Talk:The noob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Current location of The noob

I have requested that the article be placed in my userspace, so we can continue to edit it, improve it, and hopefully re-submit it for publication. Any help or improvements to the article can be done here. I look forward to your help in making this article worthy of inclusion. Timmccloud 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Current location of The noob 2 Deletion 3 Deletion Log 4 Attacks on Webcomics. 5 Disappointment 6 Unwarranted deletion 7 Two quick questions re: the noob 8 Merged from Talk:The Noob 9 Can we make the protected page more useful?

[edit] Deletion

I am going to make a note about this deletion;

This article should not have been deleted, as a thorough reading of the AfD discussion shows that it could not be proven that this is a non-notable comic. It has been published on independant sites and has won webcomic awards. Just two months ago it was decided that this was a notable comic, and I fail to see how this has changed in the time between the two AfDs.

Infact the only difference I can see is that the most recent AfD has had a large amount of sockpuppet activity. This leads me to believe that this article was not deleted due to a lack of notability, but rather out of spite for those who would dare break wikipedia rules. Infact this was mentioned in the deletion review as being a source of irritation for some of the pro-deletion editors. So, please spare us the whole encyclopedic standards and non-notablilty line. Luckyherb 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, from Wikipedia's own notability guidelines:

Notability can be established from a subject's presence in published works, and:

"What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc."

It can be argued that the sites on which The Noob has been mentioned are published works, which should automatically have protected it from deletion, right? I'm not sure why there's any argument here, or why The Noob has been targeted for deletion. I have yet to hear a reason other than "it's not notable," whereas by Wikipedia's guidelines, it most certainly is. tierus 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Log

Can someone link the deletion discussion? I can only find the one from December 2006. - BondGamer 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (Second nomination) Rasmus (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#The_noob. --Martin

[edit] Attacks on Webcomics.

This comic held the number 1 position on Topwebcomics.com

Just how notable does a webcomic need to be, to be allowed to exist? I think its getting rather pathetic how they are being targeted. Shadowlost8 06:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

it comes down to a definition of notability. How you define notability is different from how I define notability, which is different from how Dragonfiend and NetOracle define notability. While according with the strict Wikipedia definition of notability, many of the webcomic articles do not belong on Wikipedia, many are merely improperly source. However, following the policy strictly, many other articles are not being deleted. It comes down to a few people noticing that webcomics are not meeting notability requirements and then purging (for lack of a better term) the genre.

The strife comes in when people see this happening, and argue that something is wrong. Perhaps they have a different interpretation of Wikipedia's notability standard, or they think Wikipedia's standards need redefining. I fit into the latter group. I believe Timmccloud fits into the first, but I may be wrong. CKnapp 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment

Please sign your posts with (~~~~)

I'm very disappointed with the way this deletion has been done. My attempts to point out that deletion was in fact against wikipedia policies using those same policies for my arguments seemed to have little or no effect. In fact no rebuttal was given to my arguments which I found even more surprising. In this light I am unable to take Wikipedia seriously, not as a form of protest but simply because it is unreliable. -- Livinginabox 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am dissapointed, frustrated, shocked and appalled as well. Timmccloud 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am also very dissapointed. It seems to me that Admins can do what ever they want, including ignoring policy. Also the fact that they ignore comments by new users who oppose the deletions but take notice of people such as NetOracle is very frustrating.

• I also find it very sad that the noob comic was deleted from wikipedia especially since it is read by online players all over the globe.

• I agree - this deletion was wrong.

[edit] Unwarranted deletion

Anyone can take a brief look over of The Noob and see that it is a web comic -- it doesn't take any special knowledge to see that it is one. Anyone who knows what a comic is generically would recognize it to be one and deleting only reduces the usefulness of wikipedia and demonstrates a lack of regard for reality.

I find the entire 'notable' concept to be highly arbitrary and if there is to be such thing as notability for an online resource then clearly it needs better oversight than is currently implemented and probably a redefinition of terms, a state of scope and a statement of purpose to qualify it. Without this the entire effort behind Wikipedia degenerates into a trivial smattering of interpretations, opinions and ego inspired agendas.

A single instance of opinion of what constitutes value should not be grounds for the removal something from what is a global audience -- that it can happen reveals a huge problem in how editing takes place here.

I say bring back the article and put the editing energies into more useful arenas.

Flirnodale 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument isn't that it isn't a webcomic. Those responsible for the deletion argue that many webcomics (The Noob included) do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.

While I understand the point, I think the whole issue is that webcomics represent a different cultural niche than any other. Webcomics do not hold to any authorities. Since there are so many different genres encompassed by webcomics, making an authority (similar to the respected gaming magazines and sites) on all webcomics would be kind of like making an authority on the top computer/video/board/card/live-action games. The difference is that while there are so many webcomics, very few of them are actually noteworthy, even among the webcomic community. So, it would be more like taking the top two games from each of these gaming media, and trying to make a respected authority on them. There would be no interest in such a website, which explains why those webcomic blogs/listings that do exist are not respected: either it is too easy to add something, making it a non-notable source, or there is no reason to go to the site.

Basically, as people on both sides of the "Webcomic debate" are saying, there needs to be an official Wikipedia policy on the notability of webcomics. However, it seems that no progress is being made in that direction. Currently I am busy with real life, but this is a real conflict within the editing community, and as soon as I have the time, I will put more effort into trying to find a resolution to the problem. Most of the deleted comic pages are still intact on user pages, so those that fit any criteria we may agree upon can quickly be reinstalled.

Just a note: it is not the sole position of the vocal audience that many of these comics should be deleted. Had they been the only people with that view, CKnapp 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Noob itself isn't really what moved me to comment here (although I admit that it is one of the few webcomics that I follow on a weekly basis anymore) -- it is the entire issue of how notability is ascertained for articles covering items that lack any widely (notably?) recognized standard for 'notability'. Webcomics cannot be unique in this position and how policy here is enacted sets precedence for similar problems that will take place in the future.

This concerns me. This is what will influence the general users that are like myself as to the degree to which I refer to Wikipedia as a reference and the weight that I attribute to it as a reference source. I understand the concern of quality versus quantity; I've only recently began to observe precisely how it effects the content and availability/visibility of information on Wikipedia. I will observe with interest how these types of debates are resolved.

Flirnodale 15:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two quick questions re: the noob

Note of Origin - This is copied from a thread that I started on User_talk:GRBerry who was the DRV administrator. I think it has some very appropriate information on this discussion I would like to share. Timmccloud 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• What is an appropriate period of time to wait before I can request an admin to remove the creation protection on the noob and re-instate the dramatically improved copy of The noob? Particularly in the light that the major reason to delete it was that the WCCA itself was "not notable" and this has since been overturned with the Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards being relisted.
• Might I have you expand on your reasoning for endorsing the deletion, when the discussion in my mind was clearly moving to no consensus? I cannot fathom that a 40kb discussion of keep vs delete means that consensus endorsed the deletion, and I would value your input to understand what happened.

I would appreciate any of your time spent on helping me with these two questions. Timmccloud 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll tackle the second bullet first. I didn't opine in or close the deletion review, so I can't expand on my reasoning for closing as endorse deletion. But I can look at the review with fresh eyes, and offer a few thoughts:

1. IP editors are essentially always ignored in the counts (to the extent DRV is a vote count), though if they have novel and relevant arguments we do listen to those arguments. Because DRV is closer to a vote than AFD is, we have to be extra suspicious of IP editors, as there is no way to tell if they are the same editor as signed in editors without going fishing at checkuser, which declines fishing expedition requests. So while in an AFD such users may be ignored, in a DRV they should be ignored. All the IP editors were on the overturn side.
2. Single purpose accounts are treated like IP users for identical reasons, so users like User:Livinginabox (and possibly others) would be disregarded for the same reason. (When I'm closing a DRV and suspect vote-stacking to be occurring, I'll evaluate every participant that I don't already know on this test - just look at their contribs. I don't know if this was a factor actually applied or to whom, but I think it should have been and at least that one user should have been disqualified.)
3. I usually will ignore bare votes. In this case there was one endorse I'd have ignored.
4. I may ignore opinions that are solely AFD round 2 arguments, as opposed to deletion review arguments. In this DRV, only the IP editors (disregarded for other reasons above) offered opinions consisting only of AFD round 2 arguments, so this point wouldn't have mattered.
5. The final clincher for me - no consensus at deletion review defaults to endorsing an AFD close (or listing at AFD a speedy deletion). I'd have written a different closure summary had I closed this, probably "no consensus to overturn; the AFD close stands" or something like that, but it would depend on exactly who I determined to be a single purpose account. (The prior regular closer prefers a wording that doesn't use "consensus", instead using "majority of qualified opinions" or something similar.

That done, moving on to your first point. Whether the WCCA is notable or not is not particularly relevant - the awards as a group can be notable without any particular award being noted to make the recipient notable, or the award could be non-notable yet a particular award in a particular year was noted for some reason, conferring notability on the recipient of that particular award. An award can be sufficiently well-known to be notable enough to support an article on the award without being well-known enough to create notability for award winners.

Notability comes from independent and reliable published sources with non-trivial content about the article's topic, not from a connection to something else notable. Such sources are the basic building blocks of an article. My advice is to try following the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test, forgetting all the old article text, and writing an article using only facts that you can cite to the independent and reliable sources. (That doesn't look to be the the article in your userspace right now.)

Once you have what you think is a better article that solves the problems leading to deletion (here, sources, sources, sources), talk it over with Nearly Headless Nick - if he blesses it, and notes that on the new articles talk page, you should be safe from WP:CSD#G4. If he isn't interested, talk it over with me and I'll give you my two cents on what I think should be done. After such an article is reviewed, then expand with the content from reliable published sources that are not independent (such as the webcomic's website, author, publishers, etc...). Bringing it back to deletion review right away, without new sources, is going to be fruitless.

Finally, you may have some interest in the draft essay at User:GRBerry/DRVGuide that I've been working up with a little help from others. GRBerry 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly want to thank you for the thoroughness of your reply and the effort you put into it. Your observations are very fair. The only one item I take a little issue with, is that discounting the opinion of people who take the time and effort to enter the waters of Wikipedia for the very first time because something compels them to comment, seems to be getting a little close to biting the noobs, but that's entirely my opinion, and I can see the reasoning behind it (and I apologize for the pun, couldn't help myself :). As for getting a fair shake from the deleting administrator, well that's just unfortunate, as I have stretched my assumption of good faith as far as I can with NHN. Because of my opinions on the matter, and the current RfC that NHN has open, I sincerely doubt that I would ever get him to agree to unprotect the article. That makes me pretty sad - this whole issue has really made me question if I can in good faith to continue to give my time and effort here, because I think this AfD / DRV / RfC has left me pretty dissapointed in the neutrality and professionalism of the entire process. This was the second AfD for the noob, both were nominated by NetOracle, an admitted opponent of webcomics, and I thought that first one was rough, little did I know. But I again want to thank you for your time and effort. Timmccloud 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at any new version of the article you create. I have concerns about how the notability guidelines are being applied to webcomics and, while I am not under any circumstances going to "wheel war" with my fellow administrators, I'd be glad to look at a new article a few weeks from now with an open mind. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad so much. At this point, I won't be putting User:Timmccloud/The_noob up for inclusion any time soon, until I can provide almost unassailable proof of notability - I don't have it in me for another contested AfD on the same topic, not for a while. Timmccloud 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Even though it was only my first set of posts the way I was treated (ignored) does not lead me to become very enthousiastic about continuing on wikipedia as an editor. Also, ignoring (good) argumentation does not reflect poorly on me I think, but it does raise concerns about possible biased administration which is even worse. Please note that I base this on GRBerry's response above which seems to indicate this behaviour could be intentional. -- Livinginabox 13:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged from Talk:The Noob

I moved this here to avoid duplication --Martin

One day The Noob will be put back. It holds a wealth of online game playing history from the 1990's onwards. Even if this is just put under Web Comics it has a place in human history for all the people that go to the site each day to check for updates. It is part of my life, and I'm sure it is for other people. Is this like THHGTTG and there being "a limited amount of space in the book"? Wikipedia can't be running out of space to the point where it has to delete this when you leave in the page where some New Zealander puts my father in.

---

After what I just read why this article was deleted I'd like you to review the List_of_webcomics for I see a lot less known or famous webcomics than The Noob on this list. --87.79.237.60 10:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we make the protected page more useful?

I'd like to link the protected page to User:Timmccloud/The noob. Something like this:

(feel free to edit the above to improve it)