Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Talk archives for Wikipedia:Notability (web) (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 8 >>

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 02 November 2005 and 11 December 2005.

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

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

Contents

Massive refactoring

Previous discussion

This was fifty closely printed pages. A large portion of this discussion was repetive, so I have summarised the debate to date.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to clear discussion that's only a week or two old, and ask that you reinstate at least the last few sections. Phil Sandifer 08:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and certainly won't object if anyone else wants to do so. I did make a link to the unexpurgated discussions at the very top of this page. However, I'm sure that you noticed that things were, well, venemous? A little fresh air couldn't hurt, and if you'll look over what was cleared not much was actually being said. And, by the way, why have you changed you sig? I was thrown until I realised that Snowspinner = Phil Sandifer. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Any .com forum with a more-or-less generic name, with a decent webmaster behind it, will be able to get 5,000 unique members easily. It's getting those 5,000 members to participate or post on that forum that is hard. Which is why I think that the 5,000 unique members should be changed to 5,000 unique, active members. x42bn6 Talk 08:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines for Websites

These points have met almost no resistance, however a few questions have been asked.

  1. Alexa <= 10,000
    • Does (for arguments' sake) a single day/week/month of ranking lower than this mean the site is "locked in"?
    • Historical data is preserved for how long by Alexa?
  2. Major media attention within the last 2 years
  3. Forum >= 5,000 members
    • How are these 5K defined? Active, total, etc.

Webcomics

These points have met almost very little resistance, again a few points could use clarification.

  1. Alexa <= 100K
    • A compelling argument for why webcomics get a much easier pass needs to be presented.
  2. Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community.
    • This is exactly as 2 above.

These points have not been well discussed, but have not proven "thorny" per se.

  1. Significant award.
    • How are these to be chosen? I.e. what's "significant"?
    • Will the list be explicit or tacit?
  2. Notable author.
    • When to merge, when to split?

These points have proven highly contentious.

  1. Membership in a syndicate.
  2. Top 20 in a large webcomic hosting service.

These topics are not currently in the proposal, however have been discussed, and are thus reproduced in full here.

  1. Having a printed collection listed at Amazon with a sales rank of 100,000 or better.
    • This would be in line with other Wikipedia guidelines regarding publication
    • Some questions regarding what constitutes "self published" in this area exist.
  2. 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

Open and/or hot items detailed

Discussion to date has been a trifle unproductive. Could we try to stay on task, assume good faith, be civil, and be concise?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Membership in a syndicate

  • Lots of comparison made to WP:MUSIC.
  • General feeling was that similar standards should be applied, and that as currently defined this wasn't it.
  • No comparison/distinction made between comics with something closer to traditional syndication (e.g. Carol Lay's Story Minute on Salon Magazine) with newer models (e.g. Dayfree press)
  • This looks unlikely to pass in it's current form

New discussion on this topic
  • To me, the issue boils down to whether admittance into X collective (Keenspot et al) is an acknowledgement of the strip's quality, thereby verifiably elevating it above its peers, to the point of notability. Modern Tales is the odd one out here because, by virtue of not giving away all its strips for free, Alexa rankings aren't as good an indicator of notability, and there's not much else for distinguishing between different MT strips, save the really obvious ones. Nifboy 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem I have with this one is small time collectives like Dayfree Press. This is not a commercial venture, but a collective of webcomics dedicated to mutual promotion of one another's wares. We've seen that some on this "syndicate" are quite popular and notable, others on it however, are not. And the only sort of notability offered, is "affiliated with Dayfree". How does one get onto Dayfree? Well, if the editor likes your comic, and he thinks it fills a gap in the portfolio, then you're in. Following those guidelines, would be like saying any band which were ever signed by a minor label would instantly be notable. Or any band that John Peel ever liked, was an instant include. Dayfree Press is made up of some notable comics, and some non notable ones, and they should be looked at individually, not with a blanket include all. - Hahnchen 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And failed aborted comics which happened to once appear at Graphic Smash, like Big Dick's Ball mentioned in the previous examples. No. I already am against the "every band ever signed" guideline, I am totally totally against "every band ever signed and then disbanded and were kicked out by theire record label" guideline, or "every author who although managed a a book publishing deal, never wrote more than 12 pages of his book" guideline. - Hahnchen 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Top 20 in a large webcomic hosting service

  • This met with mild objection in of itself, but suffered from being tied to "Membership in a syndicate" in discussion

Coverage within the webcomics community

  • Per above, this looks highly unlikely to move unless serious concessions are made all around.


Notable Achievements

I think being first or being significant in some innovative way should be included. While the first sprite comic (Mario's Forgotten Friends or something like that) would not pass the popularity test, it was notable for being first and Wiki should mention that in the spirit of providing an accurate history (and history is one of the main points of an encyclopedia). I also included being notable for a unique art style or story element, to make this one broad enough to cover whatever various innovations may be hit along the way.

Obviously, logic still applies: just because someone repackaged a magical girl comic doesn't make it innovative. But a comic that uses an art style from a culture that is not common on the web (like Korean Manhwa or Chinese manhua) definitely counts as notable. Ratings alone does not make art. Essentially the clause ensures that Wiki will have a home for comics that may represent the "Cubist" or "non-Euclidean" movements of their day. Xuanwu 02:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. When I am King [1] is the first example that springs to my mind. The question of course is how we determine what's groundbreaking. To use your "cubist" example, there are a tonne of failed art movements that shouldn't be included, so I'd expect that these would normally be covered by the W3 "media" criterion. My example was mentioned in Salon as groundbreaking. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Since we need to rely on verifiable outside sources as to whether a webcomic is groundbreaking, this new guideline is at best redundant with "Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community," and at worst an encouragement of original research and POV. I've tried to improve it, but I think it ought to be scrapped entirely. There are still problems with the guideline as written; "art style that is highly uncommon or of cultural significance" would seem to include every webcomic ever made. Dragonfiend 02:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Not ncessarily. The point of this criteria is to ensure that Wiki casts a sufficiently broad net so that its content does not exclude examples that are worth mentioning but may not fall into the other categories for inclusion. When this is applied, the main question to be asked is: "Does the art style/story style/etc. represent something notable enough for Wiki to include?" As I mentioned above, the first comic to use manhwa or manhua style would be an excellent addition to Wiki. But something involving stick figures would not. Coverage is not the same as notable characteristics. Besides, in general, it is best to err on the side of inclusion over exclusion, because inclusion means Wiki is a better source of information. Exclusion is highly contrary to Wiki's purpose. Xuanwu 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I put this back in (though modified). Why? Because comics that were first (such as the first web comic, first gaming comic, first sprite comic, etc.) may not qualify under the other above critera. Having this in there justifies the presence of these articles, which are important. For example, the first sprite comic (something with Super Mario Brothers) doesn't have a huge readership or coverage (let alone Alexa rank). But it was first, which counts for something. Since verifying if something was first can be done objectively, I think this can stay in there. Xuanwu 10:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Examples of comics sorted by criteria

The full list has been moved to Wikipedia:Websites/Example webcomics.

The results were

  1. Passes by criteria without serious opposition - 12
  2. Passes by criteria with only mild opposition - 8
  3. Passes by criteria with no consensus - 5
  4. Doesn't pass/ No information - 3

Thus, if we went with only the things that we can all agree on, we'd have captured 20 and missed 8. I'd thus like to propose that we consider moving forward with these "minimum conditions". - brenneman(t)(c) 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Any qualifications that would involve Cat and Girl being deleted is absurd from the perspective of serious coverag of webcomics. And any that would involve Able and Baker - a comic that just passed an AfD - demonstrably does not have the consent of the community. Phil Sandifer 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just bluster. I know that that's a bit uncivil, but go and have a look at that AfD. That comic passed based upon your opinion. Now if you are unable to provide anything of substance to back up that opinion, I am left with no other option but to doubt that your expertice is verifiable. We are not in the business here of taking people's word for things. We require that sources be cited so that others can check your work. Period. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
That your belief that I provided no evidence was not borne out by the community consensus does not seem to me to be a good reason to continue to insist that your opinion is correct. The fact of the matter is that the community backed keeping that article. The policy you are proposing is an overturning of community consensus - and recent community consensus at that. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You've already indicated that admins can override community consensus, so that's a double standard. And as has been indicated, it clearly wasn't a consensus. Nathan J. Yoder 17:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "I'm going to [...] believe Snowspinner on this one." Titoxd
  • "Keep per Philip Sandifer (User:Snowspinner)'s expert opinion." Tony Sidaway
  • "Keep per Snowspinner" - David Gerard
  • Etc etc etc
  • These people aren't saying that they believe the evidence you've presented, they are saying that they believe you. However, if you cannot do better than you have, which is to generally make claims without providing anything resembling a testable rationale, I think that you will lose that confidence.
  • You appear, if I may, to be resisting any attempt at compromise, have not to my recollection conceded a single point, are continue to refer to previous AfDs as if they were set in stone. To that end, please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker which chose to delete this article.
  • There are probably three main options available
    1. We can continue to hammer it out, tooth and nail on every AfD, soaking up hours of our collective time whenever H... I mean, whenever anyone nominates a webcomic. They do and will get deleted, and I predict unless this passes the rate that they do so will increase.
    2. We can continue to squabble here, with you utterly failing to make any concession until by dirth of numbers a guideline is passed that doesn't have anything that you want in it.
    3. You can set aside your adversarial nature, provide us with something we can work with and hope the we achieve, as was so well put before, "A result that everyone everyone is equally unhappy with".
brenneman(t)(c) 00:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are you trying to pin this entirely on what I want? The community clearly voted in support of keeping a webcomic, and you're trying to ram through policy that defies that. It's as simple as that. Phil Sandifer 01:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The community also voted to delete that webcomic. I'm trying to be as amenable as possible, but your continued avoidance of any reall accountability is not helping your cause. If we really do want a guideline, and I'm beggining to suspect that you don't, it needs to be based upon quantative measures. That's really, really simple.
    • If we're talking about what I'd like to ram through, I'd say anything that had not been in print with a decent sales run, mentioned in major media, or had an alexa of under 50K should be deleted or merged. But we're not meant to be here talking about our own idiosyncratic view of what's desired, we're meant to be trying to reach some accord.
    • Please, can you point out a single instance of you moving from your initial position? Name even one thing that you're willing to give, so that perhaps we can start to move forward.
      brenneman(t)(c) 01:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please stop trying to make this an ad hominem issue about me. Your proposed guidelines clearly do not have community consensus. That is all there is to it - regardless of your personal distaste for me. Phil Sandifer 01:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • These aren't my proposed guidelines, they are the guidelines that have actually been discussed over more than 100 printed pages. My guidelines are a little bit <up there>, and are a long was from what we're talking about now. Please, don't claim to speak for consensus, go and review the archived discusions, review the AfDs, look at the subpage with the comics and the criterion, and try to be a bit more flexible.
          brenneman(t)(c) 01:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
          • The debate was 21 Keep to 12 delete - one of the more overwhelming keeps AfD has produced. I'm not sure how you want me to be flexible about this - the community consensus is perfectly clear. Phil Sandifer 01:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that I said "I'm going to believe Snowspinner on this one." As I explained on Aaron's talk page, you have experience on the subject, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but in the future, that is dependent on a guideline getting discussed and passed. Now, stop yelling at each other and work together, ok? Titoxd(?!?) 17:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I second brenneman's proposal for "moving forward with these 'minimum conditions.'" I'll also second changing the Alexa guideline to 50K. I'll also add that after all the complaints about the AfD process in this discussion, I'm surprised that anyone is championing the perfection of the current AfD process to the point that they believe any article that has previously been kept after an AfD must therefore survive all future AfDs. I also disgree with the notion that a 21-12 vote can be described as "overwhelming," let alone "one of the more overwhelming." The 27-2 over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_webcomics was overwhelming; 21-12 is just "no consensus" but with more than the ususal votes on either side. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more info on how a good guideline is "two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." Dragonfiend 02:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I would somewhat oppose changing the Alexa to 50k simply by virtue of the fact that, one, Alexa isn't reliable for as much as it's used and two, I'd rather not have cases where a borderline comic dips below standards long enough for someone to put it up for AfD and get it deleted. Nifboy 08:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Which raises a point that was very briefly discussed earlier (see archives), that whatever the cut-off gets agreed on, it should have some "sticking power". How would you feel about wording like "Alexa under 50K any time in the last two years"? To be honest, I thought we'd already decided on 100K, but I'm trying to find something we can all agree on and that others will agree to. See next sub-section. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Why only in the last two years? Surely a webcomic that was popular in 2001-2002 is just as notable as one that achieved a similar level of popularity in 2004-2005. --Zundark 12:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I think what was meant was 2 years from today, so that in a year the value would be 3 years, a year after that the value would be 4 years, leading eventually to revision of the statement to "achieving an Alexa rank over (insert rank) since this parameter began being considered in 2005". A reason to start with a 2 year horizon right now is that it scopes the problem into a manageable size. Courtland 14:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
            • That's actually not what I meant, but I'd not mind something along those line, I'd simply phrase that "Alexa under 50K any time ever". I was thinking that notability does wear off if it's based simply upon "flavour of the month" as opposed to winning an award, for example. The list (over the next tewenty years) could end up being large indeed.
              brenneman(t)(c) 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wider acceptance

I'm pretty torn by this whole thing: I love my webcomics, but am generally pretty keen on "notability". So while I can live with the looser alexa for comics, we still don't have any compelling reason for having two different bars to entry in the same guideline. If we're going to sell this to people who aren't fond of webcomics, we need some explanation other than "otherwise they don't get in". As a side effect, if we think a bit harder about it we might come up with something less arbitrary than the 50/100/200K that we're tossing around. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You can judge alexa ratings on a probabilistic scale rather than a black and white notion. And websites and webcomics should have the same criteria for web ratings unless it can be shown there is some notability from outside the web. The only kinds of things which get special interest when it comes to notability (over something like general website criteria) are things of academic interest, which are known mostly just to academics, but webomics are a part of pop-culture, so they get judged in notability in terms of pop-culture. Nathan J. Yoder 17:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
As an academic working on webcomics, I will raise an eyebrow at this. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that they aren't studied in academia, practically everything under the sun is studied academically (even The Simpsons are), the point was that it's primarly of non-academic interest. It's an entertainment medium first and foremost. It's not like physics or biology where it is clearly something that is delegated almost exclusively to the interest of scholars, as 99% of of people reading them aren't exactly performing any kind of critical analysis, just as they aren't with The Simpsons. Nathan J. Yoder 17:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
A 100K cutoff point might imply that Wikipedia should include 100,000 complete articles about individual websites. Not only would this be an unrealistic standard (as websites, and their rankings, change day to day, and the accumulation of such a great amount of well-written content and verified data will take many years), but it would also turn Wikipedia into an incomplete web directory/portal. 10k is more realistic, a clarification could be inserted that certain sites that achieve alexa traffing rankings of less than 100k may be included if they are a unique resource or have garnered significant media coverage. As for the forum membership requirements, it would be difficult to determine the total number of users that are active contributors. Because of this, a higher overall cap (of, say, 25-50k total members, regardless of activity level) might be more appropriate. --anetode¹ ² ³ 21:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I agree with your ideas on Alexa rankings, but I believe I disagree with your ideas on forum membership. My experience is that most forums don't require membership to read, only to post, so membership can be taken as a sign of some activity (users only become members so that they can post, by making a post they can be considered "active"). Dragonfiend 22:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The whole "active" thing was in response to X42bn6's post (above). Sorry that I've clumped the discussion topics like this. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Raise the website alexa
  • If they are both the same, there's no problem
    • Consider the following: Bash.org has an Alexa ranking of around 20,000. Now look at its VfD, which was a unanimous keep vote. That probably makes this the most precedent-oriented option. I will concede, however, that if we started letting in all websites, we'd likely use a more restrictive Alexa rank. Nifboy 19:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Make a tiered system
  • That is to say, under X is good enough, under Y also needs some other thing
    • This makes sense to me -- maybe we take the guidelines we can't reach consensus on and combine them. Meeting just guideline A or just guideline B is not an indication of notability, but maybe meeting both guideline A and guideline B is? Clearly there's some sense to not treating a 100,000 Alexa or a review on Comixpedia as if they were the equivalent of being published in Rolling Stone, etc. Dragonfiend 21:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant prose
  • As above, some really good reason for having two cut-offs

Medical articles

There is a Request For Comment active right now on the matter of what websites to include in Wikipedia articles on medical subjects and the criteria for exclusion of certain websites. The persons who have been active in this WikiProject:Websites might be interested in either contributing to or considering the outcome of this discussion. See Talk:Prostate cancer for access to the discussion. Courtland 11:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this page is about websites as the subject of individual articles. It does not really say anything about elegibility for use as external links. JFW | T@lk 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Updated guidelines

I've updated guidelines per general discussion. I'd still like some good excuse reason for the 10K/100K gap between general pages and webcomics. If we can't make that explanation, this will never fly. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Stumbled across this just now (Spoiler: "Because art matters"). How's that for an excuse reason? Nifboy 03:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit I've been wondering myself why webcomics need a seperate guideline from other websites. I understand that syndication can mean that the content can't just be traced back to hits on a certain domain name, but that seems like a technical detail, not a thing requiring an entirely seperate guideline. Friday (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexa

I do have some concerns about the application of 10,000 as a firm Alexa cutoff. As I've already raised in a couple of debates, it creates an unwitting bias in favour of larger countries and against smaller ones — because by definition, larger countries generate more Internet traffic and smaller ones generate less. I can name several very important Canadian websites -- Rabble being the first one that comes to mind -- that rank lower on Alexa than some unencyclopedic American sites. And it's pretty bad math to suggest that one can simply divide a Canadian website's Alexa rank by 10 to approximate an American website's traffic; dividing the rank and multiplying the traffic don't have the same effect on the data.

I'm fully aware that the guidelines here offer alternatives to the Alexa rank...but that's not how I see most people apply it in practice. Most people who cite it in AFD debates cite the Alexa = 10,000 criterion as absolute gospel, and claim that a site which fails to meet it is automatically deletable regardless of the other two criteria. At the very least, could we make it clearer that it's Alexa OR one of the other two criteria, not Alexa AND? Bearcat 21:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! People who treat Alexa as some kind of end all be all have no place on Wiki. The rules should state very clearly that Alexa is a last resort if there's nothing else to possibly justify a website's presence. Xuanwu 02:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bearcat, but the problem is with using numbers in isolation. Since an Alexa rank is easy to check, people use it like the Google test. The problem is twofold: first, any specific number will have a bias, so long as traffic is a criterion, until Alexa distinguishes between various languages (i.e. 10,000 among English language vs. 10,000 among Czech would be vastly different orders of traffic). Alexa is a blunt tool. That said, the other problem is that there are many other criteria that should be used when evaluating a website, and deliberators on AfD who are faced with 230 entries a day may go for the simplest measure. What they should be doing, of course, is considering whether a site is referred to and discussed in other media (the first Tuvan website might be big news in Tuva), and some failed sites can be notable, if they do something that makes them first of the kind, innovators, etc. (I'm thinking of the promotional website for the movie The Center of the World, which set up the site as a strip club; this was innovative marketing for a mainstream film from a major studio, and it was thematically linked to the film's content). To be brief: Alexa is supposed to be one criterion, and voters are overwhelmed and will grab the first thing they can to help decide their opinion. It's sort of up to the article to make the wider claim, to establish bona fides, and only secondarily is it up to defenders and watchers to remind voters of other elements. Geogre 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Syndicates again

I see that Checkerboard Nightmare has been nominated for deletion, and is roundly being kept on AfD. Since community consensus has repeatedly demonstrated a desire to keep syndicated comics, I am reinserting this criterion into the guidelines, as it is not withint he province of an unpublicized talk page to ram policy through that is demonstrably not accepted on AfD. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Websnark FTW. Nifboy 02:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actions such as this based upon a sockpuppet invasion strain my ability to WP:AGF. This guideline has been shouted from the rooftops on numerous occasions. Syndicates fail WP:V per WP:CITE, they do not have the support of the non-footwear cummunity, and they do not have the support of the other participants on this page. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
And yet syndicated comics persistantly survive AfD. Odd. Phil Sandifer 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Other than Able and Baker, I'm not aware of any examples that fail to meet the other guidelines that have passed AfD. I know that sometimes WP:V is a difficult for you, but can you provide another example of a webcomic that survived AfD that fails all other criteria bar synidication? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The Jaded and Life on Forbez (and to a lesser extent Elf Only Inn) were "no concensus"'d because of their syndication. Nifboy 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • On The Jaded, only two of the six people who recomended "keep" mentioned Graphic Smash, On LoF only Snowspinner mentioned it. The story of EOI is clear delete first time, admin abuse second time (he changed his vote to keep after he closed it as keep with 6d2k? far out.) and the third discussion again only two of the 13 who say "keep" mention syndication. Unless we see some more evidence, it appears that Snowspinner has re-inserted this merely to influence to results of an ongoing AfD. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I find it puzzling that you continue to harp on the need for evidence that has already been repeatedly provided, while basing your own claims on what I can only assume are the results of your recently discovered psychic powers. Phil Sandifer 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't take a psychic. A comic is up for deletion that appears to fail the current draft of WP:WEB, and then suddenly the syndicates are back in. Amazing!
  • Of the example provided, they would all have been kept even if the "keeps" based upon syndication were totally removed. The only one that would have even been close was Jaded, which would have been 66%.
  • Even the current circus didn't ride on syndication, see the note below.
    brenneman(t)(c) 04:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Discussion on previous AfD's aside, I don't understand what the CxN discussion has to do with the syndication requirements. The only thing it's done is create more confusion because several of the Snarkoleptics saw it as a guideline after much of the discussion had happened. The only reasoning I can imagine for this move is that because CxN is so very obviously notable (/sarcasm) and it doesn't fit under current guidelines, then the guidelines are apparently incomplete, and one way to get the criteria to cover CxN is to include syndicated comics. Personally, I think the Comic-Con panel puts CxN solidly under the "notable author" criteria, and thus the criteria don't need to be expanded because of CxN. Nifboy 01:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Why are you assuming the people on the CxN page were sockpuppets: the majority had edits of about ~25, many had more. I don't know where you got the idea that minor edits increased chances of sockpuppetry, but someone with 78 edits got discounted on that. Most have commented that they doubt they don't doubt they were really people. You may have problems with [WP:AGF] but it's a policy nonetheless. It's been said that the syndication criteria was removed when it was claimed there was consenus but when none such existed. Nonetheless, there's a strong argument that, on the syndication side, anything which co-founded a syndicate should be entered for that alone, if nothing else. J•A•K 13:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • See: Meatpuppets and why meatpuppets are discounted. Nifboy 03:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Many of the voters discounted were not meatpuppets. Phil Sandifer 03:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
          • What are you basing that on? I'm not disputing it, I would just like you to get in the habit of backing up your statements with some evidence. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I have just read the meatpuppet definition (thank you for the link! I'd seen the term used and was unsure of its exact meaning), which begins, "A related issue occurs when non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion." The discussion refers again later to "brand-new" accounts. Since J*A*K, above, cited the statistics of many of the discounted votes having around 25 edits and others far more, would that not seem to be evidence that they do not fit the definition provided in the meatpuppet link? I'm asking because I am assuming good faith but do not understand the something in the logic here. Also I am very new so if I am doing this wrong, I'm sorrySiwangmu 06:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
            • In the handful I looked at, you tagged User:Eric Burns, who has 28 edits over the course of the last year. That is not a meatpuppet. Phil Sandifer 15:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how syndication makes any article inherently notable. In the Checkerboard Nightmare AfD you referenced, the consensus to keep was barely influenced by the fact it was notable for other reasons. By the way, nice vote, Snowspinner, "Keep. Suggest politely that Dragonfiend stop nominating webcomics for deletion, as he is very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability if he is nominating this. Phil Sandifer 02:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)". That comes pretty close to my definition of personal attack. Titoxd(?!?) 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • When someone makes AfD nominations that defy sense and consensus, they ought consider stopping. Just like one does when, say, speedy delete things out of process. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There's no need for the attack, though. But that's irrelevant to this discussion: the articles you've mentioned were kept because they were considered to be notable for other reasons, not syndication. Asserting that the fact that Article X was kept and Article X was syndicated, therefore syndication is a reason for keeping is a logical fallacy. Titoxd(?!?) 21:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, I'd say the fact they co-founded a syndicate, Blank Label Comics, makes them notable. I would suggest that at least should be on the criteria. J•A•K 13:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that Aaron is being a bit naughty here by demanding that people come up with a whole string of syndicated webcomics that don't pass by some other criterion, in order to accept syndication as a criterion. Since syndication is a sign of significance, it should be included as an indicator.

Perhaps the problem here is that the criteria are being formulated wrong in the first place. Obviously quite a lot of people do think that syndication counts, while some may think it doesn't. Perhaps the thing to do is to list the criteria that may count towards significance of a webcomic, and leave the actual weighing up to the individual. The alternative inevitably involves leaving out some criteria that many find significant, in a fruitless search for a non-existent consensus on on-off criteria for inclusion.

We can probably all agree with the statement that criteria X, Y and Z are among those that editors interested in web comics use to judge the significance of a particular comic. And there we'd have a guideline--a list of suggested criteria, and some comments on the verifiability of those criteria, etc. And we can all say "look at this, we've got a guideline for webcomics and nobody's squabbling over it." I think that would be better than this terrible bickering which has now reached arbitration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll

A) voting is eeevil, and B) wp is not a democracy, but C) the syndicates are a big deal to someone.

Syndicates are out

Syndicates are in, but in some other form

  • How about just Keenspot strips (perhaps further restricted to active and archived strips)? I saw a lot of discussion on the smaller collectives (particularly Dayfree) and a lot of discussion on MT (particularly "Big Dick's Ball"), but I think Elf Only Inn is as close as you can get to worst case scenario. Nifboy 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Syndicates are in

You cannot hold polls to magically override consensus on other pages

  1. Phil Sandifer 04:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Quite. I'd also add that you can't change minds by holding a poll. Aaron really should have known better than to call a poll in the middle of a bickerfest.
  3. -MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC) Agreed. Transmogrification of such concensus on a grand scale is unthinkable.

Claiming that there is consensus does not magically make it so.

  1. brenneman(t)(c) 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    So can we stop with the WP:POINT subheadings now?
    I'm sorry, did the Checkerboard Nightmare, Able and Baker, Elf Only Inn, or Life on Forbez closes get overturned while I wasn't looking? Phil Sandifer 05:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. Able and Baker afd - 12 d 20 k massive debate, please examine it for yourself, but there is no agreement on syndication, only that "per Snowspinner" is pretty common.
    2. Forbez afd - 6 (+1) d, 4 k. The only person who mentions syndication as their reason to keep is Snowspinner, although Fangz mentions WP:WEB so that may be what he's referring to.
    3. Elf Only 1, Elf Only 1, Elf Only 3 - ignoring the valid delete and the flawed no consensus that was sctually a delete, the last AfD was 4 d, 13 k. Again, only two people mention Keenspot as reasons to keep. Oh, sorry, three because according to Snowspinner "All Keenspot strips are notable."
    4. Jaded afd - 8 d, 2 (+1) m to graphic smash, 6 k. Only two say "keep" due to syndication.
    Please, please stop. There is clearly no consensus that syndication equates to notability.
    brenneman(t)(c) 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    The point of these guidelines is to create a set of rules that describes how Wikipedia keeps and does not keep webcomics. Given that four webcomics can be found that are syndicated and survived deletion and none can be found that were deleted, a rule that would render all four of those closes - three in the time since we started this debate - "wrong" is a defiance of consensus. You are trying to insist upon a guideline that is more restrictive than the community is. That is wrong. Phil Sandifer 11:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Plato is a philosopher. Plato is Greek. Thus all greeks are philosophers.
    • The point of these guidelines is to create a set of rules that describes how Wikipedia keeps and does not keep webcomics. Given that four webcomics can be found that contain the letter "e" in their name, clearly this should be in the guidelines, "No webcomic with the letter 'e' in the title shall be deleted."
    • Do I need to produce further absurdities to demonstrate the problem with your claims?
    • As noted above, removing syndication as a "valid" keep reason would have changed none of the above decisions. Well, the one would have been 66%.
    • The "community" that favours syndication, as detailed pretty clearly by the examples above, is mainly you.
    • Is your contention now that no syndicated webcomic has ever has had a "delete" decision reached on AfD?
      brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • To add to the logical fallacies defending an non-existent consensus, snowspinner has repeatedly stated that consensus doesn't matter when he says so. He can't have it both ways, either consensus is supposed be meaningful and determine these guinelines in whole or not. Nathan J. Yoder 23:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe it was his point that no syndicated webcomic has never had a delete decision reached that wasn't overturned. If there is one, could you point it out, as I've not seen any example. More specifically, has a Keenpot comic ever had a delete decision reached, as I'd say that their guidelines for inclusion are strong enough to count for notability, even if other syndicates aren't. J•A•K 00:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but since you're making the claim the burden of proof is on you. Additionally, you appear to be making the same logical error as above. Wait! It's so obvious now: Snowspinner is just your sock, isn't he! ^_^
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was trying to clarify what I thought Phil Sandifer meant, and asking if there were any cases of syndicated comics or keenspot comics specifically, being deleted. As well as the fact I wasn't actually making the claim, what proof precisely do you want that there haven't been any syndicated comics which have been deleted (and stayed deleted)? Since I imagine it would be hard to give conclusive proof that there have been no cases of that, I'm asking if you know any off the top of your head which have been deleted. This would establish the statement untrue, which would clear it up. If not, I'd think the fact no one can give a response to this to indicate there is no such deleted article, as I'm fairly sure anyone who would know about this, would be here. I may be wrong with this assumption, I'm just wondering if I am. And why do you keep accusing me of being a sock for Snowspinner? I'll take an IP test to establish I'm in a different (I assume) location to him. Your accusations are getting irritating. J•A•K 01:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've never accused anyone of being a sock, prior to this attempt at humourously doing so. I assumed that by both saying that Snowspinner was your sock and using the smile emoticon it would be obvious that I was joking. Clearly this was not the case, and I apologise if you were offended.
    • Every positive example that has been put forward of a webcomic that was "not deleted due to syndication" has failed to make its case, see above.
      brenneman(t)(c) 02:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What I'm trying to say is that for a webcomic to be syndicated, it realistically has to be notable: if there are any webcomics which were syndicated but had their articles deleted, that would be an argument against it. I'm just asking if you know of any syndicated webcomic which was deleted, as I'm suggesting that syndication works as a good rule of thumb for notability, I'd have thought.
    • Of course, I doubt you'd agree to that, I would alternatively suggest that, for a start, all comics which co-founded syndicates should be accepted as notable. Would you agree that? Slightly more contentiously, I'd argue that something like Keenspot, which has a rather exclusive entrance policy [2], would tend to indicate notability. I'd suggest adding keenspot, and examining other syndicates to see if memembership of them could be taken as an indicator of notability. I doubt you'd agree to that, though. J•A•K 15:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Just because Snowspinner thinks something is notable does not make it so. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. This whole thing is a complete and utter clusterf -- well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense at all. What does syndication have to do with anything? Four comics passed AfD that were syndicated. Good for them! I'm happy! I love Checkerboard Nightmare! I also have it on good authority that they were illustrated by humans. Obviously, we should immediately start modifying policies to indicate that webcomics should not be deleted if they were drawn by humans. Snowspinner, you are utterly out of bounds here. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we change the policy to make syndication a determining factor in whether or not webcomics should be deleted. It is also perfectly unreasonable to simultaneously (a) propose that policy change, (b) imply, incorrectly, that that policy change has already happened, and (c) describe anyone who cares to point out that your reasoning is faulty as an enemy of freedom, motherhood, and apple pie. Can we start over, perhaps, and have you restate, precisely, the policy change you'd like us to discuss? Nandesuka 04:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Syndication in pen and ink cartoons might have been a factor in determining notability, in that being picked up by United was the equivalent of being signed by Warner Brothers for musicians. The reason this was an appropriate factor was merely that syndication meant distribution. Distribution is the most significant limiting factor for musicians and cartoonists. However, in the case of web comics, syndication is nothing, since distribution is equally certain with and without it. Inasmuch as consumers go to a site to get the strip (and the consumer can be a portal page or a mailing list), a "syndicate" is as meaningless as "big server" or "hosted at its own domain rather than at myspace." In other words, attempting to introduce this as a factor is based upon a false analogy. Secondly, a great deal of the buffaloing in this argument depends upon expertise. I totally reject the implication that there are experts who are animals more equal than others. A good many folks here specifically mask their own expertise by using screen names. Web comics live with screen names, so you can have screen name experts; this would not extend evenly to other forms of debate, and therefore it cannot be a legitimate part of policy deliberation here. Finally, there is no precedent of four. If we extend desseutude to precedent in policy, that's valid only until there is a policy debate. This is a policy debate, and custom can't be introduced as evidence. Geogre 10:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree wholeheartedly with Geogre. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory?

Worthwhile noting that despite the link on the project page, web directory on WP:NOT is an issue of content rather than subject. Which brings up the question - what are notability criteria on websites meant to produce? Passing notability criteria is a compelling reason for the addition of a website, but is failing the criteria neccessarily a good reason to delete?

If we are talking of highly congested namespaces, then a good argument can be made. If we are talking about promotional articles or ones written by the website owner/content producing, then vanity rules work. Ill-written pages about readerless websites will naturally fade away, or be deleted because they cannot be written in a way that conforms to wikipedia's style guidelines. As for the website articles not covered by other articles, what possible good can deleting them achieve? If it isn't notable, no one will look for an article about it in the first place. If someone does look for that article, then surely that would prove its notability.

If we overstrenuously apply notability criteria, then we will involve wikipedia in all sorts of politics where competing communities fight it out over who is important. We will also alienate newcomers to whom an article about a personal interest may be an entry point. (And I would list myself in the category. My first contribution was to an article that falls on the edge of uncertainty over some of the listed issues.) I don't think the benefit matches the costs here. --Fangz 18:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem with AfD. But really we should be only deleting articles which can't become good articles. Therefore vanity articles about notable topics can be quickly redced to keep-worthy stubs. Unfortunately AfDs often start with "delete" then some one comes and does a stunning job on the article, and it gets kept (both good things), but I sspect many good subjects get deelted rather than stubbified. And most of the time the guidelines will be clearly "in" or clearly "out", but AfD will still be needed, regardless. Rich Farmbrough 23:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, asking "what harm is there in keeping it" is the opposite of my question: "what good does it do to keep it?" If the good is "it pleases the author," then, begging the pardon of all, that is the rationale behind Everything2 and other "modding" sites. Wikipedia works differently, in that every article that's present is supposed to be an encyclopedia article both in content and topic. My own criterion is whether a site is referred to outside of its own readership. Because we're in for a penny, in for a pound the moment we start with websites, we either have to constrain ourselves, as I would, to those sites that are so massive, so important, and so used as to be referred to in other media (not linked-to, but discussed in non-web media) or let them all in. If TechTV is talking about Download.com, we have verification -- a 2nd party discussion -- to cite. If National Public Radio is discussing the World of Warcraft board, then we have that necessary documentary and third party reference that we need. Don't forget that Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. Thus, it doesn't really matter if a site is useful, or good, or saving the world, or fun, or heavily trafficked, if it isn't spoken of by non-ephemeral sources that can be cited. Geogre 03:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Main page

There were three sections removed:

  1. Authorship - this wasn't actually telling us anything that the overarching policy doesn't already cover.
  2. Unique, etc - discussion showed no support, verged on OR for wikipedians to determin what was groundbreaking.
  3. External coverage - redundant with main web section.

Also removed the commented out syndicate section, editors please use a bit more caution when adding / removing things.

Finally, removed link to speedy deletion talk that closed in June.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so these changes have now been reverted without comment on the talk page. Syndicates are now on the main page twice.
brenneman(t)(c) 04:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:WEB to steamroll Vfd

Similarly with my comment about WP:V being misused, WP:WEB has also been misused to steamroll votes for deletion. Should there be some way to stop this kind of thing? Zordrac 20:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There's an arbitration case about this on WP:RFAR at the moment - you may want to add a comment to it. Phil Sandifer 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Last time I checked, WP:WEB was actually based on AFD behavior, rather than steamrolling it. Granted, last time I checked was several months ago, and I haven't been following the debate much. Could either of you please point to an AFD vote that is steamrolled by WP:WEB? I've noticed the webcomics part being heavily controversial, maybe that should be split out again to WP:COMIC? Radiant_>|< 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm checking there now, and if I don't fall asleep, I'll make sure to comment. But the issue in question wasn't about webcomics. It was about applying WP:WEB to non-web based articles, that were about the internet, but not about anything that is covered by WP:WEB rules. Zordrac 10:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Oops, didn't scroll down. Looks like the arb has already gone through. lol. oh well. Zordrac 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Balkanization of guidelines is a bad thing. Better to have a single inclusive guideline, like WP:MUSIC, than multiple sub-genre guidleines like WP:JAZZ, WP:PUNK, WP:SKA, WP:REGGEA. Podcasts should eventualy come under this guideline, as bell as blogs.
      brenneman(t)(c) 04:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Except, as I'm pretty sure I've pointed out somewhere, the WP:MUSIC guidelines are horribly slanted towards Western music that charts, and very much against folk musics, indigenous musics, etc. Phil Sandifer 04:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that webcomics deserve the same protected status as the cultural institutions of the victims of attempted genocide? - brenneman(t)(c) 04:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Would it make you happier if I said yes? Phil Sandifer 04:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. If I can understand what you're saying then perhaps I can get you to undrstand what I'm saying. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, Phil, we'll discuss WP:MUSIC at the talk page there. What exactly is wrong with WP:WEB? And could either of you please point to an AFD vote that is steamrolled by WP:WEB? Radiant_>|< 11:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't check back here. Anyway, both votes passed (phew). The thing is that WP:WEB was used to determine the notoriety of 2 talkers, one of which hasn't had a web page since 2003, and the other hasn't updated their web page since 1999. I suggested that comparing alexa rankings of unused web sites for an article that was not about a web site was irrelevant, but it was pushed through nonetheless, and all of the delete votes were purely passed on that. I just thought that it was a manipulation, especially as the popularity of the two talkers was not the reason for the article creations - it was because of their historical importance. On top of that, well, I just found this silly. One fellow insisted that the official site web page equated to a personal web page and hence couldn't be used as a reference. Its a rather silly assertion, don't you think? Oh, and so you know, the one that hadn't been updated since 1999 (and was rarely used) had an alexa of 17,000 and the one that had been deleted since 2003 had archives of its existence in alexa's way back when machine going back to 1998 (alexa only archives the most popular web sites). So apparently they did meet WP:WEB even by that silly definition of it. Or at least they got close. I still say its silly to use WP:WEB as a way to compare non-websites. There should be a separate category for such things. Zordrac 04:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, I believe this is referrring to:
brenneman(t)(c) 05:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sorry. I didn't think that there was any point in linking to the actual articles since the vote has closed already and we won anyway. I thought it was better from a theoretical point of view. The above argument seems pretty good (by everyone who responded to my initial comment, I mean) so hopefully that means its useful. Zordrac 10:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Blogs

I've seen mention of amending this proposal to cover blogs. I'm not opposed to this, but I wonder why it would be neccessary. A blog is a type of website. Just because a website happens to have blog-type content doesnt mean this guideline couldn't apply to it, in my opinion. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, unless ablog can meet the existing guidelines, I don't see any need for "special pleadings". If it is notable, it will have made some impact outside blogdom, e.g. mentioned in media, etc. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I put this forward in light of the current interest in nominating blogs for AFD. My suggestions are based on the category for webcomics and are:
    1. Large readership. As measured by verifiable sources such as Alexa where it must have ranking of at least 100,000 or a daily readership of at least 5,000 as measured by the Truthlaidbear ecotraffic measure [3]. 5000 is suggested as a limit consistent with the criteria in WP:BIO for authors.
    2. Coverage or inclusion outside the blogging community. If the blogger has been featured in a significant newspaper, magazine or online publication is a testament to the notability. Appearances on the opinion editorial pages of a significant newspaper, magazine, journal or online media source is another as is a position as a columnist. Generating a story of significant media interest such as the exposure of the forged National Guard memos used on 60 minutes is another.
    3. Being the winner or nominated of a significant blogging Award or web Award. Time, the Guardian and Washington Post amongst others have all held such polls in the past year or so.
    4. High levels of linkage by other bloggers as measured by the Technorati 100 [4] or Truth Laid Bear ecosystem [5].
    5. Some bloggers may make WP:BIO for activities outside blogging. For example, some members of parliament, journalists and authors blog. Even Moby has a blog see [6]. In these cases, the blogs should be mentioned as part of the overall article.
    6. Group blogs or collectives of blogsare considered to be notable if they have two or more people who meet WP:BIO or are considered to be notable due to meeting other criteria.
    7. Notable achievement or characteristic. Being the first of a notable kind of blog ie the first group blog, the first political blog, the first military blog, the first war blog, the first tech blog etc.
    • These guidelines aim at developing standards of verifiability and notability for blogs. I would welcome feedback from other users.Capitalistroadster 09:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      1. Truth Laid Bear - you're kidding right? According to their FAQ they rank based upon inter-blog linking, which says nothing about actual readership. Oh, and it also says "Illegal immigration is putting a major strain on our government," and while that's really not relevent I couldn't help but mention it.
      2. Redundant.
      3. Also redundant. Unless we're talking about awards inside the highly incestuous blogging commmunity, and then I'd imagine that that's unlikely to meet wide approval.
      4. This is very much like some heavily-tread ground on webcomics, and does not have a hope in hell of getting wider acceptance. If the blog hasn't penetrated past the "blog sphere" then why are we putting it in Wikipedia?
      5. Agreed, but why are we even mentioning this as it's standard practice? In fact, why are we mentioning it with regards to comics? (Note to self - remove from "comics" section.)
      6. As above, notability isn't sexually transmitted in this manner. If Bill Clinton and the Pope decide to put a blog together and no one reads it or mentions it in the media then it shouldn't get an entry.
      7. Again, we're not meant to decide what's "notable", that would be WP:NOR. If it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere as being groundbreaking, then we aren't the ones to decide it is.
    • This has been good, though. I'm going to tune up the comics section a little bit with these thoughts in mind.
      brenneman(t)(c) 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I tend to concur with brenneman. Also, I'd add that normal standards of verifiability can tell us what should be included, without needing blog-specific rules. But, we need to realize that blogs are not generally reliable sources, and thus blogs cannot verify each other. Otherwise, pretty much any blog becomes "verifiable" due to the massive amount of linking. Having a blog is like writing about your garage band on your myspace page. If other myspace "bands" link to you, this doesn't make your band verifiable. Whereas, if Entertainment Weekly does a story on your band, now you're onto something. Friday (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree with Aaron Brenneman. Far from being "redundant", criterion #2 (as long as it is made clear that it is not solely newspaper coverage that allows something to satisfy the criterion, but any form of non-trivial published works, including books, television documentaries, and so forth) should be the primary criterion (just like it is the primary WP:CORP criterion). Ironically, it seems that Friday is saying this, too, albeit not as straightforwardly.

        The "normal standards of verifiability" yield a directory, not an encyclopaedia. An article that just gives the domain registrant information for a web site is verifiable. An article that just lists the writer/owner of a web log is verifiable. There is a strong consensus that we aren't here to create a directory. But verifiability alone gets us a directory, because existing directories are published by reliable sources and simply copying their entries yields verifiable content.

        It's a "subject of multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the subject" criterion on top of verifiability that turns a directory into an encyclopaedia, by excluding those things about which the only non-self-sourced information available is simple, trivial, directory listing information.

        Any criteria in addition to that are then secondary criteria, that ensure that we can be directory-like in specific, limited, fields (such as ensuring that all web sites/web logs that have won a specific award satisfy our inclusion criteria regardless of whether they would fail the primary criterion, for example).

        Hence, what I write below. Uncle G 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Links are significant. The most popular sites are the most heavily linked. I also note that both Google and Yahoo have now got blog search sites. Similarly, the number of Google hits indicates how well read and notable a blog is as it shows how influential that blog is on other blogs. Thirdly, I'm not disputing that outside media mentions are an important source of verifiability. Fourthly, bloggers can be credible sources and it is ignorant to say otherwise. Surely, a law professor writing in a blog about legal matters is more credible than a journalist in a newspaper doing so. Simply because it is online doesn't mean it isn't credible. Capitalistroadster 16:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Friday and Brenneman that the current guidelines for web sites ought to be applied to blogs. They also ought to be applied to podcasts as well, and we still need to do a better job of getting the webcomics guidelines more in line with the web site guidleines, if not merged together completely. Dragonfiend 19:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, one other question -- what about if a blog has been published in book form, such as Riverbend's? I think that helps assert notability, though it can't just be some vanity press that does it. And if that book gets news coverage too, does that help boost notability of the blog, or just the book? Jacqui★ 19:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Jacqui, It would tend to act in its favour especially if there were significant sales of the book or coverage as you say. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Blogging

In an attempt to focus coverage on blogs and get some sense applied to them, I've started Wikipedia: WikiProject Blogging. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it generally better to keep discussion all in one spot? Otherwise over at this new project they might decide something different than get decided here? To that end I've #REDIRECT Wikipedia talk:Websites-ed. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't really think it's appropriate to redirect a WikiProject's talk page. Phil Sandifer 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
So you don't want centralised discussion? I'm just unclear on why we should talk about the same thing in two spots. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The Wikiproject is not a discussion of inclusion guidelines. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
And what's this? Has WP:CSD been expanded? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
00:12, 28 November 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging" (content was: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia talk:Websites' (and the only contributor was 'Aaron Brenneman'))
There was no earthly reason to blank the page and make the talk page appear like a blue link when it isn't. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm replacing the redirect. If you want to remove it as an editor you are of course free to do so, I won't change it back in that instance. Please do not again mis-use administrative powers in content disputes. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. The deleted page actually had something in it's history as well. Is there some crushing imperative that means this redirect requires administrative powers? Because it sure looks like a simple content dispute to me. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      00:47, 28 November 2005 David Gerard deleted "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging" (delete querulous redirect - it's a talk page for this project, not someone else's).
I hardly see where the content dispute in you redirecting Wikiproject talk pages to unrelated pages is. Phil Sandifer 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Umm, because the content of that page was the redirect? And it's your (and apparently David's) opinion that that re-direct should not be the content? Please do not use admin powers for content disputes. I'll resist the urge to replace my redirect until you stop using the delete button, but I would ask that you now have the courtesy to restore the version that included my signed comment. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Podcasts

It seems that podcasts could mostly be covered by Capitalistroadster's recommendations, but I think notability should be ascertained through downloads of the actual podcasts, not visits to the site. Programs like iPodder will download new podcats automatically without a user having to go there. I would suggest Podcast Alley as being a good source in these cases. Jacqui★ 19:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Forum Requirements

I was bold and expanded the requirement for forums. I think the current language is a bit loose and would, for example, allow silly Yahoo! groups where the administrator has the group setup to require "joining" it before you can even read messages. The issue is, people may sign up just to read, then never post or even return to read again. If the guideline was left as it was, admins might take advantage of peoples curiousity to pump up their member count. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 08:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Suggestion: Why not copy the bit about webcomics forums in there? I'm sure that those guidelines should be acceptable as well.J•A•K 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Onus on the deleter

Added:

Any proposal for deletion based on these criteria should describe clearly how failure to meet them means that non-existence of that particular article will always be more beneficial to a wikipedia reader than any possible rewrite.

I think this is needed to emphasise a critical point - the onus of proof is on the deleter. Listed criteria can only be used if it is justified from first principles of wikipedia, or by demonstrating that arguments in a previous case apply equally.--Fangz 12:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the passage for now, neither WP:MUSIC nor WP:BIO make this requirement, and I don't think we should start with this guideline. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 12:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. This requirement is probably really required for all of AfD, right now. Deletion is currently easy, while undeletion is not, because it requires awareness of an article that no long exists. Deletion is an active change, and so the default position should always be not to delete. In the case of WP:WEB, measures like this are especially neccessary from the wide number of new users deletions tend to attract. It is extremely important in such cases to outline exact reasons why something is up for deletion, rather than just quote some failed criteria, because it has been seen in the past that such issues can cause terrible harm. Even if the deletion does not go ahead. From the intent of deletion criteria, if the proposal for deletion is so ill-thought out that no reasons from first principles are given, a deletion should not go ahead. We should reinforce this statement.--Fangz 12:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess I don't think we should raise the bar so high. There are plenty of articles created everyday that have no place on Wikipedia that would probably be next to impossible to delete with that passage in place. Afterall, what's the point in all these criteria if, even if a site fails to meet some of them, the nominator still has to describe why the article needs to be deleted (which opens the debate to subjectivity that will almost invariably favor keeping the article). To put it mildly, I strongly disagree with this passage being in. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 13:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
AfD discussions on websites almost always end up being based on subjective feelings about the applicability of criteria. Even in the current form of the proposal, it is noted that "these are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind" - which is really weasel wording. The net result of current rules are that individuals can potentially use criteria without discussion or thought as to whether they actually apply in the particular case. Again, I would prefer that articles not be deleted because the voters subjectively feel that attempts to apply criteria fail, than articles be deleted or go through spurious and tortured deletion rounds which miss the actual intention of the guidelines. The point of these criteria, which the passage in place, is that the nominator would use them as the nucleus of his argument, possibly employing standard justifications for the existence of the criteria. In any case, I think the existing situation, as exemplified by the recent Checkerboard Nightmare afd, cannot be allowed to continue, because it is a divisive and apparently mechanical process that appears to be totally arbitary to the outsider.--Fangz 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be instruction creep. Any proposal to delete anything is judged on its merits, not on whether it conforms to some set of rules somewhere. Radiant_>|< 15:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Right. A poor initial AfD proposal does not excuse an article from being considered for deletion. Nifboy 21:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to take the fangs out of the people who wield Alexa like a club and mentioned that erring on the side of keep is best. I am all for making the policy even more assertive to make it harder to delete an article, since there seem several deletion happy individuals running about. Burden of proof is a good legal concept, so applying it here makes sense. Xuanwu 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a court of law. We'd prefer not to get bogged down in exact procedures. Radiant_>|< 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I like that it's only things that make it more difficult to delete that are rulecruft that will bog us down. Presumably, by 'bog us down' you mean fewer things will get deleted. Trollderella 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your definition of rulecruft seems to off. m:instruction creep means not to have rules for the sake of rules, indeed the notion that an idea may be invalidly presented is nearly always instruction creep. Making things more difficult is wrong. Whether that's about deletion or writing or anything, it's still wrong. You should try not to see everything as black-and-white. Radiant_>|< 22:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Main page revolving door

I've heavily trimmed the main page down to bare elements. Can we stop re-arranging the furniture while the house burns? First we decide what is to be included, then we argue about the trimmings. We're spending as much more time futzing with the proposal than talking. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I've re-added the WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO references, this both informs editors of these other notability guidelines (might want to make this into an infobox tho, as well as add WP:CORP?), and provides easy links to get to them. And it doesn't cost much, content-wise. :P —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 08:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Try this one I just made: Template:IncGuide. Radiant_>|< 11:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Very nice! —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 11:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ahhh, pretty. I would like to point out that the links to WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO were actually still there, simply moved to the bottom. New version is much better, though. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith

"The purpose of this filtering is to ensure that website promoters do not attempt to create references to their website in such media for the sole purpose of establishing notability."

If that's the purpose, this rule should be thrown out. We ought not assume bad faith like that. If someone is trying to generate notability like this, we should be able to catch them. Phil Sandifer 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this is more of a common sense rule being spelled out: Buying an ad in the New York Times does not and should not count as "media coverage." Nifboy 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Podcasts and blogs, though? Phil Sandifer 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert, discuss changes

Trollderella disagrees with my changes, and I with hers, so it sounds reasonable that both of us should discuss those there. I have reverted to the latest version by neither of us. My changes are the following:

  • Include {{IncGuide}}
  • Remove the 'within two years' criterion for being cited
  • Strike the section that the articles "should contain information that makes them useful", this is stating the obvious
  • Strike the section that "5000 members equates to 16500 posts" as speculative instruction creep
  • Remove {{cent}}, it is out of place
  • Radiant_>|< 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose:

  • Remove: "In other words, the vast majority of websites and other web topics (eg forums, internet memes, flash animations) probably do not deserve a Wikipedia entry" it is not necessary to paraphrase other pages.
  • Add: "#Have several verifiable, reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

Trollderella 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good on you both for coming to the talk page, enough WP:BOLD already. (Says the guy who just edited the main page, but it was only tiny I swear!)

  • I support all of Radiant's suggestions.
  • I also support Trollderella's first suggestion.
  • I'm hesitant on Trollderella's second, however. Every article should have this as a requirement, however it is neccesary but not sufficient. I'd like to see this in the form of:

=== General guidelines for websites ===
All Wikipedia articles must have verifiable, reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:

  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years;
  2. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members; or
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

However, I am aware that this gives rise to some basic philosophical differences with Trollderella.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Theoretically, encyclopedias are relatively timeless. As such, I think the two years rule is, in fact, problematic - we ought not have articles rise, become well developed, and then get deleted for being too "old fashioned" Phil Sandifer 23:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild confusion: I just proposed to strike the "two years" requirement (because if something was encyclo once, it should still be in the foreseeable future) and Aaron agrees, so why is it still in what he wrote just above?
  • Also, I disagree with TD's first suggestion, because it is a useful clarification and this is the place where it's the most pertinent. I'm sure we need not be redundant, but I'm not sure what page it is redundant with (link please?) and it may well be more appropriate here. Radiant_>|< 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Mild confusion - since I was only refering to the first sentance about WP:V, I left the rest just as it appears on the main page right now. I was trying to vary only one thing at a time, sorry that this was unclear. Stricken. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think, in this particular instance, redundancy in the rules is a good thing. As for sources, well, I imagine a large percentage of Wikipedia articles are unsourced. I'd rather a phrasing like "There must exist... sources" because just the fact that sources aren't in the article doesn't make the article delete-worthy (but a non-existence of good sources anywhere would). Nifboy 00:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with both Radiant! and Trollderella, on the grounds that neither go far enough. The "national or international media attention" criterion should be expanded into the sort of primary notability criterion that I described above. What you have is a good start at a primary notability criterion. (At least it is already #1 on the list. ☺) But it doesn't go far enough. Being the focus of published books (from sources independent of the subject) should ensure that a web site satisfies these criteria. (e.g. Books like ISBN 055380457X and ISBN 1843279983 about a web site should count.) But it currently doesn't. Being the focus of (similarly independent) television documentaries should ensure that a web site satisfies these criteria. But it currently doesn't. And there should be no restriction on when those published works happened to have been published. The #1 criterion here should be expanded to be as broad as the primary criterion of WP:CORP is, which includes all forms of non-trivial "published works" (excluding self-promotion).

Then all that you need to do is to decide in what specific fields we actually want Wikipedia to be directory-like, regardless, because we want directory-like coverage of certain specific classes of web site (just like we want directory-like coverage of all Fortune 500 companies, regardless of whether they satisfy the primary WP:CORP criterion), and create secondary criteria that address them. Uncle G 01:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For my remarks on the forum requirements, see the "Forum Requirements" section above. Obviously the wording can be chnnged, but I think the clarification of what to do for forums that are totally private (and require "joining" before even being allowed to read anything) is absolutely necessary. Locke Cole 09:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet some changes that had previously been removed keep getting added back in. Why do I feel as though the "tighten the guidelines" changes are being discussed, yet the "loosen the guidelines" changes just pop right into the page? The note about Alexa, for instance, came with an "explanation" that was actually opposite to the evidence. The irony is that I'm the one who provided this link to demonstrate that the 100K band was meaningless.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for non-Website internet material

I've noticed that WP:WEB has been used to justify the deletion (or keeping) of a number of non-Website internet materials, which, for example, may have a website, but not be based on web sites. It needs to be pointed out that the internet has been about since the 1960s, while the world wide web has only been about for around 15 years, and there are a number of other uses of the internet.

I would like to see some guidelines being published for determining notoriety of non-Website internet material. If some exist already, please can you direct them to me.

For example here, a talker is a form of telnet communication, which existed long before websites came about, and, while some modern day ones had websites to advertise their service, the web site was primarily just for saying "here is how to connect" so that it could be listed in talker lists etc.

Similarly for MUDs, MUSHes, MUCKs and MOOes.

There are a wide range of other uses of the internet, some of which are new uses, that do not have web sites attached.

WP:WEB has been incorrectly applied when discussing notoriety of these articles. I would like to see a policy being developed that more adequately deals with this kind of article. Any ideas? Zordrac 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Handle them case-by-case. Category:MU* games currently has only 46 articles, and it hasn't even been seriously pruned lately that I'm aware of; compare Category:Websites and its many, many subcategories. No need to hash out formal guidelines. —Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Its not just MU* games though, is it? There's hundreds and thousands of different examples of this kind of thing. I bet I could find at least 1,000 articles on Wikipedia that are internet-based but not web-based. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Bloody brilliant. I had been thinking the same thing the last few days, but had failed to move on it. Well done. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics again

The latest AfD vote, Greeneyes, has convinced me that no matter what criteria we come up for webcomics, those criteria will be ignored. Nifboy 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Look on the bright side: at least we don't have AfD trigger happy bozos using the policy to justify unsound deletions. That would be far worse. Xuanwu 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I always figured the point of policy was that, for any given nomination you can look at the policy and say "This is what the webcomic/Wikipedia group says should stay, and this isn't on the list", lending at least some credibility to the argument. WP:MUSIC came pretty darn close to becoming CSD criteria. I'm sorely tempted to put longevity criteria back in as a result of the greeneyes debate, since our current criteria clearly aren't inclusive enough for concensus. Nifboy 11:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of these things are just guidelines: an expression of a fairly widespread view on an issue. If there isn't a consensus, then any guideline lacks real teeth. And by a consensus, I don't mean a few chaps on a web page discussion. You need a pretty widespread consensus, really, and the traditional way of ensuring that this is the case is to hold a site-wide survey. This is how the Three revert rule block policy was made about a year ago.

Editors in deletion debates are expected to exercise their best judgement, which may include, but must never be limited to, looking up any related guidelines. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The Greeneyes discussion is pretty much farcical. The whole point in the refactoring of WP:COMIC into WP:WEB was to stem the tide of webcomic creation and get a lot of them deleted. And with Greeneyes, people are saying, it's a good article so let's keep it irrespective of its notability. I mean, there is a group of users who will block vote keep on any webcomic afd, and the reason this "consensus" is reached is just because the webcomic evangelists if you were, care too much. They will vote keep consistantly to try and crowbar open the guidelines so they can either get their own webcomic in, or make sure their favourite one gets an article.
What has now happened again, and exactly what I didn't want, is that webcomics are now treated with such high regard in comparison to any other website. Because they have a dedicated mobile online community set on promoting the entire field of webcomictry as a whole, whereas normal websites do not, their bar of inclusion is so low, that I could probably get one in after a few weeks of doodling.
This online community, with an eye on wikipedia, in case anyone would defile their cause has an overly large say in what is a pretty small group. If the webcomic rules are going to be relaxed to allow "good articles" with questionable or no notability, then the guidelines for all other websites must be lowered. And the Wiki is not a web directory should be altered to say that it is. I mean for example, I'm OK with the 5000 member forum guideline, but if a webcomic forum had even 1000 members, then that forum is smoking hot, it's given megatokyo a run for its money. What if a load of bloggers joined wikipedia and block voted keep on every blog, we don't let this happen? But it already has. - Hahnchen 11:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional Criteria

Since someone insisted that I mention it here first (personally, I thought it was quite reasonable), here's what I propose to add. Comment on them as you see fit.

  • Add in magazine publication with print run. If being in print is notable, being run in a magazine should also count. Setting the circulation/subscription bar at 5000 should be sufficient, since that's the same number of people we consider notable for a web forum.
  • Listing in a Top 100 site as a substitue for Alexa. Since Alexa is statistically inaccurate, it makes sense to allow something else to be used in its stead. Webcomic Top 100 lists came to my mind. See my edit of the article for some of the ones I suggested. If anyone has better suggestions, feel free to pitch them. (Note: the comic lists I put in there were some I knew off the top of my head; there are probably better ones out there.) Xuanwu 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I personally have minimal respect for the top 100 lists I've looked at - they're click-through spamtraps that have never, to my knowledge, reflected reality as much as ballot-stuffing. Phil Sandifer 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • What about The Webcomic List? They measure traffic in and out of their site for rankings rather than votes. I think they're somewhat trust worthy since it's hard to rig. Xuanwu 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Good call - I'd missed the site founding (Probably thought ti was like most of the rest), but it's a good site, and its list is pretty fair. I'd consider more than top 100 there, actually - I see some pretty notable comics further down, even to around 400. (Piled Higher and Deeper is the last one I see that I think definitely deserves an article.) Phil Sandifer 08:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Specifically, they rank webcomics based on "visits per update," according to their FAQ. That Sabrina Online (Alexa rank well over 200k) ranks higher than Schlock Mercenary (Alexa: 43k) is pretty indicative of this, I think. I tentatively support this, mostly because I can't think of any reason not to (yet). Nifboy 11:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • For "The Webcomics List," how does a ranking of 400 or better sound as a cutoff? Might want to add in something like "in the top 400 for a period of time" for those comics that have ended or gone into hiatus that were notable when updating. I'd also suggest making it a substitute for Alexa, i.e. you can use either to establish substantial visitation. Also, can we agree that there is consensus for magazine publication with circulation/subscription of 5000+, since no one seems to object? Xuanwu 02:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • ...Um. Yikes. 400 comics given auto-pass notice? Nooo thank you. I actually want to say a cutoff of 50, given that 51 is El Goonish Shive filler strips. Now there's a blow to credibility if I ever saw one. Nifboy 03:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've re-inserted the magazine criterion, I don't think there are many, if any objections to that.J•A•K 01:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have a serious problem with this, depending on its interpretation. I would be totally against a comic which has only appeared in say a college newspaper to be automatically kept on wikipedia. This is given over-emphasis on the comic. At my university paper, there are normally 1 or 2 comics a week, I would totally be against them having an article. No, they don't appear on the web, and even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference if no one read it. If you say that a comic appearing on a magazine with a run of 5000 is enough to warrant an article, then I could write an article for every contributor to our university magazine, every writer, reviewer, and editor. The comic is not inherently more notable than any of those. - Hahnchen 11:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The thought occurred to me after I added it, but I thought it might promote discussion if it was added due to lack of complaints. And if it wasn't then people who saw this would have accepted it, and consensus would exist. If the requested circulation was upped, or a requirement that the comic was originally published on the web? How are circulation figures for student newpapers generated, anyway? J•A•K 13:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • You're thinking in terms of webcomics here, but why is a webcomic that has appeared in a newspaper inherently more notable than a regular comic which appears in the paper. The student paper, that I have written for has circulations easily in the thousands, it's a major London university, but the comic which appears in it isn't notable, nor are the original writers, or editors. Not enough for their own article anyway. - Hahnchen 15:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • A comic that is printed would have to state where it was printed in order to prove notability. If it turned out they were only printed in a university newspaper, then the argument you just made could be used to remove the article - assuming there was no reason to keep it (i.e. it's a "My web comic is teh awesome!!!111!!one!" type). So I don't think that's going to be an issue. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that newspaper with high circulation, even college ones, do tend to have a high bar for inclusion (I'm speaking as a former college newspaper editor). I remember sorting through a dozen or so different comics before settling on one or two for inclusion because of their quality. So it's not like college newspapers will publish anything you give them. Keep in mind this particular point was to recognize that publication in a widely read magazine or newspaper can make a comic just as notable as if it were in a book. Also, college publications are not without merit; 8-bit Theater got its start as a comic for MIT, which is how it accrued a fanbase that made it a notable online presence. Xuanwu 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I contribute to a student paper, which is probably notable enough that it'll never even be considered for deletion at wikipedia. Yet I would vote to delete on an article about its news editor, I would vote to delete an article on Xuanwu, who once was a college newspaper editor. Yet you're saying that the paper's comic should be kept? And another thing which to me is one of my core problems with webcomics at wikipedia, is that I'm pretty damn sure that a comic strip appearing in a college newspaper would be deleted. Yet a comic strip appearing in a college newspaper, with a negligable online presence would be kept. Because the webcomic community at wikipedia consistantly vote keep on webcomics over print comics. - Hahnchen 05:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keenspot

Does anyone disagree with the contention that being hosted (or formerly being hosted) on Keenspot is a sign of notability in webcomics? Is this a generally agreed on point or not? J•A•K 21:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the contention that being hosted (or formerly being hosted) on Keenspot is a sign of notability in webcomics that automatically confers enough notability to warrant said webcomic's inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is surely a sign of notability, but is not dispositive. Nandesuka 21:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But, per the link above to their admissions policy, I think most think that their policy wouldn't let in webcomics not notable enough for an article. J•A•K 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Keenspot is welcome to whatever policies they want. Their policies don't (and shouldn't) affect the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may be that plenty of Keenspot comics are notable. But asserting that Keenspot comics are by definition notable because otherwise Keenspot wouldn't have included them is begging the question. I think the mere fact that there is such vigorous debate about various webcomics (including some Keenspot comics, which so far have been kept) is an indication that the community is perfectly capable of deciding the notability of comics without relying on the editorial board of Keenspot. Nandesuka 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The claim should really be read as "the editorial board of Keenspot is notable." They are, in effect, major critics, and their assertion of sufficient quality to join Keenspot is itself a sign of notability. Phil Sandifer 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Please WP:CITE a source that will allow us to determine the veracity of this statement. Who says that "the editorial board of Keenspot is [sic] notable?" - brenneman(t)(c) 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Please be reasonable. Phil Sandifer 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
              • What? Person a says, "the sky is blue", person b says, "please cite a source", person a then provides copious references from peer-reviewed reputable sources that not only show that the sky is blue, but explains why. If you cannot or will not WP:CITE to allow us to WP:V something, it's not me who's being unreasonable.
                brenneman(t)(c) 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
                • And that, for those of you who came in late, seems to be the entirety of the webcomics notability controversy, in a nutshell. Nifboy 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Yes - the problem is that most sources - peer reviewed or otherwise - do not talk about notability. Most discussions of the "X most notable Y" are not happening in hugely reputable sources. The argument is tautological at its heart - it relies on just ascribing notability to some sources off the bat. Aaron does so for fewer sources than I do, but there's no real standards of evidence here that are agreed upon, making the discussion sterile at best. What remains clear is that Able and Baker, Checkerboard Nightmare, and Elf Only Inn all survived AfD. Which tells us something - and we should try to tailor the guidelines to respect that. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • I think this glosses over the real problem, which is most notable among all X does not equate to notable enough for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. To take an example that has come up before, I am entirely confident that there is a vibrant community of authors of gay Star Trek slash fanfiction. Perhaps there are even websites dedicated to it. Perhaps some of these websites charge for access, or have ads, or are actual businesses. Certainly aficionados of gay Star Trek slash fanfiction could easily point to examples of the genre that they consider "notable" or "extremely notable" or "double secret super specially notable." No matter how credible those aficionados (or businesses) are in their niche, that does absolutely nothing to tell us that any given piece of gay Star Trek slash fanfiction is worthy of inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Now, you'll get no argument from me that more people are interested in webcomics than are interested in gay Star Trek slash fanfiction (if I am wrong, the world is a much darker and more horrible place than I imagined). But that doesn't free us of our obligation to evaluate the decision to keep an article in the encyclopedia based on its value to the encyclopedia's readers rather than its value within its community.
                    • On a final note, I really think that the success or failure of three AfDs is a fairly slim foundation upon which to argue that a potential change in policy necessary, valuable, or universally lauded. There are good arguments as to why many webcomics should be kept. "Look, these three Keenspot comics survived AfD" is categorically not one of them, so I urge you to let that argument return to the obscurity it deserves. Regards, Nandesuka 01:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • First, I don't think that anybody is suggesting that anything is "double secret super specially notable." Second, I think your argument doesn't avoid what is my central problem with any argument that begins to fall back on a general standard of notability. There are, within specific fields, ways to judge notability. The full list of proposed guidelines does an excellent job of establishing it within webcomics. But there's not a graet standard for notability in general. The argument we're having, if you want to push a "webcomics are inherently less notable than X but more notable than Y" argument, isn't one about webcomics at all - it's about a universal standard of notability for Wikipedia, which this isn't the page for. And there is no page for it, because we don't have one. There is no overarching policy in which to phrase this argument. If that's the rede you want your argument to stand on, there's no way to pass this guideline, period. Which is why I don't particularly depend on that - I'd just as soon see Wikipedia have all the verifiable information of any note on major topics in any definable field. Third, if you did want a general standard of notability for Wikipedia, you would have to turn to AfD and attempt to draw the line where it is drawn on AfD. In this case, that line is clearly on the side of including several comics that would not be included under this guideline if the syndicates requirement were dropped. Phil Sandifer 02:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                        • Two notes: One, this is WP:WEB, and as I recall the point being made that we are already saying, with separate criteria, that "Webcomics are inheirently more notable than websites in general." Two, the question was (and still is) often raised on whether these AfD discussions are representative of concensus at all, and whether they were kept because they were syndicated or whether they were kept because of some intangible, un-generalizable, and un-guidelineable factor that, for the individuals voting, elevated those comics above other syndicated comics (saw a lot of keep votes for greeneyes based on the quality of the article, for one). Nifboy 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • I'd argue that all of the Keenspot comics that have been AFD'd being kept is an indication that Keenspot is notable, and generally considered so. There's less than 100 (I think) comics that are or have been hosted at Keenspot, the fact that those which most agree are probably least notable of them are being kept on AFD (Elf Only Inn, I'm thinking of particularly) means that we should probably assume that it's safe to say that webcomics which do meet the notability standards of Keenspot are notable enough for wikipedia. J•A•K 04:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree that it is a sign of notability, but disagree that that sign should be an automatic pass to an article in Wikipedia. Notability is a continuum. Compared to three guys on an internet forum about yak-wrestling, the editorial board of Keenspot is very notable. Compared to the editors of The New Yorker, the editorial board of Keenspot is so non-notable as to practically not exist. Were Wikipedia a wiki dedicated solely to webcomics, Keenspot's opinion would have very strong weight. But it is not: Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia. In that environment, I would propose that they are far less notable than you seem to think they are. Others, of course, are free to feel that I am mistaken. Nandesuka 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying the board of Keenspot should decide what webcomics are notable, I'm saying that, in interests of finding ways of reducing the number of nominated webcomics (and hence acrimonious AfD's), since the board of Keenspot is made up of people who are experienced in web and other comics,[7] who tend to be rather exclusive in inviting people in, it is a safe assumption that any comic in there must have been notable to get in. J•A•K 22:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I understand that you're saying that. You asked if anyone disagreed with that. I do. Nandesuka 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
            • OK. I was meaning to try and guage consensus. Thanks for your opinion. J•A•K 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally think webcomics are uncomfortably wedged somewhere in between the two words in "commercial art." On one hand, the most successful webcomics tend towards businesslike behavior. On the other, most webcomics start out as an artistic endeavor, either for fun or as something to do, and many never move over to the business side of things even after many years. I think the current guidelines are somewhat biased towards the businesslike comics, and adding Keenspot as a criteria would give a little more weight to the "art" side of things. On top of that, I don't think any other Keenspot comic is less notable than Elf Only Inn. Nifboy 23:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Speaking of the "commercial" aspect, a wikipedia article can make a large difference to traffic on a site. I recall on websnark one purveyor saying that 15% of his traffic was from wikipedia. I'll try to find the link. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The sad truth is that if we judge by notability, and popularity, as it seems we must, we're going to have more business focussed comics in, as they are going to be more popular (due to the fact that the business focusses on them becoming more notable, and popular, and recognised. I'd actually say that, since Keenspot tend to only recruit strips they think are artistically well done, and recognised, Keenspot as a criterion would get more art comics in than simple popularity contests such as the [deeply flawed] Google and Alexa tests. J•A•K 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Google and Alexa are meant to be the last resort for those comics that have met no other criterion. Have a look at Wikipedia:Websites/Example webcomics. This is a list of every one of the webcomics covered in the first fifty pages of this discussion. If we take only the criterion that we all agree on, it covers 21 of the 25 listed there.
        brenneman(t)(c) 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Wait ... there's something we all agree on? :) J•A•K 02:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • On a completely unrelated note, Scott Kurtz's rant today asks of the self-appointed ambassadors of webcomics, "Can't you guys just let the work speak for itself? Seriously." I don't think I even need to comment on this. Nifboy 01:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm not objecting to Keepspace at this time, I'm just asking for more citations, like the one that J•A•K provided, so that it may be evaluated be everyone involved. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I say that Keenspot's position as a publisher of comics and its historical role in the web comic community (as per the "History of Webcomics" by T. Campbell, one of the foremost experts on webcomic development over the years) certainly makes the editorial board of Keenspot notable. Their decisions to include/not include have impacted the web comic community in many ways. Exploitation Now, Wendy/Girly, and others all received large publicity thanks to Keenspot which in turn led to their notability. Keenspot's refusal to accept Sexy Losers sent it and other comics (like Ghastly's and Tsunami Channel) out of Keenspace. So the notability of the editorial board is not in question. When it comes to "does being on Keenspot automatically mean it's notable" I'd say the answer is no; Look What I Brought Home is certainly not notable despite its former Keenspot status. I would say, though, that since a large majority of Keenspot comics qualify for notability, being a memeber of Keenspot should be used as a "positive" reason to keep an article (i.e. it's on the fast track to notability). And then, only if there is some overwhelming reason NOT to keep the article (it's promotional, poorly written, etc.) that it should then be deleted. So, auto-keep? No. But strong justification for an article's presence? Yes. Xuanwu 02:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that's a much better expression of what I was trying to say, Xuanwu. I was hoping some better writer would say something like this. (Aaron, unless you've suddenly changed your tune and decided to open the floodgates more than anyone else has suggested, I take it you mean Keenspot? :-) ) J•A•K 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That would indeed have been a startling development, wouldn't it? While typing that, I was thinking of keenspace as an example of pseudo-syndication that didn't mean much, but of course I intended to give the more restrictive section. Thanks for that, I'm a grammer/spelling/prolix masochist, I always like being corrected! - brenneman(t)(c) 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Forums

I have gone ahead and been WP:BOLD in updating the forum criteria. I do not believe that a mere usercount can make an argument for encyclopedicity. Therefore, I've added "has made a verifiable impact beyond its own community." I base this on the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The forum site, where an article was written about a forum that had more than 5,000 users... but had absolutely no encyclopedic information available about it, and thus a consensus developed to delete the article. For an article about a forum to have verifiable sources, it must have had articles, blogs, papers, whatever, published about it outside its own userbase - thus the new criteria. I invite discussion. FCYTravis 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

      • Undelete The forum site and then we don't need this discussion. Very simple, very obvious. The only conceivable reason to delete the forum site was because it was an incomplete article. The site itself is extraordinarily notable, and this was one of the most ridiculous AFD decisions yet made. Sometimes I get the feeling that people vote against me just to make a point. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Why not copy the bit about webcomics forums in there? I'm sure that those guidelines should be acceptable as well.

"5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read. Forums which require a user to sign up to read or see messages should instead be gauged by the total number of postings. (A good rule of thumb is three times the number of unique members; so a forum with 5,500 members would need 16,500 posts.)" J•A•K 03:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    • That's a good addition, but it doesn't get to the root of the issue we ran across with The forum site. It doesn't matter how many users or posts something has - if all it is is a chat board, then there's absolutely nothing encyclopedic to say about it. Slashdot, Fark and

SomethingAwful have all made a verifiable impact outside their own communities and gained broader notice and notoriety. Thus, there can be encyclopedic articles written about them. But if something is just a chat forum with 6,000 members, 30,000 posts... and that's it... then what are you going to say about the forum other than "Hey, it's a forum with members. Here's how to go there. Here's the moderators. Here's what the forums are called. It's cool!" - which, as Uncle G noted, is a directory entry and not an encyclopedia article. FCYTravis 03:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

        • Let's make this simple. The forum site has 391,000 posts - i.e. 60 posts per member average (having over 6,000 members). It should not have been deleted based on WP:WEB. I think that it should not be used as an example here, since it should not have been deleted. Rather than have a discussion here, we should nominate it for undeletion. There was nothing unencyclopaedic about it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes ... to be honest, when I first read this, I thought you were talking about the webcomics forums criterion. I typed a response, then realised that it wasn't. I'd probably agree with you on this, with the proviso that if there is content on the site beyond the forum, that a 5,000 membership of a forum makes it worth being added (unless it's the site of someone famous, in which case it might just be worth noting on that person's page that they have a highly used forum on their site). J•A•K 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It seems the issue with the Forum Site article was its lack of good content and writing. I would say that the 5000 cutoff should stay, since that decision reflects certain circumstances. I see no reason to change the criteria based on this AfD; I say change it back to how it was. These are, after all, guidelines. Each case must still be considered individually on its own merits. Though, if you're proposing that we eliminate the lower member limit completely and have it based solely on whether some notable factors can be proven concerning the forum, that I might support. Xuanwu 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I don't think we need to change our rules every single time they're not adhered to the letter. Nifboy 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • It's not one single circumstance - it's the overall idea that we can't have encyclopedic articles on forums for which there are no reliable sources available to base the article on. WP:NOT a directory of forums and "hey we have a cool tablature forum where tablatures are discussed." That's not encyclopedic. If we can't find more to write about a forum than that, then it shouldn't have an article. That's what that entry says. Obviously, that's a point to be discussed on AfD. It's not a speedy delete criterion - only a reminder that inclusion encyclopedia cannot be based on pure numbers. There has to be something encyclopedic to say about the subject, and if there isn't anything... then there's no article, just a directory substub. You could throw the best writer in the world at The Forum Site and still not come up with an encyclopedic article. FCYTravis 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Both of these views are presenting valid arguments. It's a bad idea to change policy based upon a few AfDs because the sample size is too small. Instead, let's see if we can locate other "forum" articles and list them here. This also allows us to scope the problem. No point making a change to the guidleine if there are only six. Then we can make a better judgment. See Wikipedia:Websites/Example webcomics. It's evidence based medicine- brenneman(t)(c) 05:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Another one, same deal. This one, you can read what's there... and decide for yourself whether it makes for an encyclopedic article. "Its really easy to join this forum. Just simply click the log in button on the toolbar and then click sign up. Very simple and I'm sure that you will have a great time." Compare with an article about a forum like Fark, where there is clearly evidence that the forum and related site have encyclopedic merit. FCYTravis 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Actually, looking at Fark, I don't see evidence that it merits inclusion. Some citations that mention Fark in media or elsewhere? I see one link to wired, are there more? I'd just like to establish that we have to back up claims for the ones we like, too. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Added another one. A forum full of people who argue about which game system is better than the other. Non-encyclopedic to a fault. FCYTravis 10:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of example forums

Note that The forum site actually passed WP:WEB quite easily by having well over 5,000 members (and many other claims to notoriety), yet was deleted. It should probably be undeleted, and hence is a poor example of something to be used as an example here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • On the contrary: It's a good example. It's an example of why the WP:WEB criteria are wrong, as per the discussion above. Uncle G 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Question Regarding Sites as Links

On Merrimack, New Hampshire, there's a webforum on there that somebody put up there that is very borderline when it comes to even having as a link. I live there, and it's becoming something of a joke except for those who use it considering that there are about 20 active users out of the town's population of 28,000 or so.

What do you think? Is that notable or not? Until that's decided, i'll WP:AGF and make sure it stays up there since it's been put back a few times. karmafist 05:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • WP:WEB doesn't really apply to external link management. That's a whole can of different worms. Xuanwu 05:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)