC)
  • I still feel that these guidelines are much too arbitrary to ever be truely useful. Again, IMO, the guidelines need to be more case-by-case, as they are now, since, especially with the web, exceptions are rampant. I mean, llooking at this edited version, the only real requirement is that a major news outlet mention them (since alexa is no good (too broad), member counts are inflated, major websites is out, and webbys falls under #3). That's too restrictive. Loads of "internet-notable" sites are unnoticed by the major news outlets. Sorry I'm just being critical - I simply can't think of any direct measurements that can be used here either! humblefool® 30 June 2005 06:47 (UTC)
  • I can think of one... any website that doesn't have its own domain would be non-notable (e.g. any user page on geocities, angelfire, etc). I don't really see any exceptions - anything that's important can afford their own host. What would you say? Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 10:23 (UTC)
    • For most of it's histoy this would have excluded the ISFDB. it was hosted at SFsite.com, and whould have happily stayed there had a mechanism ben found to pay the costs. This is an unusual case, but there might be other such cases. DES 16:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It might be worth adding to the criteria for websites that should be considered for listing on VfD? As Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal is up and running at the moment, what do people think about attempting to get the speedy deletion criteria passed? Ie "For articles on websites, if the Alexa rating is more than 100,000 and the article does not otherwise establish the notability of the website then the article may be considered a candidate for speedy deletion."
Humble- not sure what to say! What do other people think! --G Rutter 30 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)
  1. Website must have an Alexa ranking of at least 1,000,000, perferably under 100,000. The lower the better.
  2. Website must not be on free hosting (i.e. geocities, angelfire), and perferably, it owns its own web address.
  3. Website should have had some impact to users outside it's core user-base.
  4. Website should have had some coverage in a major media outlet.
  5. Website's article should establish notability - the above guidelines are NOT a guarantee of admission, only a lower limit.
  6. (EDIT)These requrirements are trumped by other wikiproject guidelines (as to avoid a clash with something like Casey and Andy or MusicWiki)
  • Is this a general idea of where we are right now? humblefool® 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)
  • Just a side comment -- Having 1000 members sounds about right. It'd prevent every Tom, Mary-Sue, and Harry with a Naruto fanfic forum from making a page here, until they reach a notable community size. (The standard for an event to make it to Wikipedia seems to be that it effected 1000 people, assuming 1 in 10 uses the Internet, and 1 in 100 Internet users use Wikipedia; for websites, it would assume 1 in 10 members are active, and 1 in 100 of those use Wikipedia.) I don't think either Google or Alexa tests should be musts, because as respected as they are, they are not infalliable, and they are just one source of information. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)
  • Being on a free website doesn't mean it's non-notable. That would exclude bloggers who use free blogging services. Someone might decide to write an article on one of the notable blogs listed on LiveJournal, for example. Several of those writers (one being anonymous) are notable exclusively through their blogs. ANd wouldn't this also exclude WikiCities hosted Wikis, since that's also free hosting? Nathan J. Yoder 15:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold

I went ahead and was bold, creating the website guide and moving the discussion here. Please feel free to yell at me for this, but I though we had reached, among participants, a sort of consensus on things. humblefool® 3 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid the present version of the criteria is nearly meaningless. The present wording reads that every website not on Geocities et al, with an Alexa of <1000000 should be kept. Presently it seems to be a longish list of weak criteria, all of which must be met. I think we should do the exact opposite - make a shortish list of strong criteria, one of which must be met. I've given a try to rewording the crits per those ideas, please proofread, reword, discuss etc. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 08:18 (UTC)

WP:COMIC

Radiant, what you have there is an alternate proposal which I believe that both of us argued against using on the Disassemblance VfD. The alexa test is more widely used in the webcomic context, it seems. Perhaps this could be reflected in the wording? humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

  • Yes, good point. Feel free to reword. I copy/pasted the webcomics section because someone convinced me it was relevant, and because I found that WP:COMIC is still listed as a proposal and I have seen no indication of its widespread usage. I've added the other section now, I seem to have overlooked it earlier. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Historical importance

To me, one of the glaring missing criteria is a provision for historical importance. Let's cite specifically GNUPedia (or even Nupedia would work for that matter). GNUPedia is dead, and therefore would have few if any real users, low alexa rankings, etc. But it is notable and it's because it is notable in a historical sense that it might fail some or all of these criteria. There are probably many examples of failed enterprises, or some other even current enterprises that are of historical interest but may not satisfy most of the criteria. I just thought of Qal3ah, the internet forum where responsibility for the recent London bombings was claimed. Outside of that it may not have been notable (don't actually know this, but hypothetically), but because of this historical interest it is notable. I would have been bold, but I'm not sure exactly how to word this so that it's precise. Any thoughts? --Dmcdevit 09:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Company sites

Can we establish that any website for any company or organization should not have its own article, but instead be listed with that company or organization? The exception would be if the site has another purpose than advertising, customer service or a discussion forum. But frankly I don't see the need for a page on the website of, say, Shell. Radiant_>|< 12:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Since microsoft.com, yahoo.com, etc. redirect to the appropriate company sites, this sounds like a fair policy. However, I'd say redirects aren't needed unless the website has a certain degree of recognition. People don't first think of Shell.com when asked about Shell gas stations, for example (they probably think of oil prices at the pump!) Mr Bound 16:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • This obviously may not apply when the site is the company's primary buisness, like eBay or Yahoo.DES 16:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd support a policy limiting articles about websites, espcially company websites, whether the company has an article or not. Is someone going to sit at their computer and look up Dell computer in Wikipedia because they want to know about (or find) the Dell website? Isn't that what Google is for? DavidH 02:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to agee: a website should only have its own, standalone article if the name of the website is the most common way of referring to the subject (as established by verifiable sources). So yahoo.com would fail, since it's always known as Yahoo!, ...as would just about every other example I can think of at the moment. When is anything ever referred to as "... .com"? Just about every organisation under the sun quite deliberately invents a name for itself, and it is under that name that a reference to the article belongs. Being cheap, redirect articles with .com (or whatever) in the name to the organisation's article, and establish the notability of the organisation. -Splash 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. How does one phrase it, though?
  1. Websites should, if at all possible, exist as a sub-sectiuon of an article about the parent corporation or group (unless the site is the most common way of refering to the organization or group).
humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 01:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Radiant_>|< 09:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I suggest something a little tighter, while trying to avoid creep?:
  1. Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization.
I fear though, that we may be solving a non-existent problem.Searching for .com shows that practically all such pages already are redirects, with the exceptions only as described above. -Splash 14:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Any article should say something worth saying

I don't see why Wikipedia needs an article about a website if the article does nothing more than describe the site. Take the article microsoft.com as an example of the typical website article. It simply serves no purpose I can fathom. It tells no one anyhing that they couldn't learn with less effort from Google and the website itself.

There is a description of the structure of the website, the names a few gifs and so on: all of which is subject to change without notice, and much more easily learned by just looking at the website itself. Aside from an explanation of the ".com" suffix, there is nothing else.

Certainly, "microsoft.com" is a notable site, but microsoft.com is not a noteworthy article, and I have trouble imagining how it ever could become one. What is there to say? And doesn't the same thing apply to the vast majority of websites?

By contrast, an article on the CERN site would have a lot to say about its historical importance in the early days of the web, but I wouldn't bother talking much about the structure or content of the current website. An article discussing support websites in general, or contrasting different styles of corporate site, could be very interesting, but that is not what we get as a rule.

Robert A West 03:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your point- which is backed up by the fact that the article microsoft.com was a redirect to Microsoft for most of the last two years. I've now reverted it back to being a redirect. However, from your additions I've removed "Is it relied upon for life-saving information?" as I couldn't see how that would necessarily make the website noteworthy enough for its own article (eg NHS Direct is about the organisation including both the phone and web service). Did you have an example in mind? --G Rutter 08:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
IIRC, NOAA uses its website as one means to distribute alerts -- there has to be some commentary about how effective this is. But, I am not attached to the example. 65.229.22.71 04:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


I agree with User:Robert A West also, and I think he has a good way of putting it — an article on a Web site should be able to say something about that Web site. If the editor can't think of anything to say about it, then it should be deleted, the same way we'd (I hope!) vote to delete a biographical article that mentioned only the height, weight, and hair color of its subject.

I have three "common-sense" guidelines for Web site inclusion in Wikipedia here. They are:

  1. A lot of people use it. (The Alexa criterion: Something Awful.) OR
  2. It enters pop culture. (Examples: Google, AOL, Napster.) OR
  3. There's something interesting to say about it. (Examples: elgooG, Pets.com.)

I think this page is tending toward more specificity... which one could call "instruction creep" if one were so inclined. :) --Quuxplusone 04:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Relevance outside the subject matter

Has anyone considered if the website has relevance beyond its subject matter? If someone has, I haven't seen the discussion.

Yahoo and eBay are important as large-scale businesses. Some sites (like Snopes) have become prominent reference sites. Company sites are part of the company and only as important as the company itself. Slashdot is a prominent technology site with various other functions.

But, say, a net forum that concentrates on stragegy discussions for players of a specific computer game or fan discussions of a book, comic book of TV series, have importance mainly to those who are interested about that subject. They could be included as an external link in the article about that particular subject but would not necessarily deserve their own article. Similarly as the personal or professional web page of a famous person (and possibly very extensive fan site about that person) could be mentioned in the article about that person but the sites itself would not deserve their own articles.

That would not concern the popularity of the site but if the site is relevant outside its subject matter - Skysmith 09:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus for Speedy Deletables

I realize there is a lot of gray area in which web-sites are includable. However so many websites are added as advertisements every day that is is difficult to wade through them in VfD. We should be able to at least establish a minimum level criteria for not being speedily deleted to reduce the editor and Admin work load. I think this would have to be a very low bar to be accepted as consensus, but I will try to propose a few rules of thumbs to see what you guys think.

Ok here goes. If the Website is ...
  • ... a personal blog or page owned by non-notable person, same criteria as the NN speedy delete.
  • ... pure advertisement for a product which does not yet exist, or is otherwise unnotable.
  • ... forum or fan page primarily used to discuss something which already has an entry. (move it to the relevent entry, this isn't a web-catalog, noone searches by website) Self discussing webpages wouldn't meet this criteria, that is news and commentary.
  • ... some low number of google hits must reference it (not it's topic). Because of googles nature it is a good way to estimate link coverage. I would propose 50 non-duplicate.
  • ... the webpage must be in english, or have an influence on a large number of english speaking people.

--Darkfred Talk to me 13:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Historical value

Personally, I think the only reason that a website should be in Wikipedia (as a page) is that it has some historical significance - that is it has had a significant effect on the internet or the general public. Even in that, the page should discuss how the site has affected the net/public, and not simply describe the site or its function. We are not Google or Yahoo. If you want to find out about a website, go to the site. If you think a site is interesting, use it. But considering how fast websites come and go, it behooves us to direct our efforts to the ones that people will be talking about and asking about five or ten years from now and answering the questions they have and will have.

Of course, as a link on another article page they should be included wherever they enhance the article. --Outlander 20:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. How are we to know what will be the topic of discussion years down the road? On a related note, I don't like the criteria of: Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years. Does that mean that articles that were once acceptable should be removed later? I think national media attention should solidify inclusion. -- Norvy (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it takes a crystal ball to know that a site like google.com will be of interest for a long time, and a site about my girlfriend's cat will not. I have no idea where you got the stuff about 2 years of media attention. --Outlander 21:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

10%?

The most recent edit, by an anon, suggests that the top 10% is good enough. The edit says this is the top 100,000 sites. Last I looked, Google indexed about 8,000,000,000 sites. Did I do my math wrong? -Splash 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think alexa ranks all those. (Hypotetically) if they ranked only th top million, the 100,000 is ten percent. But it was reverted anyway. Dmcdevit·t 01:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
That particular anon user is engaging in linkspamming, which might explain his desire to change this policy. android79 02:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I wondered why his edit summary was so specific! -Splash 02:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources

The guideline, "wikipedia:reliable sources", prohibits the use of webforums and blogs as sources for articles. The exception is that such sites can be sources for themselves. For websites that are not covered in the media that means they only have one source, which makes NPOV and verifying very difficult. In some cases there are entire webforums or blogs that exist to criticize other websites (e.g. Stormfront/Mootstormfront, CARM/AARM) but the guideline says that we should't cite them. I see four possible outcomes for articles on non-media-covered webistes: 1) They are limited to the most NPOV information, such as name, authors, and URL, and then deleted as a listing. 2) They are deleted as hopelessly POV/unverifable until a meaningful media source can be found. 3) They remain and violate the NPOV policy. 4) They remain and violate the reliable sources guideline. Is there a better outcome possible than any of these? -Willmcw 22:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

IMO webforums and blogs are not reliable sources for the facts that they state, but should be considered to be valid sources for the fact that certian subjects are widely discussed in online fora, or that certian opnions are common there. That particular people hold a particular opnion is (or may be) a fact, and as a fact it may be appropraite for inclusion in an article. This is really a version of the Use-mention distinction. Perhaps wikipedia:reliable sources should be edited to clarify this. DES (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternative blanket proposal

Any website may be listed as long as it is well-known to many people outside of its actual readership. News stories, etc. could be used to prove this.

I wrote this up a while ago, and nobody seems to have made note of it. Could this be any more complicated than the messy and subjective proposal currently being debated on this page? To be frank, I think it could be adopted for other deletion debates as well, but maybe I'm just overwhelmed by my own genius. :) Ashibaka (tock) 02:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that your proposal is exactly the same as the first proposal. Both want to only include websites which are well-known/notable (whatever you want to call it). Both want to prove this through news stories and also in any other appropriate ways ("etc."). But, what other appropriate ways are there? Does the fact that my website has appeared in a local newspaper and an obscure book make it worthy of an article in Wikipedia? Probably not, so what does? Exactly how "many people outside its actual readership" is enough to get an article? (100? 1 million? And how do we know how many people know about it?) What does "well-known" mean? (Does it count only if you known the URL, or is "oh yeah, I vaguely remember reading something about that" enough?). These are some of the problems and this is why it keeps on getting more complicated, messy and subjective as people try and work out how to answer these questions! --G Rutter 08:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
That sounds about right. But stats-based decisions like "having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members" seem more arbitrary to me than deciding upon an outside standard (whether it be news stories, blog entries, or what) for proving notability. For example, Hongfire.com is a forum with many thousands of members, but it's just a generic pirate BitTorrent tracker and is certainly not notable. Ashibaka (tock) 22:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion (inc a few tips)

In my belief, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's aim to be the central source of a multitude and mass of information.

The articles created or editted for websites are simply providing information about them, and in the distant future if some of these sites phase out, the articles will serve as information regarding their history.

If information on websites are banned from Wikipedia, then immediately, there goes half the information Wikipedia comprises, the Internet is such a huge part of Wikipedia and life these days it would be down right stupid to delete all website-related articles from Wikipedia. And anyway, the articles on the websites are NOT created for the sole reason of promotion, they are created to add to the Wikipedia pool of information and to share with it's users what the website is about.

Sure, if someone created an article on their website which was a simple site that talked about dogs for instance, then I wouldn't consider this to be worthy of being created on Wikipedia (although perhaps a separate section can be created for these article-types to be submitted to). But most site articles submitted to Wikipedia are about a site or something which is new, unique or interesting and as I said before, adds to the pool of knowledge that is Wikipedia.

cheers Treelovinhippie 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

PageRank and back-links

Couldn't you also include criteria for "Back links" (using link:http://www.website.com)? THat would tell you, *roughly* how many website are linking to it in Google, although Google isn't always accurate with that, so it shouldn't be too strict. With Google toolbar and the link you can also check PageRank on a scale from 1 to 10, which it has been speculated is a logarithmic scale describing PageRank. Nathan J. Yoder 15:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines

Is this about a wikipage for a particular webcomic or also about listing in List of Webcomics ? --Dyss 11:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Are the comics on www.comics.com and www.ucomics.com nationally syndicated? Otherwise they'll have the same problems as KeenSpace comics. --zandperl 04:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think most are, but I know ucomics.com has that Comics Sherpa site now, which is supposed to feature non-syndicated comics. Comics that are syndicated probably shouldn't be listed at all, but those non-syndicated ones...
Well, a bit more digging shows that you can sort the comics on comicssherpa by rating (popularity), so maybe we could say only top 20 there as well? RADICALBENDER★ 04:48, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No more thoughts on this? It'd be good to see some degree of finality, because there's a few I'd like to create.

How about extending the Top 20 from Keenspace to Top 40, too? It'd include another couple of comics that I think are worthy. Ambivalenthysteria 03:04, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although I see a few comics that I read that would be included by such an extension, I don't think there's enough to justify it at this time. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:23, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
Is the "Where do people go on keenspace.com?" metric ANY good? It lists Sexy Losers as the #1 destination (12%), and SL left keenspace ages ago. Ralphmerridew 15:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ranking

What if a comic's Alexa rank drops below the threshold? Do we remove it? I see three possibilities: Remove it; Don't remove it; Remove it only if it doesn't have an article.

Secondly, what if a comic has no three-month traffic average? (not considering sites that have changed domains) Are they simply considered too new for listing? -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:21, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

We don't remove articles on anything else once they slip from the headlines. Why would we do this for webcomics? If they were relevant once, they have an article. With sites that are new, I think we should stay away, unless they've become rather notable in that time. Ambivalenthysteria 03:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't think we would remove them, but since the proposed policy doesn't say, I felt it was a possible interpretation. But what about the current comic list? There's a number of comics on there that aren't notable, were never notable, and should be removed.
As far as new comics, I fully agree. My comment was worded with the intention of getting responses, rather than presenting my views. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:51, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
You're right, but that's a matter of VFD. Once we can get agreement on a policy of handling them, I guess then we can go clean up the list. Ambivalenthysteria 06:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A problem with using Alexa is that it's often regarded as spyware, and is detected by spyware removal software such as Spybot and Adaware. Tim J Tylor 22:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed non-notability template

I've created a {{minor webcomic}} template for articles about webcomics that do not qualify for inclusion by the current guidelines. It's intended to be used in the same way as {{notable}}, but explicitly mentions and links to the web comics policy. Does this seem useful? — Gwalla | Talk 20:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't these go on VFD if they don't qualify for inclusion? Ambi 21:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I suppose so. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Webcomics

According to Wikipedia: Wikiproject Webcomics, I wrote Planet Earth (and other tourist traps). Please let me know if this is unacceptable. -Branddobbe 05:07, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion

Eric Burns, at www.websnark.com, has proposed a different baseline inclusion guideline for webcomics that I suspect is more fair and still is going to avoid vanity pages. His proposal is that every comic with an archive of 100 strips or more should be included.

Yes, this is going to lead to a lot more webcomics being included, but I'm unconvinced that's a bad thing. One of the things Wikipedia is good for is providing encyclopedic coverage of smaller scale events and things that wouldn't make it in a normal encyclopedia because of space concerns.

Or, to put it another way, nobody outside of Wikipedia is going to catalog these webcomics, and, unlike a lot of things, I think a strong accounting of webcomics is something that is very helpful (As I think Websnark puts persuasively at [3].

Even if something more restrictive than a 100 strip archive is requested, I think these guidelines are needlesly fierce. At most 20 Keenspace comics? A 200,000 minimum Alexis Rank? Eek. I know we have problems with the profligation of vanity webcomic pages, but this swings too far in the other direction. How about we just deal with webcomics on a case by case basis on VfD like we do high schools and other such things? Snowspinner 06:58, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Snowspinner. (As you could probably guess I might). The idea that notability in what is essentially an artistic medium is wholly dependent upon popularity is, quite honestly, flawed. It took many years -- long after her death -- for Elizabeth Bishop to become well known, popular and anthologized as a poet, but as she was very popular among other poets her significance was considerable, and the aesthetic and critical importance of her poetry was certain. I think any system that relies upon the tyranny of popularity for inclusion in encyclopedic works will, ultimately, produce only articles of limited need. It is, in fact, the webcomics that develop depth, backstory and staying power but which don't have overwhelming popularity that need a centralized resource for webcomics fans to go to and learn more about them. Wikipedia is uniquely capable of providing a tremendous benefit to the webcomics consumer, but only if the articles are there. Quite honestly, it's rare someone needs to read up on Penny Arcade. But American Elf -- a strip produced by alternative artist James Kolchalka, a centerpiece of Joey Manley's Modern Tales family of comic strips, one of the most significant journal strips, one of the most successful (monetarily) pay-for strips and one of the most significant strips artistically (according to critics and significant artists in the webcomics community) doesn't fit the above guidelines for inclusion. One can only conclude that the guidelines do not meet the real need for encyclopedic information on the subject.--Eric Burns 07:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with this. The current webcomics policy is already much more lax than the general Wikipedia policy regarding websites. Wikipedia is not a web guide. The policy already accounts for comics that are notable for reasons other than their popularity. — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion Guidelines Counterproposal

Given my opinion that the guidelines as listed do not meet the needs of separating out the significant from the insignificant, instead rewarding simple popularity and denying smaller but sometimes more experimental or critically acclaimed works, it behooves me to produce a counterproposal to hopefully stimulate discussion.

This counterproposal takes the assumption that Wikipedia's articles, at their core, are a resource for web consumers -- a ready and central location for information on a broad variety of subjects. It is also the assumption of this counterproposal that a broad depth of webcomics, be they noteworthy due to popularity or noteworthy due to critical acclaim and aesthetic consideration, being represented in Wikipedia is of value to both Wikipedia and the webcomics community.

The following counterproposal is designed to produce guidelines based upon three basic criteria: commitment to the artistic work in time, commitment to the artistic work in effort, and a demonstrated fanbase. These would be determined as follows:

  1. A webcomic must be on the web and actively producing strips for a minimum of 33 weeks before being considered for Wikipedia. During this time, any hiatus periods lasting more than 1 week will not be considered "active" and will not count to this goal. "Guest Weeks," fan art and the like would be considered hiatus periods for these purposes.
    1. Thirty-three weeks is the better part of a year. Many if not most vanity webcomics are abandoned within 12-15 weeks. By demonstrating the ability to produce over this period of time, a webcartoonist shows commitment and almost certainly artistic and aesthetic growth.
    2. Thirty-three weeks is the approximate amount of time a typical Monday-Wednesday-Friday strip would need to reach 100 strips if the artist never missed an update.
    3. Guest Strips and Fan Art, while demonstrating fan support of the strip, do not show commitment on the part of the webcartoonist, and so must be considered "inactive time" if the webcartoonist him or herself does not produce and post a strip of their own during the one-week period.
  2. A webcomic must have at least 100 strips in its archive before being considered for Wikipedia. These strips must all be produced by the webcartoonist or webcartoonist team (though strips where the primary creator is actually the writer, recruiting several artists to produce the strips they write, would be considered "produced by the webcartoonist for the purposes of inclusion. Guest strips and fan art -- produced wholly by others -- would not.)
    1. 100 strips represents a significant amount of effort on the part of the webcartoonist, showing commitment that most vanity strips simply do not have.
    2. 100 strips is considered a milestone by most webcomic creators, and has some significance in the webcomic community.
    3. Guest strips and fan art, while demonstrating fan support of the strip, do represent neither the artistic growth of nor a commitment by the webcartoonist, and therefore would not be considered as part of the 100 strips for purposes of inclusion.
  3. Someone other than the webcartoonist would need to actually write and develop the article in question.
    1. It is difficult for a webcomic's primary creator to adopt the necessary distance from his or her own work to write an encyclopedic article.
    2. The voluntary development of the Wikipedia article by someone other than the webcartoonist demonstrates fan support of the strip, and represents notability among a discrete population.

The ultimate goal of Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion are to separate out those strips without note, commitment or worth, while highlighting those strips that possess note, commitment and worth. With the many thousands of strips available on the web, it is a losing proposition for any project of any kind to try and include them all. However, as the medium of webcomics and online sequential art grows and flourishes, it becomes increasingly important that there be repositories of factual and critical information on them, not bound to popularity but instead to significance. - Eric Burns

I would chime in here that webcomics creators already ought not write their own articles, as per the vanity pages policy Wikipedia already has. Snowspinner 07:51, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
That seems fair enough. On the other hand, maybe creators should not be disqualified from correcting factual errors in articles about their strips... Lee M 02:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Allow webcomic creators to respond to errors in the discussion pages; if somebody agrees, that person may make the correction. Ralphmerridew 15:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since when are creators disallowed from correcting errors in articles on their products? I think somebody is misinterpreting the policy against vanity pages. — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A lot of webcomics are in large comic-book page format, one page probably taking the effort of three or more newspaper-format strips. Maybe you should have different archive-minimum numbers for different formats. Tim J Tylor 22:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think 33 weeks is a little weak. I'd like to see a minimum of a year's worth of consistent activity, just so we know that the creator is serious enough to stick it out through everything that goes on in a year, and isn't just whittling away a lazy semester and a boring summer. I just can't believe that, in general, a comic that can't even stick around for a year could possibly be that signifigant. If there are exceptions to this, then they should be handled as exceptions (meaning just create the article and see if it survives a VfD). - Lifefeed 20:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree. 100 and 33 are, IMO, very small numbers to use. Moreover, even a comic that lasted several times as long wouldn't merit a Wikipedia article if nobody read it. The mere fact that somebody's done something for a long time doesn't make it significant, and that's really all these guidelines measure. Popularity and/or influence on other work are the important criteria, I think. The latter is unfortunately difficult to measure. (Note that I'm not saying that popularity makes a comic "good", whatever good is, but it does make it notable enough for an encyclopedia article.) —Triskaideka 15:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think a year of consistent activity would be acceptable. Practically every halfhearted hobbyist effort makes it to 33 weeks and 100 strips. Personally, I'd prefer two years as a baseline—if something is to be included based on longevity, it should demonstrate longevity that is out of the ordinary (the ordinary being pretty weak in this case).

And I agree with Triskaideka that the most important criterion in notability is whether people have taken note. In general I prefer the earlier ranking-based guidelines to Eric Burns' how-long-they've-been-plugging-away-based guidelines. We should also make it clear, however, that these guidelines are only a fallback in case the comic has no other legitimate claims to notability (being covered in national or international news, being particularly influential, etc.) Webcomics are not an exception to the general guidelines of Wikipedia.

We shouldn't be bending over backwards to let every webcomic have an article just because they exist and we like the medium. Besides, if these inclusion guidelines are too lax, nobody on VfD will take them seriously, which would defeat the whole point. — Gwalla | Talk 04:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, if longevity is to be sufficient for inclusion (that is, for a comic that is not sufficiently popular, particularly one that has ended, such as 1/0 or Unicorn Jelly), two years is a nice solid baseline to use. Nifboy 08:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest going even further. Wikipedia is not a web comics directory. Limiting the listing to 10-20 of the most popular web comics should be sufficient. DiceDiceBaby 30 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

I disagree completely. This would lead to a mass deletion of useful content. Nowhere does it say that Wikipedia should not cover notable web sites. The web comic coverage would apper to be far from the definition of directory on What Wikipedia is not. Keenspot alone has significantly more than 20 comics, all of them popular, and I can name a dozen notable non-members off the top of my head. Coverage of subjects such as this is one of the advantages Wikipedia has over its fellow encyclopedias. Frankly, I'd appreciate a few more reasons supporting Dice's argument because this one sounds like "I say Wikipedia doesn't work like this, so let's nuke stuff". Sry if I came across as cross. #¤£& deletionists... --Kizor 08:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation standards

I just wrote a little question over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics, about the fact that I noticed that among disambiguation add-ons to the names of web comics with common names, like Avalon, or Copper, or Freefall, there was no kind of standard behavior: It's Avalon (web comic) but Copper (comic) and Freefall (webcomic). Should this matter? Heck, between this page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics, we can't even agree on whether it's one word or two (hell, I'm almost certainly inconsistent in my usage, as well). Any ideas, or does it just not matter one way or the other? --Ray Radlein 05:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alexa

I'm sorry if this seems obvious to you, but I'm not very familiar with Alexa. Which ranking is the relevant one for our purposes? It must be "reach," I guess, because "Views" is always very very low, even for very popular sites. --Iustinus 29 June 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Traffic Rank. A lower number means higher traffic (a rank of 1 is the most popular site among Alexa users). — Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)
The project page says "Alexa will be used to determine traffic for any web comic with its own domain name. If the web comic has a 3-month average traffic above 200,000, it can be considered to be an entry that could be allowed in Wikipedia." Surely this does not refer to "Traffic Rank"? Unless "above" actually means "below" I suppose (how to phrase such a ranking could be confusing). --Iustinus 30 June 2005 05:56 (UTC)
That's precisely what it means. If something is ranked #1, it said to be ranked higher than something ranked #2. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 23:38 (UTC)
Perhaps you guys should reword it "The webcomic must attain a rank equal to or higher than 200,000 in a continuous 3 month period" or something... seems kind of confusing the way it is now... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 09:57 (UTC)

I just changed it from "above 200,000" to "better than 200,000", since that is what is meant. It is often necessary to explain to people that a higher number than 200,000 is actually worse, not better. (This usually comes up in VfD discussions.) It might be good to go further in clarifying, but it's a start. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

New idea

Since, well, Wikiprojects can't actually set global policy, I propose this as our new inclusion guidelines:

Articles that survive VfD or are not nominated for VfD will be included.

How's it sound? Snowspinner 16:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds blindingly obvious. I like it. Nifboy 18:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikiprojects can't set global policy, but they can suggest criteria for evaluating a subject, as WP:MUSIC has demonstrated. — Gwalla | Talk 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Notability based on something other than popularity or longevity?

Essentially, I'm wondering what criteria might be used to determine a comic's notability, outside of its Alexa rank (which is rather strict) or the size of its archives (which doesn't fly in VfD in practice). Possible criteria might include:

  • Web Cartoonists’ Choice Awards winners and/or nominees.
  • Members (past and present) of various collectives, such as Keenspot or Modern Tales (probably what groups will be included will be determined individually).
  • Comics which are the focus of articles in Comixpedia or other notable webcomic sites.

Thoughts/suggestions? Nifboy 08:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What about webcomic lists on the internet already? I know they function as ranking lists, but like Keenspace, they act as internet communites for webcomic artists. Buzzcomix and TopWebComics immediately come to mind. --Shirley Grace 03:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

notability template

I thinking of making a notability template That will simply outline the requirements that can be pasted in a discussion or used in some other manner. It will be at {{webcomic notability}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:50, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Template:Webcomic notability



My thoughts on Notability: I think Proposal B ought to be eliminated completely. Not every comic that reaches 100 strips and 33 weeks is notable. Or better yet, almost no comic is notable after only 100 strips and 33 weeks. Updating 3 times a week for 8 months does not equal instant notability. Proposal A is pretty good. Alexa rank under 200,000 reflects that a large number of readers find the comic notable. Proposal C isn't bad, though again a comic doesn't reach instant notability after 5 years if no one reads it. Maybe Proposal C should only be used for webcomics that have stopped publishing, since comics that have stopped publishing are unlikely to still have the readers to have Alexa 200,000 hits? Thoughts? --Dragonfiend 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Proposal B is basically used as CSD criteria at this point; it's very easy to kill a webcomic in VfD if it doesn't meet those criteria. Proposal A has a fairly narrow scope, and it's generally agreed upon that a comic like Bruno is notable despite its abysmal Alexa rank of ~600k. Nifboy 16:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of a template? Where would this be inserted? — Gwalla | Talk 03:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of eventually making it like the babel template, in that we insert it into the talk page with the relevant inclusion items highlighted. I'm just trying to figure out a way to make the notability more prominent. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:13, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I put it on the front page of the project. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not happy with the way this template is being used on AfD's to give implied legitimacy to a set of proposed guidelines which are not, and won't be, supported by most wikipedia editors. I added the word "proposed" to the template, but I'm still not happy. -- SCZenz 22:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I have listed it for deletion. Using a template to give legitimacy to proposed and controversal guidelines like this is plainly not kosher; if you want to make arguments on AfD debates from proposed (or even existing!) policy, the place to do it is within your own signed comments, not in unsigned templates plastered at the top of the discussion. --Aquillion 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts on Inclusion Criteria

I apologise for starting a new discussion on this page when there is already ongoing discussion before it, but it seems that those threads seem to have petered out. I came across List of webcomics yesterday, and to me, it looks to me like Wikipedia is being way to lax about inclusion guidelines.

There seems to be so much dreck on that list, and I feel that the inclusion guidelines are way too lax. If I were to post 100 stick man comics onto keenspace, does that make it notable, and worthy for an article? No way. In WP:MUSIC, the band/artist needs to have some kind of influence/acknowledgment outside their own musical circle. For many webcomics on wikipedia, this simply isn't the case, no one outside the the webcomic community will know about them, and only a small subset of that community will actually follow a specific comic.

Webcomics, being self published, means that very few will ever gain major attention. This does not mean we should lower inclusion boundaries to make sure we have many webcomic articles. Say a band has been around for a few years now, without a record deal, but with quite a few self published EPs and maybe an LP. They have a good local following, and play out regularly to some packed out small venue. They wouldn't warrant an article, yet a similarly popular webcomic with a readership of a few hundred apparently do?

Above, the idea was mentioned that any webcomic of over 100 deserve a wikipedia article, because no other encyclopedia would publish it due to lack of space. But just because the information could not be included anywhere else, doesn't mean that wikipedia should house it. You know what a great idea would be? A separate webcomic wiki, where even the webcomics with tiny readership could get an article. We could link it from any webcomic articles and it'd would be a great place to transwiki stuff to as well as acting as an encyclopedia of webcomics. - Hahnchen 01:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that would be useful for a seperate wiki, but many of these are perfectly notable for Wikipedia. Incidentally, the band you describe would also be likely to have an article that would survive AfD - we have many of those articles on Wikipedia, and I'm thankful for that. Ambi 01:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
That band would have been deleted as vanity. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, when I say without a record deal, I mean never ever had a record deal. And when I say a few EPs, i mean just some stuff they copied and sell at gigs. And by gigs, I mean nightclubs and bars in a town. No way is that notable enough, if it was I could list a whole string of bands in Scarborough, who perform regulary at the venues there and have a reasonable following, yet would be tossed off WP. But a tiny readership webcomic like many on WP, just because they have lasted 100 strips (how hard is that?) warrants an article. As tempted as I am to write an article on Fleetwood Back, the tribute band with the best name in Scarborough, I won't. - Hahnchen 02:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC), Hunter of all things self-promotory.
You are right, 100 comics does not mean notability. Yes, people have written articles for non-notable comics. If you find one, nominate it for deletion. Dragonfiend 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Looking around at some of these comics, I see that there does infact exist a comic wiki, at ComixPedia, there seems to be a lot of stuff on wikipedia, that should belong at the comic wiki and only migrate across when notability is established. I think we should toughen up the inclusion criteria. What if a blogger makes 100 posts, are they entitled to an article? Some blogs are quite popular and read by many inside the enclosed blogging community, and will have some dedicated readers. Yet, they don't deserve an article, because there is no notability outside of the "blogosphere", the same should apply with webcomics. - Hahnchen 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the guidelines look too lax to me, too. If we applied similiar ones to bands, as pointed out above, every bar band that stuck around for a little while would qualify. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure why web comics need seperate criteria from any other website. A look at recent VFDs shows that quite a few wikipedians are willing to suggest a delete, even on things that may pass the standards suggested here. Friday (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that these guidelines are not only much too lax, they are not even to the point. In my opinion checking for importance of a webcomic should not be measured by how long it has been running, but by something like the Google test, with a limit at 1000 (or 500 or whatever) links. There would however be the problem that many webcomics have names that also occur in other contexts.

I would even endorse a very restrictive policy on webcomics - something like "any webcomic included should have a specific reason for that". We don't habitually include series from self-published authors either. - Andre Engels 11:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly no amount of longevity is sufficient. There are some webcomics I love, both widely-read and much less so, and I respect people who stick to writing them whether they're widely-read or not. But if there aren't people reading them, they're not notable. -- SCZenz 22:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • When I compare the currently proposed standards for webcomics to the standards at WP:MUSIC the primary difference I see is that all criteria used for determining musical notability will generate independent sources to verify the accuracy of material. Top 100 hits, album releases by major studios, or large musical tours generates reports in the music press while major awards are commonly reported by the mainstream media. Looking at the currently proposed standards for webcomics yields only the Alexa test as an independent source. I would sugest the best place to look for better guidelines is in finding additional independent sources to help webcomics meet current verification policies. One you find a source not associated with a webcomic that can verify a reasonable amount of information on the comic you will have also found a source that shows that people not directly associated with the comic have an interest in the subject. --Allen3 talk 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Allen3. Basing such a large part of this guideline on Alexa rankings seems inadequate, and at the same time also overtly reliant on a non-perfect webranking system. On that note, could we at least include some of the cautioning comments from Wikipedia:Alexa Test in this guideline? I know it's slightly redundant, but it never hurts to be clear, especially when one of the proposals in the guideline places such great importance in the Alexa rank. And basing it simply on quantity doesn't seem a very good measure of notability either.
I just have absolutely no idea what would be a better "independent source" than Alexa, as far as webcomics go. The only thing I can think of is that receiving, and, for some of the bigger ones, being nominated for an award automatically qualifies you as "notable" (although I have a feeling that most awardwinners already qualify by traffic). E.g. the Eisner awards, the Webby Awards, and maybe the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Anyone have more (and better) ideas for "independent sources"? --Codemonkey 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be difficult to come up with a worse source than Alexa. Besides, what about obviously notable strips that ended several years ago? They're going to be underrepresented even if we can somehow find an accurate webranking system. Web rankings are not the way to go. Factitious 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
That is the reason why I don't normally nominate dead comics. Where the only way is to do lookups on google to establish some sort of notability. Obviously notable strips which ended several years ago, will have some sort of google presence. It's the borderline notable strips which ended several years ago which I have been wary of nominating. I'm also wary of using toplists of webcomics as a reference, as most of the top comics are link spammed there. The main gripe, is that webcomics normally generate at least a few die hard fans, who then proceed to create an article about the webcomic just because it has over 100 strips in the archive, and there are more non notable ones on wikipedia. I feel that a webcomic should assert its notability in the article, whether its due to popularity, status of the author, or notoriety etc. I mean, I reckon Fireman Comics should probably deserve an article, even though it only had about 25 strips, because it made the front page of SomethingAwful a few times (not as ALOD) and was written by Kevin Bowen. - Hahnchen 16:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Well, I'm thinking out a bit more of a balanced proposal. What I have come up with so far are some starting points; some preambles if you will.

  1. The assertion that a comic with a Alexa rank better than 200,000 is notable is a reasonable one.
  2. The assertion that a comic with a Alexa rank worse than 200,000 is automatically non-notable isn't necessarily true.
    1. As noted by Wikipedia:Alexa Test Alexa has a build in bias. Also, it's software is perceived by a part of the more technicaly literate community on the internet as spyware, and as such is biased against the sites they visit. I'd pose (without too much evidence beyond the anecdotal, I'm afraid) that there is enough overlap between the webcomic reader community and the just mentioned anti-spyware community for it to affect Alexa rankings.
    2. There are certain cases where Alexa rank will disqualify a notable webcomic for other reasons:
      1. Cases where a (once) notable comic has gone into archive mode.
      2. Cases where an erratic update schedule makes well-read and known (notable) comics' readership read the comic in such a pattern that it is harder for Alexa to pick up.
      3. Cases where something has garnered critical acclaim and/or recognition, but hasn't yet picked up a sufficiently large reader audience.
    3. On the other hand, Alexa might over inflate the rankings of certain webcomics
      1. This is mostly a concern when a webcomic does not have it's own domain name, but functions under a sub-domain or sub-page of a larger website
  3. A lot of the points made above are about what legitimate problems one may have when one takes Alexa ranking as a starting point for assessing notability. Thus, a large part of those points can be solved by simply having a better independent source than Alexa, or webrankings in general.

So the gist of my thoughts is that (1) we can use Alexa as a starting point for determining webcomic notability, but (2) there are some legitimate problems with Alexa ranking, that either need to be addressed point for point, or (3) we should replace the Alexa rank with an independent source better than Alexa.

If we can't agree on a better independent source than Alexa, we should at least address the concerns with Alexa for now.

I can see some obvious solutions of some of the noted concerns already. For instance, the mentioned bias in point 2.1 is in part negated by the fact that this guideline uses the cut-off point of 200,000 instead of the Wikipedia standard of 100,000. It's still something to be mindful about though.

For point 2.2.3, I can see us just listing a couple of the big Awards with regards to webcomics, and it might also be a good idea to flesh out Hahnchen's comment about "a webcomic should assert its notability in the article, whether its due to popularity, status of the author, or notoriety" a bit more and put it in the guideline. For example, as a final clause to the guideline "If notability cannot be established by above methods, wikipedians should try to establish notability in the article based on status of the author, notoriety, or mention by a reputable independent source or mainstream media in the article, and should take said factors into consideration for possible VfDs"(again, just an example). In fact, I strongly think this should be good idea. (and I agree with Hahnchen that toplists should be avoided here)

Did I forget anything? Other comments and/or corrections on my points? --Codemonkey 19:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody, just wanted to add my 2 cents to this issue:
  • "Someone other than the webcartoonist needs to actually write and develop the article in question" - a definite yes. I think this should be a general wikipedia guideline, nobody should write or edit his own article if he is so lucky to have one. Prevents vanity articles and make sure that the topic is at least interesting to 2 people in the world :-)
  • "Traffic" or "age" "number of strips" as a delimiter: Those numbers are easy to check, but they don't correspond with the main question of inclusion in a encyclopedia: Has it affected people? Did it matter to them? How does this article compare with other articles that have been included/removed? I think the only way to solve those issues is to have a public vote for every article and ask those questions. In order to remove ballot-stuffing, a karma-system (sometime) or only-one-vote-per-ip (asap) should be added to the features the mediawiki code.
  • This is a turning point in wikipedia, as it might move from "encyclopedia" to "a copy of every information possible at one place". While the second option sounds interesting, it would also add many problems to the existing architeture. Maybe a different wiki could be setup for the latter task?
Anyway, that's my thoughts. Cheers! Peter S. 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
There already is a place that (very nearly) contains "a copy of [all] information possible at one place"--the internet itself! The primary goal of wikipedia is to make sure the internet has all of the well-documented information that's currently published in other forms, not to categorize things you can already find with a google search. -- SCZenz 20:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Yup. Also see WP:NOT, Wikipedia's goal is definitely not to just include "everything". As for the "Someone other than the webcartoonist needs to actually write and develop the article in question", that is indeed sort of official policy, see WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO. The reason this is in the article and worded the way it is, is mostly because it's an artefact of basing that proposal on a websnark article (linked in the proposal). It really should just be changed to include a mention of wp:vanity or wp:auto, sort of like "Expanding on the Wikipedia Autobiography guidelines, a webcartoonist shall not write an article on his own comic.". -- Codemonkey


Replacement for Alexa?

There seems to be a common argument that, because Alexa is biased, it shouldn't be used for the comic criteria. This is reasonable, but many people on the AfD pages seem to believe it also follows that no proof that anyone reads the comic is required. This is silly. I don't care how it is done, but somehow there must be a verifiable assertion that a lot of people read a comic for it to be counted as notable simply because it exists. (Of course, there may also be other reasons it's notable too; I'm speaking for cases where there aren't.) -- SCZenz 19:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Draft for an improved Alexa proposal

So, I made a draft of improvements to the Alexa proposal, taking into account most of what I've read on this page. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Alexa will be used to determine traffic for any webcomic with its own domain name. If the webcomic has a average traffic better than 200,000, it can be considered to be an entry that could be allowed in Wikipedia. The traffic average can be for the last 3 months or any 6 consecutive months in the past. Webcomics that have since retired (and thus are not receiving new, regular traffic) may also remain in Wikipedia.

  • It's not really made explicit that that the 3 months are the last 3 months of traffic or not, and I feel it's wise to make it explicit here. The reason for including any 6 month period in the past is to prevent the non-inclusion of once traffic heavy sites that have since dropped of, without getting too lax.
    • After I wrote this, I found out that Alexa doesn't allow you to view longer than a 1 year history for pages with a 100,000+ rank. I kept it in this draft, because we need something to this effect, and I haven't figured out what to replace it with. So, any suggestions for an easy way of checking up on once notable comics with a now dropped rank? This has been breaking my head mostly...

As noted by wikipedia:Alexa test, Alexa has certain biases built into it's system, and is perceived by a group of people as spyware. The usage of 200,000 as a cut-off point, instead of the Wikipedia standard of 100,000, negates a part of this bias, but it is still something Wikipedians should be mindful about.

  • This might be a bit too long, but I feel we should at least echo some of the concerns about the alexa bias from the alexa test page, and make explicit that we are using a much wider cut-off point than on Wikipedia:Alexa Test.

Alexa rank does not differentiate it's alexa rank for websites that are hosted under a common domainname. The "Where do people go on ...?" section under traffic details at Alexa can be used in these cases. As a rough guideline, a page should get 50%+ of the traffic on a domain with a 100,000 or better rank, or 75%+ of the traffic on a domain with 200,000 or better rank. One notable occurrence of this is at KeenSpace, for which the entire top 25 can be included.

  • Current Alexa proposal doesn't deal with this at all, beyond the keenspace part. I could use some feedback on the numbers I came up with. My feeling is that they are a bit high, Alexa rank does not progress linearly with regards to real website traffic.

There are certain other criteria that will qualify a comic as notable. If a comic has garnered critical acclaim through any of the following means:

  • receiving or being nominated for a Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards
    • I was tempted to not put up nominees here, because they nominate quite a few every year, but a lot of them are big comics and duplicate nominations in different categories, so being nominated in between all the big names is quite an achievement.
  • Being the focus of a piece at websnark.com or comixpedia.com (a mention as an aside does not count)
    • I don't read these, but from what I know they're reasonably well read in the community and reflect said community reasonably well. They seem ok indications of "it is at least well-known in a community", per wikipedia:Importance.
  • Any mention by non-webcomic related, mainstream media that goes beyond one sentence

If the webcomic has proof of having an audience, through other means than Alexa:

  • being listed in the top 10 of webcomic toplists topwebcomics.com or buzzcomix.net
    • I'm afraid I mostly put this in as a strawman. ;) I don't think it would be a good idea to use these, but I know some here do, so I would just like to see what the consensus about this is.
  • Having a book listed at Amazon with a sales rank of 100,000 or better
    • You'd be surprised how many of the webcomics have stuff listed there, even the smaller ones. Need some feedback on the number.

A webcomic article should always try to establish the webcomic's notability in the article itself. If a webcomic does not manage to qualify by the above stated requirements, an article about it should be able to establish the comic's notability in another way:

  • historical importance of the webcomic for the history of webcomics in general
  • because of it's author's notability
  • because it is a spin-off of a notable webcomic
  • because of an established notoriety of the webcomic in the community
  • because there is a clear and strong connection of the comic to something that clearly is encyclopedic (a conection in real-life terms, so a webcomic about George Bush does not count)

Wikipedians should also keep these last criteria in mind in possible Article for Deletion votes. And, because of their broad nature, should not hesitate to apply them in a fairly strict manner. The burden of proof lies with the article in these cases, so to speak. If an article should be up for deletion, consider transwikifying it to the webcomic wiki at comixpedia.org.

These are merely guidelines. Sites that are close to, but still under these thresholds may also be included on the basis that webcomics customarily grow in size and have a higher likelihood of increasing in readership and, thus, becoming encyclopedic. In all cases, wikipedians should take into account all factors mentioned and unmentioned in assessing notability, and judge articles on a case by case basis.

I have tried to express myself as clear and to the point as possible. I hope I've succeeded in writing something that addresses most of the concerns voiced here. Again, I would greatly appreciate feedback, especialy on ideas I may have forgotten for the lists in this draft. --Codemonkey 23:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Alexa or alternatives

For what it's worth, I agree. I'd get rid of Alexa if we could, but there may not be an alternative way to establish readership in some way. But what we really need is dialogue from people who want much more inclusive standards. Any comments? -- SCZenz 06:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexa rank of 200K? This just means that the creator of the webcomic hasn't got the tool bar installed, becaues that's all it takes to get a lower ranking than this. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. I knew there were problems with the rank, but I didn't know it was quite that extreme. Like I said in some comments above, I'm not a big fan of Alexa and I'd rather do away with it altogether. I just don't know what to replace it with. When I wrote this, I kept this Beowulf versus Dante writers reasoning by Neal Stephenson in mind (see second question), which seemed a somewhat apt description of some of the objections that people were making to an Alexa only proposal. So Alexa pulls in the "Beowulf writers", and the other requirements try to pull in the "Dante writers", who are not necessarily well read, but have managed to make themselves notable to a community in an other way.
The biggest reason we use Alexa is of course to prevent the manipulation of traffic stats that are being kept by the site itself. But if Alexa is that easy to manipulate, well, that's a problem... I still don't know what better way there is to pull these Beowulf writers in. --Codemonkey 19:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe instead of Alexa requirements, we should have a policy more like:
  • In the absence of other evidence of notability, a webcomic should have a verifiable claim to exceptional popularity and wide readership.
Put the burden of proof on the article-writers. The issues with Alexa specifically are obscuring the real point: a webcomic should be notable, and that requires rather broad readership if there are no awards or other notable facts. -- SCZenz 19:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I strongly oppose any notion that article-writers and articles have to prove their worth. I think exclusion is always where the burden of proof lies. Snowspinner 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
There has to be some reason the article's in an encyclopedia--that's what we're discussing! If the strip has no awards, the artist hasn't done anything else in particular, and there isn't some way to state verifiably that the comic is popular... why is it here? How can we prove it isn't notable, if there's no assertion of any reason it might be notable in the first place? -- SCZenz 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
If a strip has an article, it's here because Wikipedia contributors thought it would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. If you want to delete their work, you should provide a reason. Factitious 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. It's intended to help both the Wikipedians that want to start an article and those voting in a AvD, giving them some form of reference point for notability. As such, I don't think "In the absence of other evidence of notability, a webcomic should have a verifiable claim to exceptional popularity and wide readership." as a replacement to Alexa is very helpful to Wikipedians in these cases. As for giving a reason for deletion, I can guarantee that if we don't have a firm and verifiable way to establish this in either this guideline or in a article, you will just see a long string of "Delete - Non notable." votes in webcomics' AfDs. --Codemonkey 19:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so maybe we use Alexa, but also accept any alternate evidence that the comic has wide readership. I don't want to give anyone the impression that all our decisions are made based on one flawed popularity-counter. -- SCZenz 20:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. --Codemonkey 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Factitious's argument, we need to have some kind of standard for what's encyclopediaic other than "someone thought it would be valuable." There are concrete standards that exclude companies below a certain size or notoriety, and rather strict standards for bands and music. There's no reason webcomics should be different. -- SCZenz 20:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Syndicate, keenspace, etc. membership

I propose that we need to also have "Is on a major webcomics syndicate" including Keenspot, Blank Label Comics, and any of the Modern Tales family on the list. Snowspinner 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We already have "is it in the top 25 on Keenspot", and could have similar standards for other syndicates. Wikipedia should not be a catalogue of the many Keenspot comics--that's what the Keenspot article links to Keenspot for. -- SCZenz 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
No. You have a top-25 on KeenSPACE. Keenspace is the free, anyone can post a webcomic service run by the same company that does Keenspot, which is a syndicate where the strips are selected by editors, often, though not always from the strips at Keenspace. Which is to say that by definition, all Keenspot strips are more important and bigger than Keenspace strips. Snowspinner 21:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, duly noted. The organization there has always confused me. Presumably what you say makes sense then, although I'll have to look around a bit. -- SCZenz 22:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Snowspinner on this. As far as I'm concerned, if it's on Keenspot, Blank Label, Modern Tales, GraphicSmash, Girlamatic, or any other respected webcomic venue, it's sufficiently notable by default. Likewise if it's a WCCA or any other similar award. -Abe Dashiell 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as Keenspot comics go, thankfully most of those comics operate under their own domainname, and in the case that a comic does not qualify under these criteria, I'm not sure it would be notable merely because it is a keenspot comic. As for the other webcomic syndicates, if a comic is truly notable for said syndicate's history, it should be included in the article about the syndicate, and could get an overflow article if a syndicate's article gets too big. If it does not qualify under those terms or under the traffic, critical acclaim, or other notability criteria pertaining to said specific comic, I don't think said comic is notable. --Codemonkey 19:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
That's absurd. If a webcomic has, for some reason, reached the point that it's being done professionally (As with any of the Modern Tales suite) or it has been added to a money-making syndicate, it's notable enough - certainly more notable than the most notable Keenspace comic. Snowspinner 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
That's not absurd. It's like saying that every band which has been signed to a music label automatically qualifies for an entry. Or every book that has ever been published also qualifies for an article. I am certain, that the most notable keenspace comic is more notable than quite a few keenspot comics. Maybe the art is good enough for the keenspot moderators or the story is good enough, but if the public don't agree by not reading the comic, then I don't think it would warrant a wikipedia article. Graphic Smash may be in itself notable, but how notable are the individual comics? Whereas I believe say a blogging portal may be notable, I would be against saying that every blog belonging to that portal is notable. - Hahnchen 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I point out that WP:MUSIC states as an inclusion criteria, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)" Snowspinner 04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but whereas if an album flops on an important indie label or greater, the artist would be dropped, maybe never to be heard of again. This is something that does not happen with webcomics, the webcomic label does not risk losing much financially if a comic fails. Thus, for a band to have released 2 albums on a major independent label, one can be assured that the first album had at least a moderate success. With say graphic smash, whereas there is a bar for inclusion, it is the comics which "advertise" the label, we see the label's success. With a music label, the label advertises the bands, and we see the band's success. Which is why, I feel for small webcomic groups, that the separate webcomics are merely the collective identity of the group. Whereas a band is more than just "part of the portfolio". It is the reason why I would much more be in favour of small webcomic groups having their separate webcomic details merged with the group article. - Hahnchen 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Top 25 on keenspace should not be a criteria for inclusion. It's too lax, even if the comic is long running. It would be like listing the top 100 geocities hosted sites. I think the comics should be looked at individually, and not have any simple "top 25 on keenspace, instant keep" votes. A comic must assert its notability. I have not yet nominated any Keenspot comics for deletion, but I feel that there may be some non notable ones that have been hosted on keenspot at some time. The same goes with many of the syndicates. A band is not notable just because it has been signed to the same record company as Moby, just as a comic is not notable just because it belongs to a syndicate. I would be more inclined to merge the non notable webcomics with the syndicate they belong to, and have separate articles for the notable ones. Metroblogging is about a rather popular blogging portal, (looks more popular than most webcomic syndicates), the main article was kept, but do you think articles on the individual blogs would be kept? A webcomic has to display its notability other than having a core bunch of fans, and being long running, which almost every website out there could claim to be. - Hahnchen 12:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Obviously we should have at least 25 Keenspace comic articles. The real issue is whether some particular "top 25" list is accurate enough to be a reliable source. Do you have any information on its quality? Factitious 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It's by no means obvious how many keenspace comic articles we should have. I'm against the "top 25 on keenspace" kind of idea. Just as I would be against a "top 100 on geocities" kind of idea. It's not like wikipedia has to fill quotas. Being one of the most popular 25 comics on a free comic hosting site at one point or another would mean a shedload of totally unnotable comics meet the inclusion criteria. Maybe there are 25 notable comics which are currently hosted on keenspace, but if there are, the article should assert its notability, other than the "top 25 on keenspace" reason. - Hahnchen 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also propose a "notable writer/artist" rule, akin to Keenspot's "Once a Keenspotter, always a Keenspotter" rule, whereby new comics by Keenspot artists are automatically accepted to Keenspot. By this rule, if a notable webcomic artist or writer starts a new project, that project is by definition notable. Notability being defined by one of their previous projects being notable. Snowspinner 18:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by the "because of it's author's notability, because it is a spin-off of a notable webcomic" criteria I proposed? --Codemonkey 19:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I can kind of agree with this. For example, any piece of work David Hockney produces would be inherently notable. A piece of work by a notable webcomic artist would also be notable. But I'm wary of this stretching too far. Just as not every pencil sketch by a notable artist is notable, not everything a notable webcomic artist produces is notable. Things like tiny/aborted side projects which never garnered critical attention or popularity should not have an article of their own, but exist within an article for the webcomic artist. - Hahnchen 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:COMIC

(Section archived here from Village pump Steve block talk 13:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

I would like people to take a look at the webcomic inclusion guidelines found at WP:COMIC, as well as taking a look at Webcomics on AFD. My problem with them is that the guideline followed by some is this, "All webcomics over 100 strips should be included". Before someone grouped the afds together, most were being deleted. However, we now have a couple of totally un notable webcomics which seem to be heading towards no consensus. Some contributors on the Webcomic Wikiproject, which aims to catalogue every webcomic with over 100 posts, are claiming that as soon as 100 strips are reached, if someone writes an article for it, it should be kept.

I totally disagree with this. Since when did longevity equal notability? Since when is 100 strips even notable? Bands can last for years without achieving notability, but if we followed similar criteria for any other category, almost every bar room band which has been around for 6 months would be notable enough for an article. AzNPRiNc3SS's 500 livejournal posts would mean her article would be kept. For example, take a look at this - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/String_Finger_Theatre and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Home Planet. Absolutely NO assertion of notability is made, or can be found anywhere in the articles. The keep votes purely say "comic has existed past 100 strips". How hard is it for a stickman comic to achieve notability? Its not like the artist has to invest time or money into it is it?

But please, take a look at WP:COMIC and contribute to the talk pages as well as the Webcomics on AFD. In my opinion, it's time for the inclusion criteria to be tightened up in line with some of the other guidelines. The extreme webcomic inclusionists have also ignored the 1st proposal, an Alexa rank of sub 200,000. And I too, have not nominated any webcomics even approaching this rank. But surely, if a webcomic has any sort of popularity, it can break the 1 million mark can't it? Please contribute to the guideline discussion, as well as the AFDs, we need more eyes on them. - Hahnchen 17:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that WP:COMIC has criteria that are too lenient, and that their guidelines should either be ignored completely or rewritten. However, most nominated webcomics are not being debated solely on proposals B and C. But some are, as your examples (which I just voted delete on) show. Bottom line is: yes, we need to keep an eye on this--and remember, what four people at WP:COMIC think might be a good idea is not policy! -- SCZenz 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think we need to increase visibility on this. But I posted this here, at this time, because the afds have now been concatenated together, and some users have just gone through them voting "keep - 100 strips". - Hahnchen 18:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
You are right, the problem is wider than I thought--as I look at more pages, I see more and more people voting keep based on the most lenient of the proposals. There has to be some way to get people who don't view massive inclusion of webcomics as their mission (and thus join WP:CMC) to have a reasonable voice in the criteria for keeping webcomics. As it is, they've got their page and their cute little template with the proposals, and it gives legitimacy to the view of a small, but enthusiastic minority. -- SCZenz 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there should be other criteria than "100 strips". The question with every encyclopedic article is "has it affected people?" A strip can even reach 100 episodes without being read by more than 10 people or so, which hardly counts as "has affected the people". Do tell me, on which talk pages do I have to express this concern as well and I'll do it. Cheers, Peter S. 19:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
You could comment on WP:COMIC although I don't think they'll listen. Or you can go to each AfD on Webcomics on AFD and vote Delete, explaining you think a lack of notability trumps writing a hundred strips (if it's warranted). That's what I did. -- SCZenz 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
How about if the procedure is changed: Without enough proof, an article is deleted? Peter S. 20:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Try posting your comments at the talk pages at WP:COMIC, but "proof" in the webcomic world is fickle indeed. Most often involve one line mentions in questionable blogs, or review by a webcomic portals. Almost certainly nothing outside of the webcomic community. - Hahnchen 20:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that already is Wikipedia's general procedure. Only verifiable information is included in anything. -- SCZenz 20:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
No, you got me wrong here: Currently, the creator of the "request for delete" poll has to list reasons why the article should be removed. How about, in the webcomic domain, one adds a "request for delete" and the creators of the article have to defend why it should remain there. How about that? Peter S. 20:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you have to list why the article should be removed. But saying "not notable" or "all claims are unverifiable" are both completely legitimate reasons. And then, as you say, the creators of the article have to defend it. -- SCZenz 22:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Hahnchen, is the plan to keep Webcomics on AFD continuously up to date? If so, I'll watch it and join the crusade, AfD by AfD. -- SCZenz 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what the plan is with the webcomic-afd watch. It seemed defunct up until recently, when a flurry of them got posted. I'd describe it as a stalinistic purge over a crusade, but I won't be nominating/voting as much due to being back at university and not yet having broadband installed at my flat. - Hahnchen 20:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    It will have to be a crusade, because there will keep being new articles. Anyway, if other people want to post webcoming-afd's to keep an eye on, is that the right page to do it? -- SCZenz 20:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I would personally be against grouping AFDs, as it'll turn into a hitlist for inclusionists. It is very easy to turn a valid delete into no consensus. Look at the farce that is school watch. - Hahnchen 14:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexa revisited

A great deal has been said on the strengths and weaknesses of the "Alexa test" already. I don't really have much to add to that discussion so I won't regurgitate all the arguments. I will, however, note that the standard espoused on this page is at odds with the much more long-standing standard which was recently consolidated to Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa test. This page alleges that 200,000 on the Alexa test is automatically notable for a webcomic but the main page says that a page (on any topic) in the top 100,000 is merely a maybe. I'm going to be bold and bring this project page into compliance with the main guidelines. Before anyone changes it back, let's have a specific discussion here on why webcomic should be held to a different standard in those few situations where the Alexa test is the right measure. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with this if and only if alternate means for notability like syndicate inclusion, award nomination, or critical attention are added. Snowspinner 17:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with snowspinner. Say, we really need to move forward on hammering out one proposal and putting it up! -- SCZenz 17:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Notable syndicates

This doesn't solve all the problems - there are still at least two strips I can think of where I think the strips are notable, but they're not captured by any of the syndicate rules. But at the very least, the following syndicates should be considered notable, along with all of their contents.

  • The entire Modern Tales family (Modern Tales, Girlamatic, Graphic Smash, Serializer)
  • Keenspot
  • Blank Label
  • Dayfree

There are some other things that need to be sorted out - we need to decide what to do about WebcomicsNation, which is like Keenspace.

Also, there are at least two comics that aren't making it by Alexa or syndicate rules that I think are highly notable - Cat and Girl (Alexa just under 100,000) and Her! Girl vs Pig (Alexa way down near 500,000). So we've got a start with the syndicates, but even syndicates+Alexa, the guidelines have too many holes. Cat and Girl has a review on Webcomics Examiner, which is probably a good source for notability - I believe it was proposed above, and if it wasn't, then substantial coverage in it, Comixpedia, or Websnark should cound for notability. Her! was a comic that started in a magazine with 4.5 million circulation. Magazine went under, comic went to the web. Its guest strips section indicates substantial love among webcomics creators (Several notable creators have done guest strips), it's been mentioned in passing on Websnark as a strip that he reds, but no one thing decisively establishes notability according to any proposed guideline. But it would still be a VERY bad strip to delete. Snowspinner 18:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree that all comics that are part of groups like Modern Tales, Serializer, Keenspot, etc. are necessarily notable. The least read Modern Tales comic, for example, is quite possibly non-notable. I would also hesitate to put too much stock in webcomics news and fan sites like Comixpedia or Websnark. A comic being mentioned on a fan blog is not the same as, say, Narbonic being discussed in the New York Times. Dragonfiend 19:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Dragonfiend, how can we have consensus-agreed guidelines without including such things in some way? And how, without guidelines, can we avoid divisive AfD's whose outcomes depend largely on which side gets out the vote better? I agree the details need to be worked out, but this is much better than having simply existing as a criterion. -- SCZenz 19:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you can use things like coverage in Comixpedia or the Web Comics Examiner or membership in the Modern Tales family as indicators of POSSIBLE notability. Just don't use them as automatic notability, as in "If it was on Modern Tales for a week or mentioned on Comixpedia once then it must be notable." For example, Cat and Girl would not be considered notable on its Alexa Ranking alone, nor just for the fact that Dorothy Gambrell is a Modern Tales artist, but the fact that the comic almost meets the Alexa test COMBINED with the fact that she's a Modern Tales artist would indicate notability. Dragonfiend 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not sure how to respond to this other than saying that you are very, very far off base in your understanding of Modern Tales, the role of Websnark and Comixpedia, and what constitutes an important webcomic right now. The least popular comic on a professional webcomics syndicate is more notable than the most popular comic that still hasn't been found good enough for a syndicate. Comixpedia is one of two sites doing good and detailed work on webcomics and the artistry of webcomics, and while it is not a peer reviewed journal, there's only been a peer-reviewed journal for discussion of comics in general for a year or so now. Websnark is quite a kingmaker in terms of webcomic readership, and the staff on both the Examiner and Comixpedia are important people who make a lot of waves on the subject. It's just incorrect to call them "fan sites" or to call Websnark a "fan blog." I don't really know what else to say past that. Snowspinner 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No, the least popular comic on a professional webcomics syndicate is NOT more notable than the most popular comic that still hasn't been found "good enough for a syndicate." Mega Tokyo and Get Your War On are each more notable than Life on Forbez, for example. Can we have this conversation in an open-minded fashion, without accusing each other of being "very, very far off base in your understanding"? Thanks. Dragonfiend 20:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I was referring to the top comics on Keenspace, which tend to be looking to move up to a syndicate - not the committed independent strips. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Snowspinner 20:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, so now you're saying that "the top comics on Keenspace" are less notable than "the least popular comic on a professional webcomics syndicate"? That's still wrong -- or do you honestly think that Sexy Losers (listed by Alexa as most popular comic on Keespace) is less notable than former Graphic Smash comic Life on Forbez? (forgot signature) Dragonfiend 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Addendum - I think I may understand the confusion. There are two parts of Comixpedia - the wiki, which covers every webcomic, and the journal, which is edited and substantial and important. I was talking about the journal, not the Wiki, which I could at least see why someone would call a fan site, though I would disagree. Snowspinner 19:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I personally am not confused by the difference between the .com comixpedia news site and the .org comixpedia wiki. I actually find the .com news site to be fairly useful, however I am aware that webcomics artists are able to post their own news to comixpedia, making it difficult to use an article on comixpedia as a strong indicator of notability. For example, if you visit the comixpedia homepage today you'll see a news item posted by Steve Hogan that the comic Acid keg will return in November. Steve Hogan is the creator of Acid Keg. Does an artist posting news about their own comic indicate that it is notable? I don't think so. Dragonfiend 20:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The reviews and features sections, on the other hand? Snowspinner 20:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • It sounds like that would be overly confusing for Afds -- "No, it was on the good part of comixpedia, not the bad part." Maybe a better way to approach this would be by me posing this question: Can you name some notable webcomics that would be considered non-notable by every other standard except the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test? Dragonfiend 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
            • A Softer World doesn't seem to make it by any other standard that I can find. [4] is the Comixpedia review. It also got coverage in a column on Comixpedia by the main writer on Websnark. I believe that the article was VfDed once, and survived on the note that it had been hyped once by Warren Ellis, but I believe that was via his e-mail list, so that wasn't a verifiable mention. Comixpedia is the more verifiable and useful mention. Snowspinner 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Pointing to an article that survived a vote for deletion without the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test does not support a need for the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test, does it? Again, can you name some notable webcomics that would be considered non-notable by every other standard except the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test? Dragonfiend 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Softer World is still a good example - look at the VfD - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Softer World. It survived by one vote that was changed an hour before the buzzer. Cut it rather close, I think. Snowspinner 21:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • I have already looked at the Vfd. Again, it survived without the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test, showing the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test to be unnecessary in that particular case. If the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test is necessary, surely you can point to several notable webcomics that would be considered non-notable by every other standard except the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test? More than just one article that survived just fien without it? Also, keep in mind that the "It was discussed on comixpedia" test would mean that every comic ever reviewed by comixpedia would be considered notable enough for a wikipeida article, including such gems of non-notability as L33T Pixels. Do you really think "L33T Pixels" is notable enough for a wikipedia article? Dragonfiend 22:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • I'd prefer it have one to notable things getting deleted, at least. But I think this is where I point to the word "guidelines." We're not pushing for deletion-by-robot here, so much as for a general set of criteria that might be taken to make a webcomic notable. Snowspinner 22:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
                      • As a guideline for determining notability, "It was discussed on comixpedia" is worthless. 1) Comixpedia writes about non-notable comics like L33T Pixels all the time. 2) You haven't named a single notable webcomic that would need an "It was discussed on comixpedia" guideline to determine its notability. Any guidelines that include "It was discussed on comixpedia" are likely to be ignored. I think that's about all I have to say on trying to use such sites to determine notability. Dragonfiend 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Snowspinner, I think you may have to give up on a few webcomics that slip through the cracks. Our encyclopedia can't reflect solely its editors' judgements of quality (we're not in the business of building a syndicate ourselves), so there has to be some argument based on a source external to the comic. That's not to say that anything that doesn't meet WP:COMIC in its final form would get thrown out; if a comic were exceptional in some way, but missed the official guidelines, one could still argue against the AfD by using external sources to illustrate why it was exceptional. Having been in a magazine with large circulation, or an Alexa rating of almost enough, would both make me vote keep for sure. -- SCZenz 19:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to propose, now that I consider your example further, that significant mention, or inclusion, in any other medium (e.g. print) would also be part of the guidelines. -- SCZenz 19:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that would get a lot of the problems fixed - especially if we also accept detailed coverage in any of the Big Three Webcomic Sites (Comixpedia, Websnark, the Examiner) Snowspinner 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, "significant mention, or inclusion, in any other medium (e.g. print)" should also be part of the guidelines in some form, but I don't want to see every webcomic that's self-published in a zine, or every high school or college newspaper comic that also has a web site, having an article here. Dragonfiend 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's why wording would include "significant circulation" as well. -- SCZenz 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this inclusion. However, it should also include Dumbrella, which includes a solid number of significant webcomics and has as much history as Dayfree, for example. (Dumbrella includes Diesel Sweeties, Exploding Dog, Goats, Scary-go-Round, Wigu, Boy On A Stick and Slither and others.) Eric Burns 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

New multi-criterion proposal

I have put a new, detailed proposal at User:SCZenz/Webcomics/Proposal. Please read it there, and then comment on it here. Please note that I agree with all the numbered points in the proposal, but not necessarily with all the particular sites listed, which I haven't yet had time to research. But I think this is a realistic idea to focus a discussion on, giving us a starting place to hammer out details from. -- SCZenz 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • One comment Snowspinner already mentioned: Comics Genesis (formerly keenspot Keenspace) doesn't list a top 20 anymore. I say we leave the point with their top 20 as is, and use that point only if we can verify the comic is in the top 20 by some other means. -- SCZenz 21:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean "formerly keenspace." :) Snowspinner 21:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Good thing they changed their name—I can never get that right! -- 21:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you place the guidelines in order from the criteria that most strongly indicates notability (I'd say Alexa rank) to the one that least strongly indicates notability (I'd say Coverage within the webcomics community)? Or, in other words, place the guielines that most people can agree upon at the top. Dragonfiend 23:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll put them in the order that I think the most people can agree upon, but I won't claim that it's in order of strong indications of notability. Too POV-y.. ;) -- SCZenz 23:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern Tales

And now an objection to my own proposal. It seems like the spinoffs of Modern Tales have lots and lots of comics, a significant majority of which are redlinks. It's not so clear that all of these should automatically be notable. (There's no list in the Modern Tales article itself.) -- SCZenz 00:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that comics don't have articles yet does not seem to me to be a persuasive reason against their creation, anymore than the fact that someone did write an article is a persuasive reason against its deletion. Snowspinner 00:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The fact that very few of a large set of articles have been written starts to be a vague indication of how much interest exists. Plus there are a very large number of comics on these pages, far more than Dayfree or Blank Label, an even more than Keenspot. It makes it harder to believe all of them are notable simply by virtue of association with the syndicate. -- SCZenz
Part of it is that all the Modern Tales sites have pay-for archives. So there's a comparatively fewer number of people who can go through the archives to do a thorough reading. But the day's strip is always free, and thus many more people read the current strips - but that's often not enough to do a good article. Snowspinner 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
SCZenz, you are right -- not all comics that are part of a group are notable, even if the group itself is notable. There are always weaker members of any group. The least read comics on Modern Tales, Keenspot, etc. are not likely to be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Dragonfiend 02:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no other verifiable way to treat the syndicates than all-or-nothing, is there? Other than having the same devisive AfD debate over and over. -- SCZenz 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Think of the notable comics on the Modern Tales sites and why, other than their presence on Modern Tales, they are considered notable. The most notable of the Modern Tales artists have also been published in books, newspapers, reviewed in major newspapers and magazines, won awards, etc. The least notable are the ones that one can only say about them "They were on Graphic Smash for a few weeks." The latter are the ones not notable enough for Wikipedia. If a comic's only claim to fame is that it was the weakest member of a group, then that's not much, is it? Maybe I'm wrong. Can you think of any notable comics that the only measurement of their notability is that they are syndicated through Modern Tales or Keenspot or one of the other lesser known groups? Dragonfiend 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I still strongly disagree with this. Especially in the case of the Modern Tales group and Keenspot, the people who select these strips are making their living off of their ability to edit a good webcomics syndicate. They are professional editors who have made the decision that the webcomics that make up their site are either artistically or commercially notable. That is more than can, on the surface, be said about the most notable Comic Genesis strip. Snowspinner 02:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we can compromise by requiring current membership, going back some amount of time (say, 6 months?) for the Modern Tales comics? -- SCZenz 03:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner writes "in the case of the Modern Tales group and Keenspot, the people who select these strips are making their living off of their ability to edit a good webcomics syndicate." Even the best editors make mistakes. I will submit into evidence the Graphic Smash comic "Big Dicks Ball" which gives me 7 Google hits, only 5 of which are about the comic. It also has a message board, with one thread with one reply, on the topic of how nobody visits the message board. This comic, chosen by a "professional editor," is about as non-notable as you could find. Again, not all comics that are part of a group are notable, even if the group itself is notable. Dragonfiend 04:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The operative problem with Big Dick's Ball seems to me not that it flopped, but that the strip no longer appears to exist anywhere on the Internet, making it totally unverifiable. It would thus be a permastub, best merged with Graphic Smash - but no, I wouldn't delete it, nor would I delete a statement about its existence and failure from Graphic Smash. Snowspinner 05:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
From what little I know, it would seem that the Modern Tales family is the only one of the currently-listed syndicates with failures and departures like this—we seem to have discussed a couple of examples now. Is there something different about their editorial policy? -- SCZenz 05:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Others have it - Keenspot lost a bunch of strips in the founding of Blank Label, and a few strips petered to a halt right after they got Spotted - Elf Only Inn springs to mind. Snowspinner 05:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... Perhaps we should add a requirement to the syndicate item that says the comic must have updated regularly on that syndicate for at least 3 months. This would take out a few obvious problems, and not get rid of anything good—at least not for very long. What do you think? -- SCZenz 05:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
A record company executive makes his living through their ability to sign "notable" bands. Only, not every band that is signed out there is notable. Yet, these webcomic editors, in their infinte wisdom, only manage to pick notable comics. It is not right to include all webcomics within a syndicate, just because their editors liked their style. What if a publisher takes on an author, it doesn't automatically make his books notable does it, and when no one bothers to read the book, it'll fail into obscurity. Yet, with webcomics, we seem to be saying, "Even if a webcomic gets next to zero regular readers, but is on a small comic syndicate, it is instantly notable". "Even when a syndicated comic fails, it is instantly notable." I understand that the webcomic community is relatively small compared to other industries, but I do not feel that we should be giving such large boundaries for inclusion. The consensus in the afd debate seems to veer on keeping Able and Baker, the only reason given, is that it is member of the Dayfree Press, a comic group created for the mutual promotion of webcomics, that is just wrong. - Hahnchen 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Not as wrong as more or less single-handedly driving off, by my count, at least three contributors. [5] Snowspinner 18:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
C'mon, Snowspinner. That's at best a non sequitur, and at worst a personal attack. Hahnchen is a bit coarse about how he says things sometimes, but he isn't trying to hurt the wiki, and I don't think you can say it's wrong for him to voice his opinion. -- SCZenz 18:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Trying or not, his viewpoint is driving off contributors. That's a detriment to Wikipedia far more concrete than the inclusion of Able and Baker. Snowspinner 18:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
His viewpoint isn't unique, he's just the most vocal about it. I don't know what to say about editors who leave Wikipedia because they don't like debates over policy; it's a shame, but it doesn't seem a convincing argument not to have such debates. -- SCZenz 18:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
They're not leaving because of the debate. They're leaving because someone who admits they don't know much about the subject is nominating scores of articles for deletion that they've put real work into, and is trying to set policy on the matter to keep their contributions out of Wikipedia. Snowspinner 18:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


(Resetting to the left.) But if a person who doesn't know much nominates an article, it should be a trivial matter to cite sources, and the AfD would fail. The problem here is a legitimate disagreement over whether the fact that many webcomics aren't discussed in standard sources means that a) we should use nonstandard sources or b) we shouldn't have so many webcomics. Nobody, no matter how ignorant, ever gets false things into articles studied in academia (or deletes them), because everyone agrees that peer-reviewed journals are reputable sources; things are a bit different with webcomics. I stress again, this is a legitimate disagreement of opinion. -- SCZenz 18:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Snowspinner, I'll ask you for the second time to leave personal attacks out of this. Posting links to blogs where you describe how "The entire treatment of webcomics on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap" and "utter shit" and "the height of ignorance" is innapropriate. We're all trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be, and if there's a disagreement on how to do that, then let's have a discussion about the substance of those issues we disagree on; let's not have flame wars and toss insults at community members that raise issues we disagree with. So I'm asking you again to refrain from personal attacks on Wikipedia. I'd also suggest you avoid laying down profanity-laced rants about Wikipedia users on blogs, but if you really feel the need to, then don't post links to them here on Wikipedia. OK? See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Thanks. Dragonfiend 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that Hahnchen is acting in bad faith. I'm sure he's not. I am saying, however, that his actions are driving contributors off. This is not a personal attack - it is documentable fact. Beyond that, I stand by my comments on Websnark - the deletion process on WIkipedia is shit. I've said as much elsewhere. That's not a comment on Hahnchen - it's a comment on the entire system whereby articles can be nominated over and over again, by people who aren't knowledgeable about the topic, and if they're ever deleted no amount of pleading can ever restore them because Wikipedia:Deletion review "is about process, not about content." As for calling it shit, I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands. Snowspinner 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
If all you were saying were that someone's "actions are driving contributors off," that would be one thing. Instead you're referring to people's actions as "the height of ignorance" and labelling anyone who disagrees with you as "people who aren't knowledgeable about the topic." I hope that you can recognize that this is a personal attack on someone's intelligence, and not a verifiable fact. And while you may, as you say on the blog you've linked to, "really feel" "like killing," I don't think that's an appropriate sentiment to direct at other Wikipedia editors, whether you find your wishes for "killing" funny, factual, or otherwise. So, for the third time, please refrain from personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors. Thanks. Dragonfiend 22:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, this debate pisses the hell out of me. I do what I can to remain civil here, because it would be unproductive not to be, but if you expect me to not call bullshit on other sites, among a different crowd, you're out of your mind. And irrespective of my feelings or comments in it, that thread is instructive and chilling. Snowspinner 04:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Say what you like off of Wikipedia, but linking directly to your opinion on another page, when that page is so uncivil, is uncivil here too. -- SCZenz 05:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I vented there. Then the discussion turned to something I thought was instructive, and I sent it along. I would not have made the comments had I intended to send it along at the time. I do not think my comments invalidate the larger point, and I do not know of a better illustration of the point. I would hope that you could look beyond my blowing off some steam to actually engage in that point. Snowspinner 05:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, ok. I'm happy to let it go. Now let's see... Engaging your point... There seem to be three claims involved in your point:
  1. That Hahnchen is acting in bad faith. I disagree. I just think there's very substantial disagreement over what "notability" means, and what role notability plays, etc., both in general and in terms of webcomics, between him and others. He does sometimes say things quite rudely, which isn't cool and for which I've chastised him, but it does happen to everyone... right?
  2. That Hahnchen doesn't know what he's talking about. He knows his Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and precedents, even if he doesn't interpret them the same as everyone. He has made errors because of not knowing webcomics well, but admits them when they're clear-cut; more often he doesn't take anyone's word for it if something can't be verified to be notable via a standard source, which you perceive as ignorance. But it's not; it's a reasonable interpretation of the rules, albeit one I'm moving away from a bit personally.
  3. That Hahnchen is driving users away. Possibly true, but not relevant. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and consensus sometimes requires vehement discussion. It would be a worse evil to stifle someone from arguing views held in good faith because others react poorly to them, than it would be to lose those who react poorly.
I understand we're losing new users, who don't yet know what they're getting into, but might have become important contributors. It worries me, and I've tried very hard when appropriate to explain what was going on, in order to soothe hard feelings. I admit that this, and other attempts at moderation on my part, have met with very limited success—but I don't see what else can be done. -- SCZenz 06:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Too strict?

These are simply too strict. There's a lot of articles that would get quite easily kept on AfD that do not fit these criteria. Ambi 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Even comics that meet it (e.g. for syndicate membership) are having trouble. What kind of changes do you propose? If it's little tweaks, that's fine, but I promise there'll never be consensus to keep comics without some sort of external verification of their notability. -- SCZenz 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
This would leave out a lot of comics that have a sizable readership and have been regularly updated for years. Where would Bruno fit under these? Or Venus Envy? Or Oh My Gods! (a comic popular in the pagan community which I've been meaning to write an article on for years)? Furthermore, we don't need consensus to keep an article. We need a consensus to delete it - and none of these are deserving candidates for that fate. Ambi 05:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Many disagree with you, in general terms, enough so that the consensus in AfD's doesn't seem to be going the way you predict. Bruno I would vote to keep since it's been running since 1996, regardless of what the guidelines said—and I wouldn't be opposed to putting a started-in-1996-or-earlier-and-still-running item in the guidelines either. Tell me... how would you define verifiable notability for webcomics? Or do you think Wikipedia should be a directory of websites? -- SCZenz 06:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Because it's clear that those are the only two options. Snowspinner 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Short of having a popularity contest, sockpuppetry, arguments over expertise, and other assorted silliness for AfD after AfD, yes. The guidelines I wrote out are already far more lenient than the accepted standards for any other kind of website. I'm trying compromise between the two camps, but it would seem I'm the only one who cares to. (Apologies on the off chance that the preceding remark wasn't sarcastic.)
Maybe I should put it this way. Which webcomics aren't notable, and how can we tell? Or should wikipedia be a directory of webcomics? (Because now those really are logically the only two options.) -- SCZenz 06:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
There's plenty of non-notable webcomics, and some of the other suggested criteria handled this much more effectively. This chooses the most restrictive interpretation, excluding comics which would otherwise comparatively easily survive AfD, and is thus doomed to fail. However, I think this is something that is really easier to judge on their merits, rather than trying to find some detailed standard. Ambi 06:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's the Alexa test... and then the standards that give comics credit just for existing for some length of time... which one do you think is better, and why? The former is contained within my proposed guidelines, and the latter could give crappy, unread comics an easy pass. As for your proposal, making editorial judgements based on merit is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 06:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Alexa is unreliable (c.f. Bruno's low ranking and its systemic bias), and you've just outlined the problems with the alternative. And why on earth is making editorial judgements based on merit entirely appropriate, when we all do this every day? That's the most bizarre claim I've heard all year. Ambi 07:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "merit." I thought you meant judging the quality of the comic itself... what did you mean? -- SCZenz 16:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, as discussed below, Alexa is a last resort. I'd rather see some other documentation; it shouldn't be first on the list, but it was requested above that I put it there and I didn't think it mattered. -- SCZenz 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Not totally related to the discussion. But I never nominated the Keenspace comic Venus Envy for deletion because it had coverage in the outside press, probably some gay or transexual online journal or magazine or something, can't remember what it was called. For me that makes it more notable than some comic which was mentioned on some blog or linked to from a more notable webcomic. - Hahnchen 18:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal points

I've come to the party late, I know. How about listing some of the simpler points, and focusing discussion on them? Get what we agreeon out of the way, as it were. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. Unusually large readership.
    Alexa is easy to fudge (see above). This should be a "last resort" for comics that fail all other hurdles. Do we agree on that? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    I concur. -- SCZenz 16:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    While I've seen some discussion about fudging better Alexa rankings, I haven't seen anything suggesting a way to fudge worse Alexa rankings. Meaning that a site with an Alexa rank of 3 million is almost ceratinly non-notable based on readership (it may still be notable for other reasons). Dragonfiend 19:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thus, as we're looking to catch only those without any other criteria, why shouldn't this bar be set low enough to be difficult to fudge? 50K, for instance. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Because that won't do any webcomics any good, especially the honest ones. Our goal is not to make 100% sure people don't fudge their way into Wikipedia, it's to have a clear standard for deleting obviously non-notable articles. Criteria that allow deletion of notable comics would be in error; criteria that let a few not-so-notable ones slip through would not. -- SCZenz 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community.
    This one is good ,as it meets our general verifiability guidelines. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    To what extent does something count as "coverage or inclusion"? If a science-themed comic gets discussed a few times in physics mailing lists and message boards, does that count? Or would it have to receive coverage in a physics themed magazine?--Arscott 10:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not inclined to think message boards are evidence of anything, except in extremely rare cases. -- SCZenz 16:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not inclined to disagree. But there are a few webcomics whose primary readership consist of folks involved with the theme of the comic and don't otherwise read webcomics. That means that these webcomics will tend to slip through the cracks of other criteria. So if say a web-only political cartoon gets regularly commented on by popular political blogs but not by websnark or comixpedia, will that make it notable? Or would it have to qualify through other criteria. The message boards thing was more of an opposite extreme than a serious suggestion.--Arscott 19:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    I think there are some political blogs that are so widely known that they'd be appropriate for this, but probably not very many. -- SCZenz 19:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Notable author.
    No, if the comic's only claim is that it's author is notable, it should go under the author's main entry, like a book written by Ethan Hawke would. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    I disagree, at least if the new comic is almost notable, or will be soon if it continues. -- SCZenz 16:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    No, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- if the comic isn't notable, it doesn't get an article, no matter who the author is, as per brenneman. Dragonfiend 19:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    What about direct sequels, where one comic essentially becomes another, i.e. Roomies/It's Walky/Shortpacked?--Arscott 10:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Information on those could be added to the original webcomic at first. Of course, if the original was notable for reasons of readership then it probably won't take long for the sequel to become notable, but there's no need to make specific cases for that--that notability will rapidly become evident under any reasonable standard. --Aquillion 16:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Top 20 on Free Hosted Webcomic site
    Totally disagree in every respect. This would mean every comic ever to have obtained top 20 on a free webcomic site would be notable enough for inclusion. This doesn't mean there are 20 keenspace comic articles, but it means that any comic ever reaching top20 would be notable enough. So any blog reaching the top 50 on blogspot is instantly noticeable? Or the top 20 livejournals? Maybe something more limiting, like a maintained top 10 spot for over several months, to try and get rid of fluctuations? - Hahnchen 18:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Top 20 is better than top 10, but I wouldn't mind requiring that it be maintained for several months. I already proposed this for syndicate membership, so it would be consistent. -- SCZenz 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    This requirement is much too weak. If we apply the same standard here that we would to, for example, a flash game, simply being listed in this manner means very little. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Some sites (notably Webcomics Nation) have all-time or hall-of-fame lists that don't reset constantly. Using those lists when available will reduce the fifteen-minutes-of-fame problem with the standard lists.--Arscott 10:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Too strict, again

Feel free to implement these standards, but understand that there isn't a hope in hell of them being adopted by anyone else on AfD when they're this deletionist. Ambi 04:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

They're a lot less deletionist than previously proposed standards. And they're already being used in AfD's, more or less, as far as I can tell. Which AfD's have you been looking at?
Come to think of if it, what do you think of WP:MUSIC...? That's stricter than this, and it almost always get followed on AfD's. -- SCZenz 04:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC helps us get rid of the most non-notable bands. This takes quite a lot of notable webcomics with it. Just because people are deleting obviously non-notable webcomics on AfD does not mean they're going to accept a standard which is so overly strict as this. Ambi 04:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Not sure what to say except I respectfully disagree. I've listed every possible way of verifying a notable effect of, or recognition for, a comic that I (or anyone else) can think of. I also think I've gone midway between the two previous sets of ideas. I'm honestly very surprised to see the proposal characterized as "so overly strict." -- SCZenz 04:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Well how are you defining notable? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
One of the major criteria for the music guidelines is having made two albums. What about having a similar guideline regarding print collections for webcomics? Of course webcomics don't have the equivalent of major record labels, but art-filled books are a lot more expensive to make than CDs.--Arscott 11:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
This additional criteria would help things, as it would put both Bruno and Venus Envy well in the clear. However, I'd like to see two additional potential criteria - being in print in newspapers somewhere (i.e. Oh My Gods appears in some university newspapers), and secondly, an exception for webcomics which, while they mightn't have a massive audience worldwide, have a fairly significant audience in a particular group. Ambi 12:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Newspapers was supposed to be covered as "appearing or being mentioned outside the webcomics community". Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. Authoring in published books is already a well-established criterion for notability on Wikipedia, but I can write it out if you like. But I don't think that either books or newspapers should automatically count—I think there should be some rough minimum circulation, just like in WP:MUSIC they have to be major record labels. -- SCZenz 15:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the published books thing is that almost all webcomics are self-published to one degree or another. Even major members of labels like Keenspot tend to handle their print publishing seperately. It was my understanding that self publishing wasn't neccessarilly a valid criterion. Having a minimum circulation/print run requirement substitute for the major label requirement seems reasonable, though I have no idea what sort of numbers should be used.--Arscott 19:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
For circulation requirements, I'm not sure of numbers either, I would say that one university newspaper wouldn't be enough, but several would. As for self-publishing, I agree that's an issue. I would count books published by Keenspot, but not books that were truly self-published. Although this jeapordizes a few notable webcomics, I don't think allowing self-published books in the guideline would be consistent with policy elsewhere on Wikipedia; instead, let me just say that a guideline is just that, and I for one could be persuaded in exceptional cases. (E.g. if a comic has self-published books, and also almost meets a few other criteria, I'd definitely vote to keep it. )-- SCZenz 19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a problem with this: With most feilds, self-publishing is a way of circumventing scrutiny and standards. With webcomics, it IS the standard. As far as I know, The keenspot businesspeople aren't the ones who decide whether or not to publish books. I think the strip creators decide to make a print collection, and the Keenspot folks say "great! how can we help". The do we want to publish these guys thing is done at the website stage, not the print collection stage. I can think of only a few exceptions: Comics like PVP and Helen: Sweetheart of the Internet that are signed by Print Comics companies or newspaper sydicates, and comics that are picked up by RPG publishers like Order of the Stick or Something*Positive. In fact, If the RPG entries have book-type guidelines, it might be smart to poach those and file the numbers off. I think they've got some similarities in the way they're published. Honestly, though, I know way too little about the publishing side of webcomics to argue this. Any comicsmiths or publishpeople want to weigh in?--Arscott 21:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Self publication is, quite often, seen as fully legitimate in the webcomics community, yes. However, Keenspot's publishing efforts don't count under this heading. Keenspot's board selects strips to publish and publishes them, in something of a traditional model. They pay royalties on sales (admittedly at a higher rate than the average, but that's balanced by typically lower sales). I would think a Keenspot publication denotes significance. Eric Burns 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Eric. Wasn't really sure on that point. But do they publish non-spot books? because this might also be redundant if the Keenspotter = notability thing holds up. Also, what about folks like plan 9? or the who knows how many other ones I haven't heard of?--Arscott 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Plan 9 is definitely distinct from self-publishing. Personally, I'm willing to accept anything except literal self-publishing. -- SCZenz 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Independent comics

This proposal presents a HUGE uphill battle for independent comics. I'm going to use my comic as an example (not because I think it should be on wikipedia, but because i know its numbers well). It has an Alexa rating of 280,000, which is rather high. It is not, however, in a syndicate. If it were on Keenspace, however, it would likely be a high-ranking comic, as several Keenspace comics that recently defected to other syndicates (such as Boxcar) have higher Alexa ratings (for example, Beaver and Steve, currently at 367,154, or similar ratings (the highly-read Coffee Achievers, for example has an Alexa of 218,690).

Now, while I'm the first to argue that Alexa is basically bunk, it DOES mean a significant amount of readers. And somewhere in NOTABILITY, READERSHIP must be established. Your new guidelines make it hard for independent websites to be considered notable, while making it easy for comics with similar readership numbers who are published by a supposedly notable collective like Keenspace (which is really just a free hosting service) to be considered notable.

There must be a better balance

--Tedzsee 00:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Tedzee, I think you're absolutely right. Now, to be fair, we could make it harder for strips in collectives to count, but I don't think that's what you want. We could also change the Alexa number, but then we'd be inconsistent with the number usually used on Wikipedia and, as has often been noted, within a range that could easily be fudged. (That being said, I would not be opposed to changing 100,000 back to 200,000, but I can't see going higher.) The trouble with independents is inherent to the idea that we need independant sources to establish notability—there simply may not be any. I agree this is a problem, but I have no idea what to do about it. Obviously suggestions from anyone would be great. -- SCZenz 00:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • SUGGESTION?
I think strips in collectives should be left as they are (although I do think the number of collectives should be expanded to include Boxcar Comics and Blank Label Press considering the number of Wikipedia articles about comics in those groups and their regular appearance on sites like Websnark Comixpedia etc (although maybe some might disagree?). I would also suggest increasing the Alexa ranking to 200,000, as within the webcomic project I always thought that was the guideline and it seems that many reasonably popular comics (for example Coffee Achievers) do indeed have Alexa rankings of around 200,000. As for independents, I think that NOTABILITY should be a key factor in their inclusion. If they have a high Alexa ranking and are not a member of a group, your policy would seem to hold that against them. Perhaps simply adding a section stating something like the following would suffice:

Independent webcomics and Notable Authors: Webcomics and/or webcomic creators do not need to be members of established collectives or syndicates to be considered for entry provided their notability can be established using the Coverage within the webcomics community or Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community clauses combined with the Readership clause.

I know it sounds paranoid, but I can just SEE deletes happening in the future because people didn't think to combine categories or started deleting independent comics. A clause like this would also solve the problem that face authors like Ryan Estrada from becoming entered in the 'pedia.
There's probably something better, but that's all I can think of at the moment? Tedzsee 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


There's absolutely no doubt the indie issue will come up in future AfDs. I'm hoping that if we put out some clear guidelines, however, it will be easier to focus on specific arguments. With the way this proposal is constructed, if we discover additional methods of determining notability, we'll be able to add them fairly easily. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Replying to both Abe and Tedzee: Tedzee, I think your addition is redundant; already any one of the categories suffices. Perhaps what you want is some sort of option for almost meeting several criteria separately? I might think about that, if the almost were emphasized. What do you think about that, Abe—it's the best solution for independents I've heard so far. -- SCZenz 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm actually satisfied with the guidelines as SCZenz laid them out in his bold edit. For now I think we should get behind the proposal as is to give it some weight. If additional methods of determining notability emerge -- such as for independent comics -- we will have the chance to add them later. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this balance is about as good as we're going to get for now -- there are two criteria on there that I think are too lenient, but I'm sure there are those who think all 7 are too strict, so this is probably a good compromise. This may need minor tweaks, but I'm willing to start putting these proposed guidelines to the test and see how they hold up. (For the record, the two I disagree with are #5, on the basis that there are in fact non-notable comics on these syndicates, and that the notable comics on these syndicates all have books, awards, and media coverage that would qualify them under other criteria; and #7, on the basis that these webcomic community news and fan sites write about all sorts of non-notable comics-- that's part of what they do; introduce new comics, review bad comics, etc.) But like I said, I'm willing to work with this as a compromise solution and see how well it works. Dragonfiend 02:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so how do we go about officially gathering consensus to make this a real guideline? I have no idea. -- SCZenz 02:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, Dragonfield, I would agree with you about the fansites and reviewing bad comics etc... the idea around using them is not just using ONE but using several to put them together etc. Also, I agree that there are non-notable comics in syndicates, but even non-notable B-List rappers like Chingy have wikipedia entries... no reason why B-List comics should be excluded from at least an argument? Maybe not though... see here's what I'm mostly concerned about:
What SCZenz said about the ALMOST clause... I think that that makes sense in a way. If a comic meets ALMOST all the criteria in ALL of the categories I mentioned, it is obviously an up-and-comer, at the very least, and has good readership. But perhaps still not ready for a Wikipedia entry... I just feel uncomfortable with the idea that a well-read independent comic would get less coverage than a poorly-read Modern Tales one, for example. I still don't feel that the current proposal rectifies that.
Also, changing the Alexa to 200,000 is necessary -- even Count Your Sheep only has an Alexa of 117,000+. I know very few webcomics that have under 100,000.-- Tedzsee 03:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please for the love of all that's holy, don't let the following be interpreted as a defence of Chingy.
  • There is a good reason that B grade recording artist is regarded as "more notable" than a B grade webcomic. There are several orders of magnitude seperating the amount of capital required to put out a recording and to post a webcomic.
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexa again

Count Your Sheep passes under other criteria. Note also that I wrote verifiably exceptional readership, with Alexa as only one possible means of verification; I want very much to deemphasize the Alexa test. I realize that at 100,000, we'll hardly ever pass a webcomic based solely on Alexa, but I am concerned about consistency with other areas of Wikipedia. Hmmm... I'm willing to go with 200K, although I would then personally consider that much more of a hard limit, but I'm honestly worried that getting general consensus will be harder. I'll wait for more opinions on this. -- SCZenz 06:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Why can't we keep the part of this discussion each in their own little place? Any Alexa over 100K I'd have to strongly oppose. If that's the only claim a comic has, it's just not a good enough measure. Leaving "fudging" aside, the difference between 100K and 200K could be a single person who has the toolbar installed.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The Alexa ranking could not be the only claim a comic has. I never intended it that way. However, there are MANY notable comics with ratings above 100,000 and it makes sense to me to use 200,000 as a hardish cap and write into the guidelines that Alexa ranking alone does not show a comic is notable. Tedzsee
  • Sorry, I'd have to cry foul. Whatever the guideline is, those articles that come in just outside it are going to have "it's just a guideline" waved around them. If it's notable, it won't matter what it's Alexa is. If it's not (by any other guideline) there's just no reason to be more lax than the proposed WP:WEB. In fact, why not simply leave this out and replace it with the last bullet point "In the absence of any of the above, see WP:WEB."
    brenneman(t)(c) 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I do think a webcomic is somewhat different than a regular website. That justifies 10,000 \to 100,000 certainly, in my opinion. -- SCZenz 22:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Bold replacement of old guideline proposals

Since all were unacceptable to a large number of users on one side of this debate or the other, I have replaced the proposals on the front page with my proposal. It has been criticized by people on both sides of the debate, which I take to mean that it's a possible starting point for a consensus, where the others are not. Obviously the discussion could continue! -- SCZenz 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

These are very nicely done. I've moved the Web Cartoonist Choice Awards with the other webcomics community items. Dragonfiend 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this will do. It looks like something that neither deletionists nor inclusionsts will be entirely pleased with, but can abide by. That strikes me as being the best course to take. It sets guidelines which indicate notability, but doesn't mandate that articles which do not meet them precisely should be deleted. I'd prefer the WCCA stays in SCZenz's original position, however. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It seemed out of place with The Eisners and Webbys -- those two awards indicate recognition outside of the field of webcomics, whereas the WCCAs, being voted on by webcartoonists, more properly belong with other wbcomics community sources like The Web Comics Examiner and Comixpedia. Dragonfiend 00:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the WCCA is a lesser award, but it seems qualitatively different from a fan publication like Comixpedia. Maybe it's splitting hairs. In any case for an Eisner, even being nominated should indicate notability. For a WCCA, on the other hand, you'd actually have to win one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you about placement, Abe, but I don't think it's worth the argument. Maybe I should replace the numbers with bullet points to avoid the implication that some criteria are more important than others. -- SCZenz 01:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Non-notable, non-professional syndicates

I am starting a new heading on this since the ones above seem to have drifted and since there is a new proposal. The Proposal currently under discussion includes #5 "If a webcomic is a member of a professional syndicate ... it should be included." Now that I am looking into some of the other "professional" and "notable" syndicates, I find that they appear to be neither professional nor notable. Dayfree Press, for example, has an Alexa ranking of 1,497,083. It would appear in this case that, while some of the individual comics on the syndicate are notable, the syndicate itself is not. And now that I understand a little about how it works, I see that it's not even a professional webcomics syndicate like Modern Tales and Serializer are, nor are they selling ads like Keenspot. Acccording to the Dayfree mission, "THE BUSINESS MODEL: Some webcomics groups choose to charge for subscription access to archives, while others rely primarily on advertising. While Dayfree Press makes no requirements of a business model ... Almost a year after the network’s creation, some founding members have found themselves making good money on the side as a result of their merchadising efforts." How can they be considered a "professional syndicate" when their "business model" has "no requirements of a business model"? When all they are doing is "making good money on the side" for only "some founding members"? This hardly sounds professional. I do not support including Dayfree Press as a notable syndicate. Dragonfiend 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Their founder was number 11 on some Comixpedia list of the 25 most influential webcomics people. That makes the syndicate notable by our standards. Whether it makes all of its webcomics automatically notable is a valid question. -- SCZenz 07:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I remember the article you are refering to -- it is here [6]. Calling it a list of "most influential" people is a misnomer. The title of the article is actually "Comixpedia's List of 25 People in Webcomics for 2004." That's it, just "25 People," not "25 most anything." The article opens by explaining "there is no easy way to name this list, or more importantly, why we included some on it and left off others. It is even harder to attach much importance to the order of the list." Myself, I'm not sure how much importance to attach to being #11 on Comixpedia's in-no-particular order list of people-they're-not-quite-sure-why-they-included. Comixpedia's short description of why he's on their 2004 list seems to suggest if anything notability in the t-shirt printing business: "Neil Gustavson (or 'Neil G' as he’s more commonly known) founded the Dayfree Press group of webcomics, moved his Limited Space webcomic to Keenspot and continued to build his company, Domination T-shirt's domination of the webcomic swag marketplace." This is a good example of the trouble of trying to use comixpedia as a source for notability. They are primarily a news site -- when they write an article about how someone founded a new group of webcomics, it does not necessarily mean that the new group is notable. Dragonfiend 08:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, and if it were up to me maybe Dayfree wouldn't be on there. However, having a proposal that gets consensus seems to be worth having 'em in there. After the couple Dayfree comics you agree are notable, it's a free pass for less than 10 debatable comics—this is a very small problem, in my opinion. -- SCZenz 11:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ouch. I'd rather find some other objective way to loop in those one or two than set a standard that we all agree is bunk to begin with. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there really a consesus that Dayfree ought to be included? I have problems with saying all comics from notable, professional syndicates like Modern Tales and Serializer ought to be included (since there are undoubtably some non-notable comics on every notable syndicate) but Dayfree isn't professional and doesn't seem notable. If it's not professional, than all of the arguments about professional editors risking their livelihoods on choosing these comics for their professional syndicates is totally thrown out the window. Its just a bunch of amateur artists who formed a group to try to promote each other. Should such promotion be taken as notability on Wikipedia? It seems like there may not be consensus on article 5, that "If a webcomic is a member of a professional syndicate whose members are selected by an editor with established notability ... it should be included," and if there even is consensus on that point, surely there can't be consensus that Dayfree Press qualifies as a professional syndicate? I'd like to get more response on this. Dragonfiend 19:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Dayfree Press has several notable comics on their roster. They then fill up their roster with 2 or 3 upcoming comics by authors they feel are worthy. Girly, Questionable Content, Dinosaur Comics, Sam and Fuzzy are all DP comic members and have REALLY high Alexa ratings and notable authors. A low Alexa ranking only means that people hardly ever visit the Dayfree site itself. The reason for this should be obvious: the comics all link directly to each other and merch is sold directly on the individual comic pages. There is little reason for people to visit the Dayfree page itself. Tedzsee 17:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree that there are several notable comics on Dayfree Press, such as Dinosaur Comics that meet multiple criteria for notability as per our proposal. What I disagree with is that somehow the notability of Dinosaur Comics magically rubs off on every other Dayfree Press comic. There are over 20 current and former Dayfree Press comics. Depending on what "several" notable comics means, it sounds like there are between 10 and 15 non-notable comics on Dayfree Press. I'm not comfortable with including a dozen non-notable comics on wikipedia, nor am I comfortable using the same logic with the other actually professional groups such as Modern Tales and Serializer. Not all members of a notable syndicate are notable. We have 7 syndicates listed on our proposal; if there are a dozen non-notable comics on each one (which is a conservative estimate as I look at the list of comics that have been on graphic smash) then we're talking about 90 non-notable comics here. That sounds like a part of the proposal that needs some work. Dragonfiend 19:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I kind of agree. Whereas Dayfree Press may be notable, and whereas some comics on the Dayfree Press are notable, it doesn't mean every single comic on it is. The Dayfree Press is a comic book collective, created purely for the mutual benefit of the collated comics through synchronised advertising and promotion. It's a non professional group, created for mutual promotion. Having guidelines stating that any member of the Dayfree Press is notable, would be like saying that any musician signed to a minor record label was inherently notable. - Hahnchen 20:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
To refer to WP:MUSIC, I think Dayfree Press is analogous to an "important indie label," particularly in that it has a "Roster of performers, many of which are notable". It's also recognition by one's peers in the comic industry; not quite "critical" recognition, which have woefully little of, but it's the closest thing we have. Nifboy 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • But we're talking about money again. If Mushroom Records puts out two albums by a band, I'll consider that band notable. Because it costs MR a fair whack to do so, and particularly in light of the "economics of scale" for them compared to Virgin Records or somesuch. Thus thay make that decision based upon a combination of years of experiance, close contact with the records industry, and almost certainly an already existing upward swing of notability. (That last is to say, often these are acts that would end up (semi) notable anyway.) The cost to host a single particular webcomic is almost nil, thus there's a certain "throw enough mud humour at the wall to see what sticks". We cannot compare small time musicians with albulms out to small time webcomics. Sorry.
    brenneman(t)(c) 01:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Brenneman is right about the economic differences between starting a record label and starting a webcomics site. I'll add that per the "important indie label" distinction of WP:MUSIC, that besides just a "roster of performers, many of which are notable," "a history of more than a few years" is required, meaning Dayfree, founded in 2004, needs at least two or three more years before scraping the bottom of "more than a few years." Dragonfiend 08:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add, the blank label "syndication" service is funded by google ads on its main website, so it's obviously not that profitable. Shouldn't a syndication service be at least self-sustaining without the need for other advertising services? Nathan J. Yoder 12:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Remaining Objections

I still strongly object to these guidelines on the following grounds.

  1. I hate the "three month" rule on syndicates - syndicate pickup ought be considered notable enough, whether temporary or permanant.
  2. They are still phrased as the sole means by which a webcomic can attain notability, as opposed to a list of accepted means - an "other" category ought be explicit.
  3. The author split rule is terrible - if a non-stub article can be written on the subject, there is no reason to cram it into the author page, and risk making the author page overlong. Forcibly merging ought be performed for permastubs.
  4. I remain unconvinced that the strictness of this is in line with other topics. We still keep articles on D&D monsters, Star Trek episodes, and other silly things. I oppose until such a time as the larger community weighs in on the issue - I would hate to see a local portion of Wikipedia setting global policy without input. Snowspinner 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Some responses.
  1. But we've been over several examples where a comic got picked up and then fizzled; three months doesn't seem like long to wait given that.
  2. Can you think of any alternatives that aren't covered? Besides, it's labelled as a guideline, and the starting text (stolen from WP:MUSIC) clearly says it need not necessarily be followed.
  3. I'm flexible on this.
  4. There are other areas that are stricter, too. Let's make something reasonable here.
That's what I got. -- SCZenz 21:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My response:

  1. Verifying that a comic lasted for a few months on a syndicate is the least we can do if we're trying to use syndicate participation as a guideline. If a syndicate somehow has the magical ability to pass on notability to previously non-notable webcomics, then surely this magic takes time.
  2. I think it's clear that these are guidelines. We ought to make the guidleines as good as they can be, but theyll always just be guidelines.
  3. I think the author split rule is good.
  4. I can guarantee you that more people watch the least watched Star Trek episode than read the most read webcomics.
Dragonfiend 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Don't like much the "syndicate" guideline to begin with, foxes and hen-houses, etc. so it needs some checks and balances on it.
  2. Guidelines should be followed as "policy but for foo". As I noted above, and as Dragonfiend also states, right these as if they are going to be followd in almost every case.
  3. The author split rule makes sense. Every thing done by a notable person is not in of itself notable. If Kofi Annan writes a web comic, it should stay as a few lines in the main article until it has a life independant of him.
  4. Many fans of Dungeons & Dragons would consider webcomics "silly things". Please don't let your personal bias intrude into this discussion.
    brenneman(t)(c) 22:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Some general responses

  1. There is no sensible reason to set this bar higher except an a priori conviction that we should have fewer rather than more webcomics articles
  2. I would like an explicit line in the guidelines that this list is not all-inclusive - since you all seem to agree that it is not all-inclusive, this oughtn't be a controversy.
  3. If there is a non-stub article to be written on a subject that would be worthy of covering somewhere, it ought be spun off if it gets too long. We really want to keep articles to 32kb - that means splitting them down and off-linking frequently.
  4. If we are talking about "encyclopedic notability," there's just not a lot of sane lines to draw once you've reconciled yourself to having an article on Owlbear. Which is to say, the amount less notable that Owlbear is than anything that a normal encyclopedia has is so much vaster than the amount less notable that Life on Forbez is than the Owlbear. Which is all a side point to my main point here, which is that it's totally inappropriate for a few people to set a global guideline like this. Snowspinner 03:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. I think this rule only applies to new inductees and Elf Only Inn (which passes other criteria because it's a two-times WCCA winner). In the case of new inductees I can't see it being enforced because three months of updates is almost inevitable (except in very rare cases, like EOI).
  2. Eh. If it was notable for some unlisted reason you'd still have to convince AfD of it either way. Besides, the guideline is worded "Any of the following should be taken as evidence of notability" compared to WP:MUSIC's more concrete "An ensemble or musician is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria."
  3. This is sure as hell not a "rule". It's a suggestion to keep in mind when discussing an article on a major author's minor work. For example, Tailsteak aka Mason Williams has no less than nine comics, only one of which has, or even deserves an article: 1/0. The rest all have a very limited number of installments ("Band" has the most at around 100 installments). Otherwise we'd have to have individual articles on every 24-hour webcomic done by a notable author.
  4. If you have a problem with Owlbear or any of the other many obscure D&D creatures you are welcome to, in order of severity: Take it up on the D&D talk page, merge it with several others into something like Minor Dungeons & Dragons creatures, or put as many as you want on AfD (you could even go on a "crusade" or "purging" if you wish, and then wonder why people are so angry at you for deleting "worthless information"). Nifboy 04:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. In which case, if the rule is trivial, why have it?
  2. Without a explicit hedge like this, the guidelines are going to be taken as gospel, and suddenly any webcomic that does not adhere perfectly to these guidelines is screwed. An explicit hedge is just commonsense.
  3. And the problem with this is?
  4. I don't care about Owlbear - I'm just saying, given the seemingly wide consensus about it, I fail to understand why webcomics generate controversy. Snowspinner 04:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

User:Snowspinner has been arguing on this thread that webcomics covered in Comixpedia ought to be considered notable. For example, "the [Webcomics] Examiner and Comixpedia are important people who make a lot of waves on the subject." I just discovered User:Snowspinner/Webcomics in which Snowspinner writes "I am currently working on pieces for both the Webcomics Examiner and Comixpedia." This is a blatant conflict of interest which should have been revealed on this discussion page by Snowspinner. You cannot in good faith argue for the notability of webcomics covered by the "important people" of comixpedia when you're one of those people that writes for comixpedia. By having a guideline that says comics covered by Comixpedia are considered notable, and having Snowspinner writing for Comixpedia, then we're basically saying any comic Snowspinner thinks is notable is therefore notable. I cannot stress enough that this conflict of interest should have been revealed. Further, we have User:Eric Burns weighing in on this discussion; he was the creator of what everyone agrees was the much too lenient old proposal. His conflict of interest is that Eric Burns runs the Websnark fan blog, where he is also commenting on this discussion. Replacing Eric Burns' old proposal with a proposal that considers any comic covered by Websnark basically says that any comic that User:Eric Burns thinks is notable is therefore notable. User:Snowspinner and User:Eric Burns are not only Wikipedia editors, but they write for Comixpedia, the Webcomics Examiner, and Websnark. For them to be trying to set Wikipedia guidelines that give themselves the god-like ability to determine notability is wrong. User:Snowspinner and User:Eric Burns have shown that Comixpedia and Websnark are not disinterested third parties in this discussion. I am being bold and removing article 7 to remove this abuse of power and conflict of interest. I have reproduced the excised portion below:

  1. Coverage within the webcomics community. If a webcomic has significant, detailed coverage in an editorially-written section of one of the major sources devoted to webcomics, or has won a major webcomics award, it should be included. These sources are, currently:

If anyone else in this discussion has conflicts of interest (they're writing for comixpedia, have comics on Dayfree Press, or anything similar) please reveal them now. Thanks. Dragonfiend 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't automatically grounds for removal of the idea. In particular, if it is a legitimate source, then it would be fair to cite it in the article namespace even if you wrote for it, and thus I think it would be available to use in AfD too. At the same time, I think Snowspinner ought to have been forthcoming about this. I will wait for other opinions on removal of this whole idea, but right this second I'll just restore the WCCA's in the awards section—even I know those are legit. -- SCZenz 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The entire point of the criteria is a deferrence to the experts, and if you want to debate whether Eric Burns or the Comixpedia staff are "experts" (which I and many others can attest to), that is another matter entirely. Side note: No, Burns' "100 comics" criteria still wouldn't fly under this critera because Burns never gave "all comics with over 100 strips" significant, detailed coverage. Burns (or Snowspinner, or whosoever would be considered an "expert" under this criteria) would have to give significant, detailed coverage of the webcomic(s) in question before it would pass under that criteria. Nifboy 00:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
We do have a peculiar situation, though. As an expert writing for a relatively small website, who cares a lot about what's covered on Wikipedia, User:Showspinner (or another expert writing on a similar site) could write a detailed article on a webcomic especially because it was in danger of being deleted. I have to say I do not like that idea; there is too much potential for deliberate manipulation of the Wiki. -- SCZenz 00:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really concerned with motivation. To me, focusing on webcomics whose articles are in danger of deletion is the same as just focusing on small-to-medium sized comics which an expert thinks are worth writing about because nobody knows about them. There would be very little difference between what would happen under the two motives; the author's opinion is already made up, writing a lengthy and detailed analysis simply verifies that opinion. "Deliberate manipulation" in this case would simply be the expert giving his well-reasoned opinion more often (besides, no amount of theorizing and postulating in order to manipulate Wiki would ever top Mr. Burns's original proposal). Nifboy 02:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In regards to Nifboy's comments, I'm not sure I'm so much questioning the expertise of Comixpedia and Websnark, but I'm definitely questioning the idea of using them as automatic indicators of notability, and that's not just based on the extremely troubling conflict of interest issues. I've seen nothing that suggests Comixpedia should be considered arbiters of notability (I've pointed out above that as a news site they quite naturally cover things which are not yet notable, and as a review site they quite naturally cover things which are bad). The only justification I've seen for using them to determine notability is Snowspinner's circular conflict-of-interest logic of "I say Comixpedia is important, You should believe me because I'm an expert, and I'm an expert because I'm writing for Comixpedia." In regards to Websnark, according to Snowspinner, "Websnark is quite a kingmaker in terms of webcomic readership," but Websnark only has an Alexa ranking of 225,084 and a quick scroll through the blog's comments shows only about 20 comments on each entry. Of the recent entries I've scanned, the one with the most comments is the previously-cited one on the firebrand topic of how stupid Wikipedia is, and that entry has only 87 comments by, from my count, 43 individual users, which includes User:Snowspinner and User:Eric Burns. Even wildly projecting that there are 100 readers for every one who left a comment, this is far outside the Alexa ranking and forum membership (5,000 unique members) suggested for a notable blog by WP:WEB, and yet we're supposed to unquestioningly assume this is not only a notable blog, but a blog with the power to confer notability? Really, if we think notability can be expressed with an Alexa ranking under 100,000, how would a blog with an Alexa over 225,000 be able to confer notability? Does the blog with the 225,000 Alexa rank link to a previously non-notable webcomic and suddenly the webcomic is going to realistically have an Alexa under 100,000? That doesn't seem logical. Throw on top of that the logic-stretching of "User:Eric Burns came up with a standard for webcomic notability, but Wikipedia consensus was User:Eric Burns's ideas on notability weren't right, so therefore we came up with a new standard that included the idea that anything User:Eric Burns says he likes on his blog is notable"? That doesn't seem right. And then throw on top of that the fact that User:Eric Burns is blogging on how "Patrick Farley being purged is downright stupid. And it highlights the core problem with Wikipedia." So he's blogging about what ought to be in Wikipedia, and we're seriously considering using his blog to determine what goes in Wikipedia? Why don't we just make User:Eric Burns super duper Wikipedia Admin or something? That'll save me the effort of having to check his blog everytime I make an AfD to find out whether I'm downright stupid or not. I'm also not sure we should be taking Wikipedia-editing cues from a blogger that can't tell whether the Patrick Farley article has been deleted or not before going off on a rant. In closing, let me suggest that if there were a blog or message board about something silly like Star Trek episodes that only had an Alexa rank of 225,000 and had somewhere around 50 active members I don't think we'd even be considering using it to determine encyclopedic notability. Dragonfiend 08:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I was going to say something to the effect that we "need" critical sources, particularly in the case of something which has almost nothing in the criteria going for it, but it's still notable. And the problem is that Websnark et al are basically the best we have in that field (and if they *wanted* to significantly manipulate Wiki they'd have to put in a fair amount of effert per comic). But I concede the point yet echo Snowspinner's desire for an explicit "other" criteria (as I don't want this taken as pseudo-CSD criteria, like WP:MUSIC is). Nifboy 14:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind though, that the hypothetical webcomic that you describe "which has almost nothing in the criteria going for it" must therefore have "something" in the criteria going for it, which is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. "There are several criteria listed here; any one of them, properly verified, should be taken as evidence of notability." So besides all the the troubling issues that the inclusion of such sites poses, I don't see any negatives to not including the sites. I just don't think a notable webcomic is one that can't build a large readership, can't get covered in mainstream media, can't get published, can't join a syndicate, and whose only claim to fame is "I was reviewed by Comixpedia." Dragonfiend 21:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wouldn't call it an abuse of power, because I'm assuming good faith on the part of everyone involved. However, I agree there is a potential conflict of interest here that is not a good thing. Friday (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Subject expertise is not a conflict of interest. Snowspinner 03:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
As long as you reveal your connection to the subject of an article, that should be enough to keep you honest. Like I told everyone I'm a member of the Unification Church before writing extensively about it - or about Rev. Moon.
Now, if the "expert" who worked for a company started an edit war about that company, well, I wouldn't take his side. I'd expect him to show a little modesty and back off. I've never gotten into an edit war about my church. I'm too stinkin' proud to stoop to that level. Uncle Ed 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • But if, for example, you proposed that certain writings of the Unification Church were a valid source of criticims of Rev. Moon, and you were on the editorial board of those writings? We're looking at a certain degree of tail-swallowing.
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You know, in most academic fields we express pride in things we edited, and cite from it. Were I to cite my own articles directly, that would be one thing. But citing something from a publication I am affiliated with is considered wholly fair game within academia, and doesn't require so much as a disclaimer. Snowspinner 03:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I do have some passing familiarity with academia. The problem is that we have no external source by which to judge the reputability of the source. If I write for The American Journal of Physics, even if I am on the editorial board, I am still able to cite it as a credible source for articles about physics in general. We're being asked here to take as whole cloth the reputability and reliability of a source that appears entirely self-contained. Star trek fancruft has legions of followers, notability within its own circle, and wide internet readership. We would not, however, accept the word of a single "expert" on fancruft as to the relative importance of a cruft-hosting website. WP:CITE, that's all.
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely citing info from your own expert writing for an article is appropriate, and it would be appropriate to cite stuff you've written for AfD's too. The concern is linking an "automatic notability" guideline directly to something a Wikipedian with an active interest in the issue can/does write articles in. While I assume good faith, that is a very substantial conflict of interest. -- SCZenz 04:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
That is absurd and offensive - as someone who is working hard to build an academic career and resume such that I can get a good teaching position at a quality university, the suggestion that I would even consider using my scholarly writing as a soapbox to win deletion debates on Wikipedia is, frankly, a gross personal attack. Snowspinner 04:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I apologise for any offense. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not suggesting that you'd do any such that but simply that it's not good practice to accept sources linked in this manner without some verification of outside standards. All I want is a non-incestous reference. I don't care if the damned thing is named Snowspinner's Empire if I can see some way to verify it's credibility outside the fact that it self referentally tell me it's good. Has it occured to you at all that you might be a little close to this? A lepidopterist is the person I'd want to identify a moth for me, but not to tell me how important moths are.
    brenneman(t)(c) 04:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You would prefer someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? An odd demand, to say the least. But this misses the point - the idea that expertise is a conflict of interest, or that I might, in SCZenz's words, "write a detailed article on a webcomic especially because it was in danger of being deleted" is offensive to the point where it serves only to poison the well against further discussion. Snowspinner 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Very simply put, the issue is about trust. Brenneman and others don't trust you not to simply indicate, as Mr. Burns tried to, that almost every single webcomic is notable just by waving your Magic Wand of Expertise +1. Nifboy 05:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If I've gave the appearance that this is about Snowspinner personally I am sorry. I assume good faith with him, but can't accept the situation in general. -brenneman(t)(c) 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Well then I suppose this is a conflict that isn't going to settle, since there's nothing I can do about that. Snowspinner 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not trying to poison the discussion, but you yourself have linked pages on these sites that explicitly recommend changing/fighting Wikipedia policy, or frustration with it [7]. You seem to be asking us to give an internet community outside of Wikipedia the authority to make decisions about Wikipedia's contents, and for it to have an awareness of that power, when it cares a lot about what Wikipedia does. Academic journals don't care what's in Wikipedia, but in fact these websites are not academic journals, and their contents is not scholarly writing. It is informed writing, by people in the business, and probably comparable to Sean Carroll's physics blog. But believe it or not, if Professor Carroll, who I love to death and had class with once, started talking on his blog about what physics coverage Wikipedia should have, I would not accept his blog as a source. I would read his views carefully and judge them for myself, and I would expect other Wikipedia editors to do the same. -- SCZenz 06:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
For all that, I'm not committed to opposing the criteria as I originally wrote them. But the situation is odd, and does have the potential in principle for abuse, and I think that has to be aknowledged and discussed. -- SCZenz 06:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
First off, I am not affiliated with any webcomic publication. I still prefer the guidelines as SCZenz originally posted them. I believe Comixpedia, et al are, for the most part, good indicators of what's popular, and I'm not terribly concerned about conflicts of interest. If a site got in the habit of publishing articles on comics in response to every entry that came up for deletion, its credibility with AfD voters wouldn't last long. If something like that did start happening, though, I would definitely support removing the offending publication from the notability guidelines. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
There's some sense to that. I also don't expect anything like that to happen; I apoligize if my earlier remarks (some of which were written with limited time) implied that I thought misuse of those criteria was likely or planned—I had really only intended to agree that it was technically possible and therefore worth discussion. -- SCZenz 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • More on Comixpedia: Comixpedia's publisher Xerexes has written [8] the following: "I just discovered tonight, however, that former Comixpedia contributor and all-around webcomics genius John Barber does not have a wikipedia entry. If anyone can fix this please post an entry for Mr. Barber at the wikipedia ..." (The bolding is mine.)Clearly, we should not have a criteria that says a website that is so blatantly stumping for Wikipedia articles about their own contributors should be used to determine whether a subject should get a Wikipedia article. Dragonfiend 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:WEB and forking

Upon further consideration, this is clearly a split discussion from WP:WEB. I am about to be very bold...
brenneman(t)(c) 22:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yow. Not fixing double redirects because that will be harder to back out. But before you scream have a good think. There was already a webcomics section in the other proposed guideline that had the out-of-date proposal. What if that one passed and this one didn't, for example? - brenneman(t)(c) 22:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
We've had no screaming, and a some people posting here as if nothing happened, so in a few hours I'll fix all the re-directs. To give time for any protests to filter in. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this is ok; however, I will not support restricting the guidelines more because of a possibly-different group at WP:WEB. The webcomics policy must be a compromise between the two sides, with provisions that nobody's completely happy with, or it will be unenforcable. -- SCZenz 01:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It just seemed silly to have two. I love "with provisions that nobody's completely happy with", by the way!
    brenneman(t)(c) 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Killing points

Since I don't think further rehashing of the same points is going to get us anywhere, I will be simple here.

The following are deal-breakers for me, and I am unable to support or accept any webcomics inclusion guidelines that contain them: All syndicated comics must be included. Webcomics Examiner, Comixpedia, and Websnark must all be taken as signs of notability. Broad community consensus instead of just the people who have been arguing this point endlessly must be sought. There must be an explicit note in the guidelines that they are not an exclusive list of all reasons a webcomic might be worth including. Snowspinner 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously broard community consensus will be sought—you can't call it a guideline otherwise. I already asked how to do this here. I agree with you on many of your points, but not all of them. I am willing to compromise—are you? -- SCZenz 06:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Mention the page on the mailing list, WP:VP, and on Wikipedia:Goings-on. Snowspinner 15:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the mailing list. What's the address, can is there a way to send something to it via Wikipedia itself? Is there a page about it somewhere? -- SCZenz 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
WP:ML may have what we're after? Dragonfiend 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To address Snowspinner's "Killing Points," let me first say that these don't seem to be posted in a spirit of collaboration, cooperation, compromise, or consensus-building. On the topic of "all syndicates must be included," I believe I've raised issues and examples to show why this idea is troubling (not all comics on a notable, professional syndicate are necessarily notable; not all of the syndicates we've listed are notable or professional) but I am willing to accept the compromise of requiring 3 months on these syndicates as a measure of notability. On the idea that "Comixpedia, and Websnark must all be taken as signs of notability," I believe I've raised extremely troubling issues of not just the notability of these sites themselves, but also their ability to determine the notability of other sites, as well as rather blatant conflicts of interest as desires to manipulate wikipedia. I haven't seen any compromises suggested at resolving this, and am interested in what others may come up with. On needing "an explicit note in the guidelines that they are not an exclusive list," the article already reads, "This page seeks to establish some criteria to define notability. However, please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, 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." I think this sounds good, but do you, Snowspinner, have an idea for a better way to phrase this idea? Dragonfiend 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I am unable to continue in a good-faith discussion with somebody who continually accuses me of being someone who would use my academic writing to advance a personal agenda on Wikipedia. Snowspinner 23:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "Would" and "Could" are two different words. Since the entire discussion is theoretical at this point we can only discuss the possibility that you or any other Wiki-inclined editor to whom we give this power also have the capacity to abuse it. And you're getting hung up on that single issue and interpreting a lack of trust as a personal attack. Nifboy 01:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes. Shocking that I find being told I'm not trustworthy in my career offensive, I know. Snowspinner 07:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Snowspinner, can you clarify what you mean by academic writing...? Are you referring to potential academic papers, which I don't think anyone has mentioned in this discussion, or your writing on Comixpedia (or similar sites)? -- SCZenz 06:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Although Comixpedia/Examiner writing is popular press, it's still something that is listed on my C.V. Snowspinner 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Art critics for the New York Times don't claim that it's academic writing, even if they are academics, but they'd sure as hell have it on their C.V. I think characterizing their expert writing, or yours, as "academic" is unaccurate. I hope you'll forgive me the sidetrack to clarify this; the difference seems potentially substantive in the current discussion. -- SCZenz 07:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, what are you looking for then? The work I'm doing for the Examiner is in the same vein and conversation as my academic writing, only with less jargon and less theory. I intend to adapt some of those writings into "proper" academic arguments. There are people on the Examiner staff that I would send articles to for peer review ont he journal I work on. Snowspinner 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm not looking for anything, I'm just trying to understand. -- SCZenz 07:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Snowspinner, I apologize if I have implied that your conflict of interest will necessarily result in abuse. I don't know you personally, and have no intention of insulting you personally. Any abuses of the conflicts of interest here, by you or others, are obviously potential future events that none of us can be sure of. We can, however, try to craft a proposal that avoids their abuse. As a suggestion to you, I think you may want to consider that it may be your conflict of interest which is personalizing this issue so much for you. Despite your conflict of interest, I would hope that you can continue in this discussion in good faith, just as I have continued this discussion in good faith after your failure to disclose your conflict of interest as well as your previous unapologetic descent into profanity, incivility, and descriptions of how "Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, this debate pisses the hell out of" you and makes you "really feel" "like killing." If I can assume the best of intentions behind those actions, surely you can trust that my disclosure of your conflict of interest was in the best interests of helping us craft the best possible proposal here. So, again, my pointing out your conflict of interest was not meant to be and and should not be taken as a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it sounded like one. Dragonfiend 19:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


A modest webcomic proposal

Personally, I'm not so much concerned about the apparent conflict of interest as I am about the apparent conflict of personalities that is going on here. It's rather obvious that several people here have been debating this so long that they now hate each other. I think there is one thing that they all agree on though: on the subject of the Examiner, Websnark and Comixpedia.com... all observers seem to agree that it's fairly obvious that the webcomics community really HAS no significant, peer-reviewed, academic journal that exists.

However, even Dragonfiend, who seems rather jaded to the idea of including webcomics in Wikipedia at all, must agree about the role that the various webcomics "journals" play in establishing comics as "A-league". Unfortunately, as I mention, the amount of authors available in this field is limited, and the possibilities of conflict of interest abound.

This is a problem, then, if we are to include comics based on "significant, detailed coverage in an editorially-written section of one of the major sources devoted to webcomics." With this wording, Gossamer Commons or "Brigadier General John Stark" could be included simply because it is written about by Eric Burns in Websnark. Despite the fact that Gossamer Commons and "Brigadier General John Stark" is Burns' own comics. Definite conflict of interest.

So how about this: we put in a conflict of interest clause? There really is no better option, as I see it, considering that the webcomics community is so small there is a natural incestuous relationship among most webcomics. So the rewritten point goes something like this (excuse my poor wording... perhaps someone can write something better):

Coverage within the webcomics community. If a webcomic has significant, detailed coverage in an editorially-written section of a combination of the major sources devoted to webcomics, or has warranted continuing mention in a single source, it should be included. Due to the subjective/popular nature of all these sources, and the relatively small size of the webcomics community, it is recognized that the issue of conflict-of-interest may arise. If articles from said sources that are written about a comic under consideration are seen to be promotional in a "conflict-of-interest" manner, this category for inclusion must be disregarded as a means of viewing a comic as notable (ie. A comic must become notable under its own power, not because of a self-interested comic author/writer).

Popular webcomic sources currently include:

   * Comixpedia.com (.org is the wiki)
   * The Webcomics Examiner
   * Websnark


---

Secondy, in the matter of Dragonfiend vs. Snowspinner... you BOTH have devolved into slinging insults back and forth. In my opinion, even the supposed apology from Dragonfiend above does not avoid this unseemly trend. I would caution you both to put on better behaviour. Tedzsee 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Even though I don't entirely agree with your assesment of the conflict, Tedzee, I very much appreciate this effort at compromise. I think the proposal is workable, although I'd change the wording to make it a bit less ambiguous. -- SCZenz 21:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I have nothing particularly worth saying except that I agree with this in just about every way. Nifboy 21:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not - there is no conflict of interest, and the assumption of bad faith in the accusation remains wholly unacceptable. And the "combination" requirement is equally absurd.
^ Well, Mr. Anonymous, the reasoning behind it is as follows:

a) We put bad faith only because there is the possibility that it could happen. I do not necessary say that it will happen, but we should protect against it. Once again, in reality, I would tend to assume good faith, and nothing in the wording (at least as I read it) suggests that the sources should be viewed in a NEGATIVE light. b) I say "combination" or "continuing coverage" for the following reason: One mention in passing should not constitute coverage any more than, say, one article in the New York Times would make someone notable. Usually, a combination of sources is required, or a substantial amount of coverage in one source, for something to be considered notable. As for my final paragraph regarding the two people who have been debating considerably, I withdraw that with strikethroughs for obvious reasons. Suffice it to say that I am saddened to see what could be construed as a large amount of personal attacks by various folks on this messageboard. Tedzsee 22:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/t/Wikipedia_talk%7ENotability_%28websites%29_Archive_01_3bc3.html"