Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 5

message: There needs to be something set out for Mechinimas. They arn't webcomics, and as there seem to be an increasing number of them being made, there needs to be a set of criteria for notability.
Possibilities-
*Certian number of downloads
*Won Awards
*Been featured in a magazine
*Been around for a certian lenght of time
Dr. B 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, this is the kind of pointless miniaturization that we were trying to avoid. Now look at what we've started. Nifboy 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put together a suggested guideline for adding articles on machinima productions. Part of my reasoning is that I've seen numerous cases of people — especially those inspired by Red vs Blue — making articles on extremely minor productions, often yet to be released, very often their own productions. Sometimes they even make articles on their production groups that haven't even released anything yet. MisterHand summed things up well in one deletion discussion, saying "Gosh, how would it be if we had an article for every short made using The Movies?".--Drat (Talk) 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechinima

message: I am new to Wikipedia, and would like to understand the issue here. Is the purpose of this guideline or policy to determine when we can create an article about a given web site?  If this is the case, what is the connection with verifiability? I ask the question because a link to this issue was added in Wikipedia talk:verifiability
:The connection with verifiability is that if we do introduce such guidelines, how far do they push us away from having verifiability as the sole criterion for inclusion, per Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance#No. The intention of the link is to invite the broadest number of people possible to comment on this page, thus building a strong consensus and allowing opinion outside of those who regularly discuss the issue. Hiding  talk 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the link with verifiability? 

message: I would recommend adding some sort of guideline that links audience size to notability, as is done with magazines and other publications.  For example, if a podcast is regularly getting 1,000 downloads a week for several weeks, I would probably qualify that as notable, even if it didn't meet the other criteria.  And if a website is clearly getting tens of thousands of visitors on a regular basis, that would count.  Though there should probably be some sort of exclusion for the occasional slashdotting, which could bring in 20,000 visitors over the space of 24 hours on a curiosity basis, but I wouldn't count that site as "notable" unless they had substantial sustained interest.  Elonka 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience size 

message: Currently, the article makes reference to both webcontent and web-specific content. Is there supposed to be a distinction: I can think of some things that would come under the heading of web content by virtue of being webcomics, but which aren't web-specific. Does that come under this? J•A•K 08:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you cite examples as to what you mean?  I asked about this before I re-wrote the page and was informed that webcomics were still thought of as webcomics, regardless of what happened to them after they originated. You ypurself said "if it started (or gained notability) while being published on the web, it's thought of as a webcomic". However, note 1 addresses some of these aspects: Content which has been packaged into material form, such as onto cd, dvd or book form, but which is still only available for sale via the internet, still falls under these guidelines.  If such packaging of the product is available for sale in brick and mortar retailers, then it should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), does that help answer the question?  If you can give some specific examples I'd have a better understanding and could answer your question better. Hiding  talk 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web content vs. webspecific content. 

message: I think this is excellent start; I'm a little afraid it may not adequately cover sites that are important precisely as research resources. I think most of these can be covered as part of the article on the associated institutions, but I suspect that there are some serious ones that may simply be websites.
Examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about are Ethnologue (), a first-rate resource on populations speaking various languages and on how languages are related to one another; IDESCATT (), a first rate statistical resource for Catalonia; or HistoryLink (), a large collection of excellently researched, well-cited articles about Seattle and environs, whose contributors include several most prominent archivists of the regions history. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An excellent start 

message: The "Notes" are now longer than the guideline.  Just an observation. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's not too bad as it stands, they serve to clarify any points of contention, and two of the notes are for the preamble, so they're almost the same length if you discount them.  Did you have anything in mind behind the observation? It's funny really, because if you look at a lot of our policy, most of the ancillary pages are quite obviously notes that have spun off, Wikipedia:Reliable sources could almost certainly have started life as a note at Wikipedia:Verifiability.  Hiding  talk 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note creep? 

message: I like the new version of this guideline because:
# it is based on a simple principle (independent review)
# it does not use Alexa or Google rank any longer
I however would like to make the following change: after the criteria, saying something like:
The article itself must provide proof of meeting these criteria via a Reference or External link section or via inlined links.
This is somewhat implied in WP:V, but I think it would be useful to report it here. Any objection? - Liberatore(T) 13:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this seems worthwhile to me. Note that part of the preamble to the WP:MUSIC guideline reads, "Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." Although I'd suggest avoiding the judgemental term "rant."-- Dragonfiend 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of notability

message: I've removed comic from under examples that was added by its author.  I'm making no judgements about the actual facts in question, except to say that two examples seems plenty and that it just looks bad.  If its appropiate, let someone else add it in. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, to be fair, the author in question also added Bob and George as an example; I took that out because it was unsourced (which kinda goes against the purpose of the guidelines). Nifboy 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a link 

message: I was surprised to see the latest version of these guidelines fails to mention Alexa Internet rankings anymore. Whilst I disagree with their usage as the sole indicator of notability, they do provide a very good guide as to the most popular websites. Surely no-one would be disputing the fact that any of Alexa's top 500 visited websites were of sufficient notability for inclusion? Maybe the service could at least gain a mention on this page, or an inclusion in the comparisons table, since it is a genuinely good means of contrasting websites. Finally, I do wonder how many articles we have about websites which would no-longer meet these revised guidelines... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa rankings 

message: Before the rewrite, the old version of this guideline explicitly stated for forums something like: "A forum of over 5,000 members that has had an impact outside of its community". This line needs to be put back in somewhere, there are MANY forum articles that were AfD'd (and eventually deleted) specifically for failing to meet this requirement. Spend any amount of time on RC Patrol and you'd see that a lot of forumcruft is created, most often by newish Wikipedians unaware of this guideline. Zunaid 07:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forums 

message: I am a member of the mainly inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging, and I believe the current WP:WEB fails bloggers. An accurate way to measure a blog's popularity isn't through Google or Alexa - but Technorati. I suggest in any rewrite of WP:WEB, you allow all of the Top 100/200/500 blogs have an article. ComputerJoe 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll notice the current criteria don't mention Alexa at all, and Google is only there for comparison purposes, and isn't part of any actual criteria (I'm not quite sure what it's doing up there). Nifboy 19:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failings on Bloggers 

message: It's pretty evident that the items listed here are not very complete, and equally obvious that not all editors subscribe to this proposed guideline, so I'm using the phrasing "This page gives some rough guidelines which some Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia."  This also takes into account the rather controversial nature of the "notability" concept in itself. There are writers who seem to be capable producong perfectly good articles without any consideration of whether their subject is "notable".  Strongly inclusive wording here is therefore unjustifiable, for there is much division. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I really don't care one way or another, and don't see what the big deal is. Nifboy 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to use a qualifier, is should be an accurate one, so I've changed it to "most".  This guideline has been done to death, and is linked to Hanoi and back.  I think that unless we're going to decide that "rough consensus" doesn't include the case where one or two people disagree, we've got rough consensus here.  We've had discussions, votes, arbitrations, more discussion, ad nauseam.  This not only reflects Wikipedia's non-negotiable precept of verifiability, almost everyone accepts it.  Look at the history of the main page:  lots editors working together and moving forwards, very very few (almost one!) editor objecting.  Enough already.brenneman{T}{L}  03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s use of the term "''some'' Wikipedia editors" 

message: Neglected Mario Characters (a rather pitiful sprite comic whose only claim to fame is being the first) is up for AfD. I think it's an interesting case, and so I'm linking to it here. Nifboy 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An interesting AfD

message: Please note that we are trying to brainstorm some rational notability criteria for websites which existed in the early web era (circa 1991-1997) at WikiProject Early Web History. The current criteria are a decent filter when considering the 100 million sites on the Web today, but are too fine when considering the historical relevance of one amongst perhaps only several thousand early web pages. KWH 06:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd have thought that the current guidelines were more friendly to older material than the various suggested interations.  Nothing currently about google or alexa, which discriminate against the older stuff.  My off-the-cuff response would be that the history of the web is a hot topic in print and online sources like Wired, so there should really be no issue.  Can we have an example of something that might be thought "important" in the history of the web but that would fail these guidelines?  (Great idea for a project by the way!)  brenneman{T}{L}  11:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failings on Early Web History 

message: === ComoAnda and guideline #3 ===
There is some disagreement between me and another editor about how the web site ComoAnda applies to guideline #3.  The discussion can be found on my talk page.  I would like to get an outside opinion on this. --Cymsdale 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  According to that criterion, every single project on SourceForge is de facto notable. Just zis Guy you know? 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it trivial to get a project on SF, though? Nifboy 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the point. --Cymsdale 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the AfD discussion, I think it turns on what a reasonable definition of "distribute" is. No reasonable person would hold every project on SF to be notable, even though SF "distributes" them...  Last I checked the article originator seemed to "get it"... ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it help if we changed the word to "endorse"? It seems the guideline is really looking for a kind of affirmation that the content is good; Free hosts don't do that, but if somebody like the New York Times publishes an article, that's also an endorsement of sorts, on top of being a "mere" publication. Nifboy 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think footnote seven is good enough to catch tyhis, although we might need to expand the examples to add serch engine results as being trivial distribution.  I thought that was a no-brainer, personally, but I never considered search results to be content.  I suppose since they can generate income they probably are content, but they are certainly non-trivial.  Hiding  talk 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this and the iTunes sitch below, I'd certainly support beefing up either the footnote or guideline, whichever makes more sense, to address this loophole. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I don't really see it as a loophole.  AFD is probably the best place to discuss contentious issues like the one below.  The guidelines, to my mind, shouldn't be able to cover every eventuality. I don't think there should be wikilawyering over the guidelines, but that each case should be discussed individually, using the guidelines as a reference but not a rulebook. Hiding  talk 13:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My instinct would say that a podcast should not receive notability simply for being distributed through the iTMS service.  However, guideline #3 does seem to imply this by its wording.  I think some more clarity needs to be brought to this guideline, it's much too vague as it stands now. --Cymsdale 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd have to look at what being distributed by iTMS means before we categorically state whether it denotes notability or not.  If distribution by iTMS is trivial, then it's caught by footnote seven.  So we just need to get a consensus on whether iTMS distribution is trivial.  Anyone know the mechanics of how distribution by iTMS is gained.  What podcasts are we talking about here? Hiding  talk 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The podcast in question at the moment is Radio Askew. As far as I can tell, there is some vetting of podcasts done by iTMS; it's not a parallel with having, say, a Geocities URL. The problem is, Apple's help is vague about how much review is done, though it implies consideration of whether explicit language tags are appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: reading this The iTunes Music Store podcast directory will only contain references to the RSS feeds available on a podcaster’s website. A podcaster must be running web-server software in order to host their podcast. When a user subscribes to a podcast through the iTunes Music Store, iTunes accesses the podcaster’s RSS feed and downloads the enclosed audio files directly from the podcaster’s website., from the [iTunes podcast FAQ, it reads to me that the podcasts aren't distributed by iTunes.  I guess it hinges on your definition of distribution.  However, I'd be inclined to vote keep on the podcast in question at afd, it seems a notable podcast given the guests, endorsement and output.  But I'm an inclusionist, YMMV.  Best thing to do would be to list it at AFD if you don't think it merits an article.  These guidelines aren't rules for deletion. Hiding  talk 13:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution means ''what'' 

message: There is some disagreement between me and another editor about how the web site ComoAnda applies to guideline #3.  The discussion can be found on my talk page.  I would like to get an outside opinion on this. --Cymsdale 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  According to that criterion, every single project on SourceForge is de facto notable. Just zis Guy you know? 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it trivial to get a project on SF, though? Nifboy 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the point. --Cymsdale 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the AfD discussion, I think it turns on what a reasonable definition of "distribute" is. No reasonable person would hold every project on SF to be notable, even though SF "distributes" them...  Last I checked the article originator seemed to "get it"... ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it help if we changed the word to "endorse"? It seems the guideline is really looking for a kind of affirmation that the content is good; Free hosts don't do that, but if somebody like the New York Times publishes an article, that's also an endorsement of sorts, on top of being a "mere" publication. Nifboy 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think footnote seven is good enough to catch tyhis, although we might need to expand the examples to add serch engine results as being trivial distribution.  I thought that was a no-brainer, personally, but I never considered search results to be content.  I suppose since they can generate income they probably are content, but they are certainly non-trivial.  Hiding  talk 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this and the iTunes sitch below, I'd certainly support beefing up either the footnote or guideline, whichever makes more sense, to address this loophole. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I don't really see it as a loophole.  AFD is probably the best place to discuss contentious issues like the one below.  The guidelines, to my mind, shouldn't be able to cover every eventuality. I don't think there should be wikilawyering over the guidelines, but that each case should be discussed individually, using the guidelines as a reference but not a rulebook. Hiding  talk 13:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ComoAnda]] and guideline #3 

message: If a podcast is available via the iTunes Music Store, is it being distributed by iTMS? I.e., can anybody get their podcast on iTMS, or is there enough vetting done that a podcast available there would be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes? —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My instinct would say that a podcast should not receive notability simply for being distributed through the iTMS service.  However, guideline #3 does seem to imply this by its wording.  I think some more clarity needs to be brought to this guideline, it's much too vague as it stands now. --Cymsdale 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd have to look at what being distributed by iTMS means before we categorically state whether it denotes notability or not.  If distribution by iTMS is trivial, then it's caught by footnote seven.  So we just need to get a consensus on whether iTMS distribution is trivial.  Anyone know the mechanics of how distribution by iTMS is gained.  What podcasts are we talking about here? Hiding  talk 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The podcast in question at the moment is Radio Askew. As far as I can tell, there is some vetting of podcasts done by iTMS; it's not a parallel with having, say, a Geocities URL. The problem is, Apple's help is vague about how much review is done, though it implies consideration of whether explicit language tags are appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: reading this The iTunes Music Store podcast directory will only contain references to the RSS feeds available on a podcaster’s website. A podcaster must be running web-server software in order to host their podcast. When a user subscribes to a podcast through the iTunes Music Store, iTunes accesses the podcaster’s RSS feed and downloads the enclosed audio files directly from the podcaster’s website., from the [iTunes podcast FAQ, it reads to me that the podcasts aren't distributed by iTunes.  I guess it hinges on your definition of distribution.  However, I'd be inclined to vote keep on the podcast in question at afd, it seems a notable podcast given the guests, endorsement and output.  But I'm an inclusionist, YMMV.  Best thing to do would be to list it at AFD if you don't think it merits an article.  These guidelines aren't rules for deletion. Hiding  talk 13:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes Music Store 

message: OK, let's look at whether these memes meet the current WP:WEB guidelines -- Dragonfiend 04:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing guideline 

message: (Reset indent)
*We're going to have problems if we begin with a supposition like "we should  have internet memes on Wikipedia".  That's an entirely inappropiate foundation to build upon, and lends itself to bending over backwards to attempt to "force in" something that a personal POV indicates is "worthy".
**I build this supposition based on the consensus of the community, which has not historically weighed the WP:WEB guidelines to base the notability of internet memes.  The only example I'm surprised saw actual media coverage was the Prime Number Shitting Bear, which wasn't presented at the time of its AfD, but still somewhat fails to address old memes when the internet wasn't something the media really covered.  And even WITH the current standards actually somehow meeting these crazy standards, there's no evidence that it's being considered as such, since people still don't care to use WP:WEB as a standard. There are far more wrinkles in internet-only media that aren't exactly being addressed here, which is why I'm still a strong advocate for a separate guideline. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrics 

message: I really don't see what the problem is.  If the articles use reliable sources to build the information, then they meet guideline 1.  It's that simple.  At the moment LUEshi cites no sources, so that needs to be addressed. Hiding  talk 10:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems involve what works as a "reliable source" for an internet meme, and the issues of notability for web-only content that is unlikely to get "traditional" media coverage.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's not really a problem that these guidlines or any notability guidlines should seek to determine.  The reliability of sources is an issue upon which, in a certain respect, you have to make your own judgement on.  If you don't feel the sources are reliable enough to support the information that has been added, dicuss that on the article talk page in the first instance, and then at Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  If you're concerned that the article in its entirety is not supported by reliable sources, I'd add a template:sources, again discuss the issue on the article talk page, and if none are forthcoming within a week or so, then consider listing the article at WP:AFD, citing your reason as being that the article cannot be sourced in reliable sources.  WP:AFD is ultimately the only forum which can generate an article specific consensus upon an articles inclusion or deletion.  I'd note that Dragonfiend managed to find "traditional" media coverage for many memes, so it might not be as unlikely as you say. However, all that said, a rule of thumb you might consider could be that if the sources in question meet the guidelines outlined in these guidelines, then they can be thought of as reliable sources. It's something to consider. Hiding  talk 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this guideline is designed to take that into account.  You seem to misunderstand me - I don't want to see internet memes go by the wayside, I want to see them stick around, and WP:WEB is not doing the greatest job in reflecting the general consensus, nor is it designed to do so.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the guideline is designed to move the debate from is this notable to is this a reliable source on which to build an article.  In this instance it appears to have worked.  As I suggest, consider the sourcing of the articles in question, consider whether they are verifiable, are of a neutral point of view and that they do not constitute original research.  These guidelines are not meant to tweaked to allow for any particular article on a given topic or topic group to exist or be deleted.  Each article should be taken on its merits; the guidelines merely offer guidance on what to consider.  And again, since Dragonfiend found traditional media sources I'm not entirely sure there is a problem here.  I confess I am baffled as to what consensus you are describing above.  Does there exist a consensus that all internet memes are worthy of an article? Hiding  talk 22:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to use the moronic "it exists" argument, but the existence of memes are reliable, just as, say, the existence of you or I.  The question is how to judge whether such things are notable.  I'm certainly not, and some internet memes are, but some are not.  Traditional, non-internet media do not always do it justice - it certainly doesn't for Peppers or LUEshi, and a lot of people would scoff at the source for the Prime Number Shitting Bear (those were the three examples of internet memes that I was providing), but they're still notable, like Star Wars Kid, Badger Badger, etc.  And I'm not saying all internet memes are notable and worthy, but that some are, and the current guidelines fail to properly address that.  It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, many memes I've voted keep on during AfD wouldn't meet the guidelines I'd like to see. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not and should not be a place where anything gains recognition: It is a repository of things that have already been recognized. Nifboy 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, moreover, Wikipedia articles should represent verifiable scholarship about the thing being discussed.  The issue of verifiability is not whether a meme (or website) exists, but whether there is anything significant, reliable, independent and verifiable that has been said about it.  If a meme has been observed 100 times, but has been the subject of peer-reviewed articles, it is valid for inclusion, and there is something to say about it.  If a second meme has been observed 1,000,000 times, but no one with any credentials has said anything about it, I see no way to write an NPOV article of interest without committing original research.  Robert A.West (Talk) 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just use the existing guidelines

message: Perhaps this should be labelled as a clarification of existing policy (WP:V) as it applies to website articles, since that is basically what it now is. While WP:WEB isn't technically policy, it might as well be, since WP:V is. --W.marsh 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy