Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comixpedia.org

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was Redirect — 9 votes redirect (delete/redirect included), 4 votes merge, 3 votes delete and 1 vote abstain — the page will be made a redirect to Comixpedia --Gareth Hughes 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comixpedia.org

A POV essay about how Wikipedia has refused to accept WP:COMIC as gospel disguised as an article about a website with an Alexa rating of 348,296. As the article stands it fails WP:NOR and if cleaned up it does not meet WP:WEB standards for notability. 207.136.11.122 00:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- it appears to be a mirror of [1], the article presents a one-sided criticism of Wikipedia, it unsalvageably fails WP:NPOV, and in its current form, has no place in the article namespace. --Mysidia (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


  • COMMENT from author... this is not a POV Essay. The critical commentary in the article is intended to document the creation of a webcomic encyclopedia and the reasons for such a creation, not to argue a point. In fact, the article is not critical in and of itself, but rather documents criticisms that have been raised. This documentation takes the form of both paraphrasing and quoting cited sources. At no point does the article itself make an argument about Wikipedia. If it is interpreted as doing so, that was not the idea and I apologize. However, actually reading the article should show that this is the case quite clearly. Many of the reasons the Comixpedia encyclopedia was created had to do with the feelings of failure that existed in some way or another by members of the Wikipedian community in regards to the WP:COMIC.


As for the idea of this site not meeting web standards of notability, please take into account the following:
  1. This comic encyclopedia is linked to by several pages in the Wikipedian webcomic project pages as an alternate venue for webcomic pages that are found to not be sufficiently notable for this encyclopedia.
  2. This site is owned by Comixpedia.com, a site that is notable enough in the webcomic community to both have an Alexa rating of "181,818" and be listed in Wikipedia.
  3. The site has only been operational for 2 months, which serves to deter it from having a high Alexa rating.
  4. The site was born out of criticisms raised by the writer Eric Burns of the popular Websnark blog site. Both of which are listed in Wikipedia and are seen as notable in the webcomics community.
Additionally: As for the argument that this piece is "original research" article and fails to meet WP:NOR standards, this is a baseless accussation. All the facts documented in the article are available at one of the following sources:

These sources are cited in the article itself. Rather than hitting delete so early, why not suggest improvements to the article if you feel it is not adequate.

ALSO OF NOTE: the idea that this article is a copy should not be a problem under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Obviously, I hope that this article will be added to by the Wikipedian webcomics community. Another idea: If you feel the article is not worthy on its own, it may be a good idea to merge the information contained in this article with that in Comixpedia.com's article, as the sites are owned by the same company... in fact, it appears someone has already created a section in that article for Comixpedia.org (not me), so perhaps this information can be merged and incorporated there if editors feel that this article is not worth its own page.

--Tedzsee 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Molotov (talk) eImage:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
  • Abstain - I'm ambivalent about whether Comixpedia.org is an encyclopedic subject or not, but this is, as written, overly self-referential to Wikipedia, as it seems to focus more on the controversy that lead to the creation of WebcomicsWiki than the actual creation and history of WebcomicsWiki. The POV issues can be fixed, but first the article needs to be rewritten to be more about the site and less about the (largely unimportant in a larger sense) controversy. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Response: Regarding your above comment... That has to do with the fact that the site has been up for only a short while. As the site grows, this will obviously (hopefully) be resolved. Also, as writing about the creation of the site would be undocumented-- THAT would certainly qualify as original research, and thus make this an unencyclopedic article. I tried to write the article using sourced material to avoid it being judged as original research and failing the WP:NOR provision. As I said, it probably makes sense to just merge this with the appropriate section in the Comixpedia article more than anything. I'd do it myself now, but I don't want to open myself to criticisms of running or whatnot. --Tedzsee 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge with section "Comixpedia.org" of Comixpedia article. Just to make my vote official. --Tedzsee 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete & redirect to Comixpedia, as that article's summary of the comixpedia.org wiki is sufficient --Anetode 06:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Why even bother arguing on this one. This is not encyclopdia caliber stuff. The author should take up his beef with the public relations department or somesuch and really, spare us all the pain of this debate. WP is not a crystal ball.--Gaff talk 10:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What's with the personal attacks. I HAVE NO BEEF! sheesh! This article documents the formation of a service that was created. That is all. my goodness, you people have a stick in your eye or something. --Tedzsee 15:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
For the comfort of Tedzee and everyone interested in this debate, I will withdraw my vote and abstain from further discussion. I have striken out my above comments, which were not meant intended as personla attack.--Gaff talk 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Perhaps I took the comment too personally? However, it was written quite harshly. Either way, thank you for your positive attitude prevailing. --Tedzsee 22:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete ranting and create a new redirect to Comixpedia. No encyclopedic content to salvage here. —Cryptic (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
How is it ranting? It documents a series of ARTICLES written. Those articles were essays found on the site Websnark. What you interpret as ranting is sourced material. --Tedzsee 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cryptic. Article is unintelligible to anyone but Wikipedians; can't stay in mainspace. --A D Monroe III 15:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
As rewritten stub by Splash, conent is now okay, but I now vote to delete based on being non-notable. --A D Monroe III 15:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Forget it. I will add the appropriate material to the main comixpedia article and delete all the rest. --Tedzsee 15:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with comixpedia. Wow Tedzsee, sorry you've had to go through so much of this of late. Merge it into the comixpedia article as a separate section, having a .org and .com article, both run by the same company seems kind of superfluous. I kind of like the webcomic wiki, I've mentioned it loads in various Afds, and although it's new, I would bet that it becomes a haven for the webcomic community. - Hahnchen 16:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Tedzsee. not to be taken personally, but I fail to see the need for seperate articles. Jesse 18:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't take anything personally. In fact, I didn't know that a .org section had been created in the Comixpedia entry when I created this article. Otherwise I simply would have added the info there. So, in fact, I agree that two articles aren't needed. What I do take personally is accusations that I tried to write a biased article or something. It certainly documents a bias, but I don't think the article itself is biased, and it does provide valid information about the reasons behind the creation of the WebcomicsWiki. Notice that the wikipedians who are real visitors of the WP:COMIC section of the site are the ones who are providing the most valid and knowledgeable discussion. Those are: Hahnchen and A Man In Black (conspire | past ops)
  • I've replaced it with an NPOV-stub. Article space is emphatically not where we carry rants on Wikipedia guidelines. Do that either on the guideline's talk page or in your userspace. I nevertheless would strongly delete my own stub because it's a brand new website that has yet to meet any kind of notability bar. -Splashtalk 21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    Once again, I would suggest you read the article. You emphatically argue that the article is a rant, I emphatically argue the opposite. The site was formed because of disagreement with Wikipedia guidelines. The original article documents that disagreement with cited sources and points to 2 outside articles. The original article does not attempt to say who is RIGHT or WRONG in the dispute. Also, replacing the article with a stub does not allow voters to see the original article. --Tedzsee 23:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    I did read the article. I don't participate in AfD without doing so. And rewriting the article has turned into something that is at least not s writing out of someone's disagreement with a Wikipedia policy. Everybody has a history button, and is able to use it with a click of a button. It is everyday practise to rewrite an article during AfD, and is positively encouraged. As I said, such commentary on one persons view of a formative guideline belongs either on that guideline's talk page or in userspace. We avoid self-references in article space, and even if we allowed this one, it would be a hopeless POV article since it wouldn't include any other POV. If it did, it would immediately duplicate the proposal's talk page, so we go full circle. -Splashtalk 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia article. -Sean Curtin 07:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia --Rogerd 03:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia. Regarding Tedzee's precedent below, I actually think it's better to just say something was founded by disaffected Wikipedia members. If you have criticisms of Wikipedia guidelines in an article, you can't make it NPOV without including the other side also. And Wikipedia articles are not the place to argue about Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore I can't really see how to include the original discussion of concerns while keeping the article in line with Wikipedia policy. -- SCZenz 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia. There's hardly enough left of the article to even call it a merge. -Abe Dashiell 12:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note:

  • PRECEDENCE: I recently found precedence for this sort of article at Wikipedia. Please see Star Wars Wiki. It both references Wikipedia and notes the same sort of complaints that I document in my article. The difference? My sites are sourced and relevant material is cited to document the dispute. If anything, I'd say the other article is more unencyclopedic. Either way, neither article is presenting an argument that Wikipedia is bad... they're just saying that because of certain frustrations users decided to go elsewhere. --Tedzsee 02:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as there's nothing left to merge. Saberwyn 03:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I found amusing that some people think comixpedia.org is nonotable and pov when there are many reason to say it is notable and not Pov. Oblivously some people don't read debate. As a mattter of fact, our ranking for 1 week aveage is 99,133 which clearly make us more notable than asserted.[3]--Kiba 23:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.