Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 3

message: ==== 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Massive refactoring 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Previous discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this is an excellent idea. When I am King  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Open and/or hot items detailed 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Membership in a syndicate 

message: *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)
thread_title:  New discussion on this topic 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this is an excellent idea. When I am King  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable Achievements 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As an academic working on webcomics, I will raise an eyebrow at this. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wider acceptance 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Raise the website alexa 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Make a tiered system 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Medical articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Stumbled across this just now (Spoiler: "Because art matters"). How's that for an excuse reason? Nifboy 03:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Updated guidelines 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Syndicates are in, but in some other form 

message: #Phil Sandifer 04:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: You cannot hold polls to magically override consensus on other pages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a web directory? 

message: There were three sections removed:
#Authorship - this wasn't actually telling us anything that the overarching policy doesn't already cover.
#Unique, etc - discussion showed no support, verged on OR for wikipedians to determin what was groundbreaking.
#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. </br>
brenneman(t)(c) 03:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Main page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't really think it's appropriate to redirect a WikiProject's talk page. Phil Sandifer 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Wikiproject is not a discussion of inclusion guidelines. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And what's this?  Has WP:CSD been expanded? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: **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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blogs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't really think it's appropriate to redirect a WikiProject's talk page. Phil Sandifer 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Wikiproject is not a discussion of inclusion guidelines. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And what's this?  Has WP:CSD been expanded? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: **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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Blogging]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Podcasts 

message: 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)
thread_title: Forum Requirements

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Onus on the deleter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Main page revolving door 

message: "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)
thread_title: Good Faith

message: 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 
*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 , it is out of place
*Radiant_>|< 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert, discuss changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criteria for non-Website internet material 

message: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 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)
thread_title: Additional Criteria

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Keenspot]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forums 

message: *
*
*
*
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)
thread_title:  List of example forums 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question Regarding Sites as Links