Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 2

message: 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 (UTC)
That's because Yahoo and eBay are major corporations with large amounts of real-world assets and not merely websites. Perhaps a better example would be YTMND or Something Awful or Slashdot. — Phil Welch 03:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Websites

message: Can we establish that any website for any company or organization should not have its own article, but instead be listed with that company or organization? The exception would be if the site has another purpose than advertising, customer service or a discussion forum. But frankly I don't see the need for a page on the website of, say, Shell. Radiant_>|< 12:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
*Since microsoft.com, yahoo.com, etc. redirect to the appropriate company sites, this sounds like a fair policy. However, I'd say redirects aren't needed unless the website has a certain degree of recognition. People don't first think of Shell.com when asked about Shell gas stations, for example (they probably think of oil prices at the pump!) Mr Bound 16:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
**This obviously may not apply when the site is the company's primary buisness, like eBay or Yahoo.DES 16:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 01:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I fear though, that we may be solving a non-existent problem.Searching for .com shows that practically all such pages already are redirects, with the exceptions only as described above. -Splash 14:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company sites 

message: I don't see why Wikipedia needs an article about a website if the article does nothing more than describe the site.  Take the article microsoft.com as an example of the typical website article.  It simply serves no purpose I can fathom.  It tells no one anyhing that they couldn't learn with less effort from Google and the website itself.
There is a description of the structure of the website, the names a few gifs and so on: all of which is subject to change without notice, and much more easily learned by just looking at the website itself.  Aside from an explanation of the ".com" suffix, there is nothing else.
Certainly, "microsoft.com" is a notable site, but microsoft.com is not a noteworthy article, and I have trouble imagining how it ever could become one.  What is there to say?  And doesn't the same thing apply to the vast majority of websites?
By contrast, an article on the CERN site would have a lot to say about its historical importance in the early days of the web, but I wouldn't bother talking much about the structure or content of the current website.  An article discussing support websites in general, or contrasting different styles of corporate site, could be very interesting, but that is not what we get as a rule.
Robert A West 03:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your point- which is backed up by the fact that the article microsoft.com was a redirect to Microsoft for most of the last two years. I've now reverted it back to being a redirect. However, from your additions I've removed "Is it relied upon for life-saving information?" as I couldn't see how that would necessarily make the website noteworthy enough for its own article (eg NHS Direct is about the organisation including both the phone and web service). Did you have an example in mind? --G Rutter 08:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, NOAA uses its website as one means to distribute alerts -- there has to be some commentary about how effective this is.  But, I am not attached to the example.  65.229.22.71 04:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Any article should say something worth saying

message: Has anyone considered if the website has relevance beyond its subject matter? If someone has, I haven't seen the discussion.
Yahoo and eBay are important as large-scale businesses. Some sites (like Snopes) have become prominent reference sites. Company sites are part of the company and only as important as the company itself. Slashdot is a prominent technology site with various other functions. 
But, say, a net forum that concentrates on stragegy discussions for players of a specific computer game or fan discussions of a book, comic book of TV series, have importance mainly to those who are interested about that subject. They could be included as an external link in the article about that particular subject but would not necessarily deserve their own article. Similarly as the personal or professional web page of a famous person (and possibly very extensive fan site about that person) could be mentioned in the article about that person but the sites itself would not deserve their own articles. 
That would not concern the popularity of the site but if the site is relevant outside its subject matter - Skysmith 09:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance outside the subject matter 

message: I realize there is a lot of gray area in which web-sites are includable. However so many websites are added as advertisements every day that is is difficult to wade through them in VfD. We should be able to at least establish a minimum level criteria for not being speedily deleted to reduce the editor and Admin work load. I think this would have to be a very low bar to be accepted as consensus, but I will try to propose a few rules of thumbs to see what you guys think.
:Ok here goes. If the Website is ...
* ... a personal blog or page owned by non-notable person, same criteria as the NN speedy delete.
* ... pure advertisement for a product which does not yet exist, or is otherwise unnotable.
* ... forum or fan page primarily used to discuss something which already has an entry. (move it to the relevent entry, this isn't a web-catalog, noone searches by website) Self discussing webpages wouldn't meet this criteria, that is news and commentary.
* ... some low number of google hits must reference it (not it's topic). Because of googles nature it is a good way to estimate link coverage.  I would propose 50 non-duplicate.
* ... the webpage must be in english, or have an influence on a large number of english speaking people.
--Darkfred Talk to me 13:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus for Speedy Deletables 

message: The guideline, "wikipedia:reliable sources", prohibits the use of webforums and blogs as sources for articles. The exception is that such sites can be sources for themselves. For websites that are not covered in the media that means they only have one source, which makes NPOV and verifying very difficult. In some cases there are entire webforums or blogs that exist to criticize other websites (e.g. Stormfront/Mootstormfront, CARM/AARM) but the guideline says that we should't cite them. I see four possible outcomes for articles on non-media-covered webistes: 1) They are limited to the most NPOV information, such as name, authors, and URL, and then deleted as a listing. 2) They are deleted as hopelessly POV/unverifable until a meaningful media source can be found. 3) They remain and violate the NPOV policy. 4) They remain and violate the reliable sources guideline. Is there a better outcome possible than any of these?  -Willmcw 22:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:IMO webforums and blogs are not reliable sources for the facts that they state, but should be considered to be valid sources for the fact that certian subjects are widely discussed in online fora, or that certian opnions are common there.  That particular people hold a particular opnion is (or may be) a fact, and as a fact it may be appropraite for inclusion in an article. This is really a version of the Use-mention distinction. Perhaps wikipedia:reliable sources should be edited to clarify this. DES (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: :Any website may be listed as long as it is well-known to many people outside of its actual readership. News stories, etc. could be used to prove this.
I wrote this up a while ago, and nobody seems to have made note of it. Could this be any more complicated than the messy and subjective proposal currently being debated on this page? To be frank, I think it could be adopted for other deletion debates as well, but maybe I'm just overwhelmed by my own genius. :) Ashibaka (tock) 02:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that your proposal is exactly the same as the first proposal. Both want to only include websites which are well-known/notable (whatever you want to call it). Both want to prove this through news stories and also in any other appropriate ways ("etc."). But, what other appropriate ways are there? Does the fact that my website has appeared in a local newspaper and an obscure book make it worthy of an article in Wikipedia? Probably not, so what does? Exactly how "many people outside its actual readership" is enough to get an article? (100? 1 million? And how do we know how many people know about it?) What does "well-known" mean? (Does it count only if you known the URL, or is "oh yeah, I vaguely remember reading something about that" enough?). These are some of the problems and this is why it keeps on getting more complicated, messy and subjective as people try and work out how to answer these questions! --G Rutter 08:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right. But stats-based decisions like "having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members" seem more arbitrary to me than deciding upon an outside standard (whether it be news stories, blog entries, or what) for proving notability. For example, Hongfire.com is a forum with many thousands of members, but it's just a generic pirate BitTorrent tracker and is certainly not notable. Ashibaka (tock) 22:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative blanket proposal

message: In my belief, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's aim to be the central source of a multitude and mass of information.
The articles created or editted for websites are simply providing information about them, and in the distant future if some of these sites phase out, the articles will serve as information regarding their history.
If information on websites are banned from Wikipedia, then immediately, there goes half the information Wikipedia comprises, the Internet is such a huge part of Wikipedia and life these days it would be down right stupid to delete all website-related articles from Wikipedia. And anyway, the articles on the websites are NOT created for the sole reason of promotion, they are created to add to the Wikipedia pool of information and to share with it's users what the website is about.
Sure, if someone created an article on their website which was a simple site that talked about dogs for instance, then I wouldn't consider this to be worthy of being created on Wikipedia (although perhaps a separate section can be created for these article-types to be submitted to). But most site articles submitted to Wikipedia are about a site or something which is new, unique or interesting and as I said before, adds to the pool of knowledge that is Wikipedia.
cheers
Treelovinhippie 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion (inc a few tips) 

message: Couldn't you also include criteria for "Back links" (using link:http://www.website.com)?  THat would tell you, *roughly* how many website are linking to it in Google, although Google isn't always accurate with that, so it shouldn't be too strict.  With Google toolbar and the link you can also check PageRank on a scale from 1 to 10, which it has been speculated is a logarithmic scale describing PageRank. Nathan J. Yoder 15:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PageRank and back-links 

message: I've created a  template for articles about webcomics that do not qualify for inclusion by the current guidelines. It's intended to be used in the same way as , but explicitly mentions and links to the web comics policy. Does this seem useful?  — Gwalla | Talk 20:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't these go on VFD if they don't qualify for inclusion? Ambi 21:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so.  — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed non-notability template 

message: I'm sorry if this seems obvious to you, but I'm not very familiar with Alexa. Which ranking is the relevant one for our purposes? It must be "reach," I guess, because "Views" is always very very low, even for very popular sites. --Iustinus 29 June 2005 19:15 (UTC)
:Traffic Rank. A lower number means higher traffic (a rank of 1 is the most popular site among Alexa users).  — Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)
::The project page says "Alexa will be used to determine traffic for any web comic with its own domain name. If the web comic has a 3-month average traffic above 200,000, it can be considered to be an entry that could be allowed in Wikipedia." Surely this does not refer to "Traffic Rank"? Unless "above" actually means "below" I suppose (how to phrase such a ranking could be confusing). --Iustinus 30 June 2005 05:56 (UTC)
:::That's precisely what it means. If something is ranked #1, it said to be ranked higher than something ranked #2.  — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 23:38 (UTC)
::::Perhaps you guys should reword it "The webcomic must attain a rank equal to or higher than 200,000 in a continuous 3 month period" or something... seems kind of confusing the way it is now... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 09:57 (UTC)
I just changed it from "above 200,000" to "better than 200,000", since that is what is meant.  It is often necessary to explain to people that a higher number than 200,000 is actually worse, not better. (This usually comes up in VfD discussions.) It might be good to go further in clarifying, but it's a start. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa 

message: Since, well, Wikiprojects can't actually set global policy, I propose this as our new inclusion guidelines:
Articles that survive VfD or are not nominated for VfD will be included.
How's it sound? Snowspinner 16:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds blindingly obvious. I like it. Nifboy 18:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiprojects can't set global policy, but they can suggest criteria for evaluating a subject, as WP:MUSIC has demonstrated.  — Gwalla | Talk 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New idea

message: Essentially, I'm wondering what criteria might be used to determine a comic's notability, outside of its Alexa rank (which is rather strict) or the size of its archives (which doesn't fly in VfD in practice). Possible criteria might include:
*Web Cartoonists’ Choice Awards winners and/or nominees.
*Members (past and present) of various collectives, such as Keenspot or Modern Tales (probably what groups will be included will be determined individually).
*Comics which are the focus of articles in Comixpedia or other notable webcomic sites.
Thoughts/suggestions? Nifboy 08:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about webcomic lists on the internet already?  I know they function as ranking lists, but like Keenspace, they act as internet communites for webcomic artists.  Buzzcomix and TopWebComics immediately come to mind. --Shirley Grace 03:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability based on something other than popularity or longevity?

message: I thinking of making a notability template That will simply outline the requirements that can be pasted in a discussion or used in some other manner. It will be at . Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:50, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
:My thoughts on Notability: I think Proposal B ought to be eliminated completely. Not every comic that reaches 100 strips and 33 weeks is notable. Or better yet, almost no comic is notable after only 100 strips and 33 weeks. Updating 3 times a week for 8 months does not equal instant notability. Proposal A is pretty good. Alexa rank under 200,000 reflects that a large number of readers find the comic notable. Proposal C isn't bad, though again a comic doesn't reach instant notability after 5 years if no one reads it. Maybe Proposal C should only be used for webcomics that have stopped publishing, since comics that have stopped publishing are unlikely to still have the readers to have Alexa 200,000 hits? Thoughts? --Dragonfiend 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal B is basically used as CSD criteria at this point; it's very easy to kill a webcomic in VfD if it doesn't meet those criteria. Proposal A has a fairly narrow scope, and it's generally agreed upon that a comic like Bruno is notable despite its abysmal Alexa rank of ~600k. Nifboy 16:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of eventually making it like the babel template, in that we insert it into the talk page with the relevant inclusion items highlighted. I'm just trying to figure out a way to make the notability more prominent. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:13, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
I put it on the front page of the project. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not happy with the way this template is being used on AfD's to give implied legitimacy to a set of proposed guidelines which are not, and won't be, supported by most wikipedia editors.  I added the word "proposed" to the template, but I'm still not happy. -- SCZenz 22:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have listed it for deletion.  Using a template to give legitimacy to proposed and controversal guidelines like this is plainly not kosher; if you want to make arguments on AfD debates from proposed (or even existing!) policy, the place to do it is within your own signed comments, not in unsigned templates plastered at the top of the discussion. --Aquillion 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability template 

message: There seems to be a common argument that, because Alexa is biased, it shouldn't be used for the comic criteria.  This is reasonable, but many people on the AfD pages seem to believe it also follows that no proof that anyone reads the comic is required.  This is silly.  I don't care how it is done, but somehow there must be a verifiable assertion that a lot of people read a comic for it to be counted as notable simply because it exists.  (Of course, there may also be other reasons it's notable too; I'm speaking for cases where there aren't.) -- SCZenz 19:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement for Alexa? 

message: I propose that we need to also have "Is on a major webcomics syndicate" including Keenspot, Blank Label Comics, and any of the Modern Tales family on the list. Snowspinner 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have "is it in the top 25 on Keenspot", and could have similar standards for other syndicates.  Wikipedia should not be a catalogue of the many Keenspot comics--that's what the Keenspot article links to Keenspot for. -- SCZenz 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You have a top-25 on KeenSPACE. Keenspace is the free, anyone can post a webcomic service run by the same company that does Keenspot, which is a syndicate where the strips are selected by editors, often, though not always from the strips at Keenspace. Which is to say that by definition, all Keenspot strips are more important and bigger than Keenspace strips. Snowspinner 21:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, duly noted.  The organization there has always confused me.  Presumably what you say makes sense then, although I'll have to look around a bit. -- SCZenz 22:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm with Snowspinner on this.  As far as I'm concerned, if it's on Keenspot, Blank Label, Modern Tales, GraphicSmash, Girlamatic, or any other respected webcomic venue, it's sufficiently notable by default.  Likewise if it's  a WCCA or any other similar award.  -Abe Dashiell 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as Keenspot comics go, thankfully most of those comics operate under their own domainname, and in the case that a comic does not qualify under these criteria, I'm not sure it would be notable merely because it is a keenspot comic. As for the other webcomic syndicates, if a comic is truly notable for said syndicate's history, it should be included in the article about the syndicate, and could get an overflow article if a syndicate's article gets too big. If it does not qualify under those terms or under the traffic, critical acclaim, or other notability criteria pertaining to said specific comic, I don't think said comic is notable. --Codemonkey 19:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd. If a webcomic has, for some reason, reached the point that it's being done professionally (As with any of the Modern Tales suite) or it has been added to a money-making syndicate, it's notable enough - certainly more notable than the most notable Keenspace comic. Snowspinner 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not absurd.  It's like saying that every band which has been signed to a music label automatically qualifies for an entry.  Or every book that has ever been published also qualifies for an article.  I am certain, that the most notable keenspace comic is more notable than quite a few keenspot comics.  Maybe the art is good enough for the keenspot moderators or the story is good enough, but if the public don't agree by not reading the comic, then I don't think it would warrant a wikipedia article.  Graphic Smash may be in itself notable, but how notable are the individual comics?  Whereas I believe say a blogging portal may be notable, I would be against saying that every blog belonging to that portal is notable. - Hahnchen 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I point out that WP:MUSIC states as an inclusion criteria, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)" Snowspinner 04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but whereas if an album flops on an important indie label or greater, the artist would be dropped, maybe never to be heard of again.  This is something that does not happen with webcomics, the webcomic label does not risk losing much financially if a comic fails.  Thus, for a band to have released 2 albums on a major independent label, one can be assured that the first album had at least a moderate success.  With say graphic smash, whereas there is a bar for inclusion, it is the comics which "advertise" the label, we see the label's success.  With a music label, the label advertises the bands, and we see the band's success.  Which is why, I feel for small webcomic groups, that the separate webcomics are merely the collective identity of the group.  Whereas a band is more than just "part of the portfolio".  It is the reason why I would much more be in favour of small webcomic groups having their separate webcomic details merged with the group article. - Hahnchen 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously we should have at least 25 Keenspace comic articles. The real issue is whether some particular "top 25" list is accurate enough to be a reliable source. Do you have any information on its quality? Factitious 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's by no means obvious how many keenspace comic articles we should have.  I'm against the "top 25 on keenspace" kind of idea.  Just as I would be against a "top 100 on geocities" kind of idea.  It's not like wikipedia has to fill quotas.  Being one of the most popular 25 comics on a free comic hosting site at one point or another would mean a shedload of totally unnotable comics meet the inclusion criteria.  Maybe there are 25 notable comics which are currently hosted on keenspace, but if there are, the article should assert its notability, other than the "top 25 on keenspace" reason. - Hahnchen 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't this covered by the "because of it's author's notability, because it is a spin-off of a notable webcomic" criteria I proposed? --Codemonkey 19:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can kind of agree with this.  For example, any piece of work David Hockney produces would be inherently notable.  A piece of work by a notable webcomic artist would also be notable.  But I'm wary of this stretching too far.  Just as not every pencil sketch by a notable artist is notable, not everything a notable webcomic artist produces is notable.  Things like tiny/aborted side projects which never garnered critical attention or popularity should not have an article of their own, but exist within an article for the webcomic artist. - Hahnchen 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndicate, keenspace, etc. membership 

message: (Section archived here from Village pump Hiding  talk 13:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that WP:COMIC has criteria that are too lenient, and that their guidelines should either be ignored completely or rewritten.  However, most nominated webcomics are not being debated solely on proposals B and C.  But some are, as your examples (which I just voted delete on) show.  Bottom line is: yes, we need to keep an eye on this--and remember, what four people at WP:COMIC think might be a good idea is not policy! -- SCZenz 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we need to increase visibility on this.  But I posted this here, at this time, because the afds have now been concatenated together, and some users have just gone through them voting "keep - 100 strips". - Hahnchen 18:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right, the problem is wider than I thought--as I look at more pages, I see more and more people voting keep based on the most lenient of the proposals.  There has to be some way to get people who don't view massive inclusion of webcomics as their mission (and thus join WP:CMC) to have a reasonable voice in the criteria for keeping webcomics.  As it is, they've got their page and their cute little template with the proposals, and it gives legitimacy to the view of a small, but enthusiastic minority. -- SCZenz 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that there should be other criteria than "100 strips". The question with every encyclopedic article is "has it affected people?" A strip can even reach 100 episodes without being read by more than 10 people or so, which hardly counts as "has affected the people". Do tell me, on which talk pages do I have to express this concern as well and I'll do it. Cheers, Peter S. 19:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could comment on WP:COMIC although I don't think they'll listen.  Or you can go to each AfD on Webcomics on AFD and vote Delete, explaining you think a lack of notability trumps writing a hundred strips (if it's warranted).  That's what I did. -- SCZenz 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about if the procedure is changed: Without enough proof, an article is deleted? Peter S. 20:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try posting your comments at the talk pages at WP:COMIC, but "proof" in the webcomic world is fickle indeed.  Most often involve one line mentions in questionable blogs, or review by a webcomic portals.  Almost certainly nothing outside of the webcomic community. - Hahnchen 20:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  As far as I can tell, that already is Wikipedia's general procedure.  Only verifiable information is included in anything. -- SCZenz 20:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you got me wrong here: Currently, the creator of the "request for delete" poll has to list reasons why the article should be removed. How about, in the webcomic domain, one adds a "request for delete" and the creators of the article have to defend why it should remain there. How about that? Peter S. 20:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you have to list why the article should be removed.  But saying "not notable" or "all claims are unverifiable" are both completely legitimate reasons.  And then, as you say, the creators of the article have to defend it. -- SCZenz 22:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:COMIC 

message: A great deal has been said on the strengths and weaknesses of the "Alexa test" already.  I don't really have much to add to that discussion so I won't regurgitate all the arguments.  I will, however, note that the standard espoused on this page is at odds with the much more long-standing standard which was recently consolidated to Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa test.  This page alleges that 200,000 on the Alexa test is automatically notable for a webcomic but the main page says that a page (on any topic) in the top 100,000 is merely a maybe.  I'm going to be bold and bring this project page into compliance with the main guidelines.  Before anyone changes it back, let's have a specific discussion here on why webcomic should be held to a different standard in those few situations where the Alexa test is the right measure.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with this if and only if alternate means for notability like syndicate inclusion, award nomination, or critical attention are added. Snowspinner 17:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree with snowspinner.  Say, we really need to move forward on hammering out one proposal and putting it up! -- SCZenz 17:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa revisited 

message: This doesn't solve all the problems - there are still at least two strips I can think of where I think the strips are notable, but they're not captured by any of the syndicate rules. But at the very least, the following syndicates should be considered notable, along with all of their contents.
*The entire Modern Tales family (Modern Tales, Girlamatic, Graphic Smash, Serializer)
*Keenspot
*Blank Label
*Dayfree
There are some other things that need to be sorted out - we need to decide what to do about WebcomicsNation, which is like Keenspace. 
Also, there are at least two comics that aren't making it by Alexa or syndicate rules that I think are highly notable - Cat and Girl (Alexa just under 100,000) and Her! Girl vs Pig (Alexa way down near 500,000). So we've got a start with the syndicates, but even syndicates+Alexa, the guidelines have too many holes. Cat and Girl has a review on Webcomics Examiner, which is probably a good source for notability - I believe it was proposed above, and if it wasn't, then substantial coverage in it, Comixpedia, or Websnark should cound for notability. Her! was a comic that started in a magazine with 4.5 million circulation. Magazine went under, comic went to the web. Its guest strips section indicates substantial love among webcomics creators (Several notable creators have done guest strips), it's been mentioned in passing on Websnark as a strip that he reds, but no one thing decisively establishes notability according to any proposed guideline. But it would still be a VERY bad strip to delete. Snowspinner 18:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable syndicates

message: I've come to the party late, I know.  How about listing some of the simpler points, and focusing discussion on them?  Get what we agreeon out of the way, as it were. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal points 

message: Since all were unacceptable to a large number of users on one side of this debate or the other, I have replaced the proposals on the front page with my proposal.  It has been criticized by people on both sides of the debate, which I take to mean that it's a possible starting point for a consensus, where the others are not.  Obviously the discussion could continue! -- SCZenz 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are very nicely done. I've moved the Web Cartoonist Choice Awards with the other webcomics community items. Dragonfiend 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, this will do.  It looks like something that neither deletionists nor inclusionsts will be entirely pleased with, but can abide by.  That strikes me as being the best course to take.  It sets guidelines which indicate notability, but doesn't mandate that articles which do not meet them precisely should be deleted.  I'd prefer the WCCA stays in SCZenz's original position, however. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seemed out of place with The Eisners and Webbys -- those two awards indicate recognition outside of the field of webcomics, whereas the WCCAs, being voted on by webcartoonists, more properly belong with other wbcomics community sources like The Web Comics Examiner and Comixpedia. Dragonfiend 00:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the WCCA is a lesser award, but it seems qualitatively different from a fan publication like Comixpedia.  Maybe it's splitting hairs.  In any case for an Eisner, even being nominated should indicate notability.  For a WCCA, on the other hand, you'd actually have to win one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you about placement, Abe, but I don't think it's worth the argument.  Maybe I should replace the numbers with bullet points to avoid the implication that some criteria are more important than others. -- SCZenz 01:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold replacement of old guideline proposals 

message: I am starting a new heading on this since the ones above seem to have drifted and since there is a new proposal. The Proposal currently under discussion includes #5 "If a webcomic is a member of a professional syndicate ...  it should be included." Now that I am looking into some of the other "professional" and "notable" syndicates, I find that they appear to be neither professional nor notable. Dayfree Press, for example, has an Alexa ranking of 1,497,083. It would appear in this case that, while some of the individual comics on the syndicate are notable, the syndicate itself is not. And now that I understand a little about how it works, I see that it's not even a professional webcomics syndicate like Modern Tales and Serializer are, nor are they selling ads like Keenspot. Acccording to the Dayfree mission, "THE BUSINESS MODEL: Some webcomics groups choose to charge for subscription access to archives, while others rely primarily on advertising. While Dayfree Press makes no requirements of a business model ... Almost a year after the network’s creation, some founding members have found themselves making good money on the side as a result of their merchadising efforts." How can they be considered a "professional syndicate" when their "business model" has "no requirements of a business model"? When all they are doing is "making good money on the side" for only "some founding members"? This hardly sounds professional. I do not support including Dayfree Press as a notable syndicate. Dragonfiend 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Their founder was number 11 on some Comixpedia list of the 25 most influential webcomics people.  That makes the syndicate notable by our standards.  Whether it makes all of its webcomics automatically notable is a valid question. -- SCZenz 07:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember the article you are refering to -- it is here . Calling it a list of "most influential" people is a misnomer. The title of the article is actually "Comixpedia's List of 25 People in Webcomics for 2004." That's it, just "25 People," not "25 most anything." The article opens by explaining "there is no easy way to name this list, or more importantly, why we included some on it and left off others. It is even harder to attach much importance to the order of the list." Myself, I'm not sure how much importance to attach to being #11 on Comixpedia's in-no-particular order list of people-they're-not-quite-sure-why-they-included. Comixpedia's short description of why he's on their 2004 list seems to suggest if anything notability in the t-shirt printing business: "Neil Gustavson (or 'Neil G' as he’s more commonly known) founded the Dayfree Press group of webcomics, moved his Limited Space webcomic to Keenspot and continued to build his company, Domination T-shirt's domination of the webcomic swag marketplace." This is a good example of the trouble of trying to use comixpedia as a source for notability. They are primarily a news site -- when they write an article about how someone founded a new group of webcomics, it does not necessarily mean that the new group is notable.  Dragonfiend 08:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point, and if it were up to me maybe Dayfree wouldn't be on there.  However, having a proposal that gets consensus seems to be worth having 'em in there.  After the couple Dayfree comics you agree are notable, it's a free pass for less than 10 debatable comics—this is a very small problem, in my opinion. -- SCZenz 11:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Ouch.  I'd rather find some other objective way to loop in those one or two than set a standard that we all agree is bunk to begin with. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * Is there really a consesus that Dayfree ought to be included? I have problems with saying all comics from notable, professional syndicates like Modern Tales and Serializer ought to be included (since there are undoubtably some non-notable comics on every notable syndicate) but Dayfree isn't professional and doesn't seem notable. If it's not professional, than all of the arguments about professional editors risking their livelihoods on choosing these comics for their professional syndicates is totally thrown out the window. Its just a bunch of amateur artists who formed a group to try to promote each other. Should such promotion be taken as notability on Wikipedia? It seems like there may not be consensus on article 5, that "If a webcomic is a member of a professional syndicate whose members are selected by an editor with established notability ... it should be included," and if there even is consensus on that point, surely there can't be consensus that Dayfree Press qualifies as a professional syndicate? I'd like to get more response on this. Dragonfiend 19:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Dayfree Press has several notable comics on their roster.  They then fill up their roster with 2 or 3 upcoming comics by authors they feel are worthy.  Girly, Questionable Content, Dinosaur Comics, Sam and Fuzzy are all DP comic members and have REALLY high Alexa ratings and notable authors.  A low Alexa ranking only means that people hardly ever visit the Dayfree site itself.  The reason for this should be obvious: the comics all link directly to each other and merch is sold directly on the individual comic pages.  There is little reason for people to visit the Dayfree page itself.  Tedzsee 17:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't disagree that there are several notable comics on Dayfree Press, such as Dinosaur Comics that meet multiple criteria for notability as per our proposal. What I disagree with is that somehow the notability of Dinosaur Comics magically rubs off on every other Dayfree Press comic. There are over 20 current and former Dayfree Press comics. Depending on what "several" notable comics means, it sounds like there are between 10 and 15 non-notable comics on Dayfree Press. I'm not comfortable with including a dozen non-notable comics on wikipedia, nor am I comfortable using the same logic with the other actually professional groups such as Modern Tales and Serializer. Not all members of a notable syndicate are notable. We have 7 syndicates listed on our proposal; if there are a dozen non-notable comics on each one (which is a conservative estimate as I look at the list of comics that have been on graphic smash) then we're talking about 90 non-notable comics here. That sounds like a part of the proposal that needs some work. Dragonfiend 19:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of agree.  Whereas Dayfree Press may be notable, and whereas some comics on the Dayfree Press are notable, it doesn't mean every single comic on it is.  The Dayfree Press is a comic book collective, created purely for the mutual benefit of the collated comics through synchronised advertising and promotion.  It's a non professional group, created for mutual promotion.  Having guidelines stating that any member of the Dayfree Press is notable, would be like saying that any musician signed to a minor record label was inherently notable. - Hahnchen 20:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To refer to WP:MUSIC, I think Dayfree Press is analogous to an "important indie label," particularly in that it has a "Roster of performers, many of which are notable". It's also recognition by one's peers in the comic industry; not quite "critical" recognition, which have woefully little of, but it's the closest thing we have.  Nifboy 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *But we're talking about money again. If Mushroom Records puts out two albums by a band, I'll consider that band notable.  Because it costs MR a fair whack to do so, and particularly in light of the "economics of scale" for them compared to Virgin Records or somesuch.  Thus thay make that decision based upon a combination of years of experiance, close contact with the records industry, and almost certainly an already existing upward swing of notability.  (That last is to say, often these are acts that would end up (semi) notable anyway.)  The cost to host a single particular webcomic is almost nil, thus there's a certain "throw enough mud humour at the wall to see what sticks".  We cannot compare small time musicians with albulms out to small time webcomics.  Sorry.  brenneman(t)(c) 01:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Brenneman is right about the economic differences between starting a record label and starting a webcomics site. I'll add that per the "important indie label" distinction of WP:MUSIC, that besides just a "roster of performers, many of which are notable," "a history of more than a few years" is required, meaning Dayfree, founded in 2004, needs at least two or three more years before scraping the bottom of "more than a few years." Dragonfiend 08:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable, non-professional syndicates 

message: Upon further consideration, this is clearly a split discussion from WP:WEB. I am about to be very bold...  brenneman(t)(c) 22:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yow.  Not fixing double redirects because that will be harder to back out.  But before you scream have a good think.  There was already a webcomics section in the other proposed guideline that had the out-of-date proposal.  What if that one passed and this one didn't, for example? - brenneman(t)(c) 22:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We've had no screaming, and a some people posting here as if nothing happened, so in a few hours I'll fix all the re-directs.  To give time for any protests to filter in. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is ok; however, I will not support restricting the guidelines more because of a possibly-different group at WP:WEB.  The webcomics policy must be a compromise between the two sides, with provisions that nobody's completely happy with, or it will be unenforcable. -- SCZenz 01:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Agreed.  It just seemed silly to have two.  I love "with provisions that nobody's completely happy with", by the way!  brenneman(t)(c) 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WEB]] and forking 

message: Since I don't think further rehashing of the same points is going to get us anywhere, I will be simple here.
The following are deal-breakers for me, and I am unable to support or accept any webcomics inclusion guidelines that contain them: All syndicated comics must be included. Webcomics Examiner, Comixpedia, and Websnark must all be taken as signs of notability. Broad community consensus instead of just the people who have been arguing this point endlessly must be sought. There must be an explicit note in the guidelines that they are not an exclusive list of all reasons a webcomic might be worth including. Snowspinner 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously broard community consensus will be sought—you can't call it a guideline otherwise.  I already asked how to do this here.  I agree with you on many of your points, but not all of them.  I am willing to compromise—are you? -- SCZenz 06:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention the page on the mailing list, WP:VP, and on Wikipedia:Goings-on. Snowspinner 15:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know anything about the mailing list.  What's the address, can is there a way to send something to it via Wikipedia itself?  Is there a page about it somewhere? -- SCZenz 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:ML may have what we're after? Dragonfiend 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Killing points

message: Njyoder has just been blocked 24 hours for violating his arbcom personal attack parole at . I know AFD blatantly encourages an atmosphere of assumption of bad faith and happily slandering anyone who might block a deletion, but I'd ask all parties involved to watch it. Here we have an actual expert saying "I provably know much more about this than any of you" and lots of people saying "you might stop us from deleting things, so we'll slander your integrity." This is possibly not the best approach to ensuring quality content in Wikipedia - David Gerard 17:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But we shouldn't defer all the decisions in one area to a single individual, should we? Not that I'm saying that slander yadda yadda is a good thing, but the implication that I Know More Than You and Thou Shalt do as I Command isn't right. -Splashtalk 18:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that User:Eric Burns would be happy to help you in figuring out what comics are notable and worth keeping as well, and he is also demonstrably a subject expert. Snowspinner 18:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no trouble at all with experts (either by acclamation or by hard proof such as you have offered) having considerable influence in such debates. On the other hand, I'd expect them to wield that influence by means of convincing persuasion rather than demanding deference which is more the tone of David Gerard's message. Obviously, it would be tiresome if you/we had to do the same persuasion in every AfD debate, and so developing WP:COMIC makes sense. But it doesn't make sense, and isn't going to fly, that either the guidelines or the deletion debates should operate in an autocratic manner centered on one (ok, two) expert(s). -Splashtalk 18:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This reads as "process over results". Surely the opinion of a (provable) expert in an area actually should count quite a bit more than any editor who wanders in off the wiki and says "I've never heard of it, kill it" - David Gerard 18:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? It reads as persuasion over assumption. -Splashtalk 18:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And, by the way: although I am saying expert opinions should count for more in this response, I really don't see how you get me in my first paragraph saying that people have been slandering Phil's professional integrity meaning "demand deference". People have been quite blatantly using this talk page discussion to slander his professional integrity. Look up and read. - David Gerard 18:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Persuasion has, for the very large part, been how Snowspinner has conducted the debate. And experts should rightly be able to persuade quite effectively. It would be pointless to insist they must do this in every AfD, and hammering some kind of something out in WP:COMIC will mean that this doesn't have to be done. But it isn't necessary for everyone to agree with the expert. I'm not interested in the various animosties elsewhere on the page since they don't help the debate much at all. But, at least the way I read your message, it seems to say "Look, Snowspinner/Eric Burns is an expert, so please, let him get on with it and stop complaining, particularly if the thought of deleting an article might cross your mind". -Splashtalk 18:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And, of course, the earlier slandering of Eric Burns' professional integrity as well. When experts disagree with the casual participant and the latter immediately slanders his professional integrity, I find it hard to see how that fits in with the point of all this: writing a good encyclopedia - David Gerard 18:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Can you be more specific about this "slandering of Eric Burns' professional integrity"? I don't think questioning the expertise and alleged "king maker" status of an amateur webcomics fan blog with an Alexa ranking of over 225,000 and about 50 readers really amounts to anything close to "slandering of Eric Burns' professional integrity." Also, think the word you were looking for was "libeling," not "slandering." Dragonfiend 18:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I've argued elsewhere, the anti-elitism of Wikipedia, while a good thing in many things, is terrible in a deletion process where debates must be completed in five days, and have limited or no opportunities to be revisited on content grounds. Phil Sandifer 00:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can somewhat see your point there, as well as Gerard's point below about "anyone being able to delete a topic". Wikipedia regulars who have little or no knowledge of webcomics ganging up in an AfD is as bad as webcomics fans with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia trying to do the same. That said, those are issues with the AfD process, not this guidleline, and hopefully this guideline will help raise the level of AfD debate. Because we're debating the notability of Modern Tales comics here, for example, we and others won't have to do it 500 more times on 500 more AfDs. Dragonfiend 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If someone quite definitely knows much more about something than you, their opinion is probably going to have quite a bit more behind it and should be paid greater attention. It's not clear what you're asking for here. Your last sentence reads as though you don't like being told someone knows more about something than you, or something - surely that isn't what you mean? Could you please clarify? - David Gerard 18:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please. -Splashtalk 18:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please clarify as requested? Thanks! - David Gerard 23:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  I think entering every conversation assuming everyone is dumber than you is a mistake. I'd rather someone actually be able to make their point rather than just claim they're an expert. And remember we're not talking about expertise in particle physics here; we're talking about supposed expertise in whether webcomics are notable. That is, "I posess the rare esoteric knowledge that allows me to know better than anyone else whether a webcomic has penetrated popular culture than you do." Whether a webcomic has had any impact on the world is hardly the thing that someone can claim "Only I, with my great expertise, truly understands. Who is the rest of the world to disagree?" You know? Dragonfiend 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See, there's a difference between anyone being able to contribute to a wiki and anyone being able to delete a topic from a wiki such that no-one should write on it. In the second situation, if ten casual users says "doesn't sound important to me, delete and salt the earth" and an expert says "actually, don't delete", the second should, I posit, have more attention paid to them, even if the ten casual don't want to listen to him - David Gerard 23:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that's not what's happening nor what anyone is suggesting should happen, repeating the same strawman argument over and over and not addressing someone's argument isn't helping.  The issue is regular users presenting a variety research to only be countered with very minimal evidence and bold claims made by a self-proclaimed expert.  Expertise on the notability and prevalence of webcomics is not part of any kind of established field of study, so all we have is to take people's word that they're an expert.  This is not the same as a degree in an established field like particle physics, as dragonfiend pointed out.  If you claim to have some sort of very esoteric and obscure knowledge, then you should provide the source for it.  I would expect that such an expert would have a background in statistics, sociology and other fields to properly gauge the prevalence of internet things like webcomics.  It's a technical field, not an artistic one.  Nathan J. Yoder 12:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Except that of the two main things I "asked for" (An odd phrasing), one isn't there at all, and the other still has the three months rule that I've argued against repeatedly on the grounds that the least notable Keenspot strip is still more notable than the most notable ComicGenesis strip, and likewise with Modern Tales/Webcomics Nation. Phil Sandifer 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arguing repeatedly that comics like "Big Dick's Ball" (with it's 5 google hits and 2 forum posts about how nobody ever posts in its forum) are more notable than anything on ComicGenesis or Webcomics Nation isn't helping your "I'm an expert" case. If it were correct that every comic on ComicGenesis and Webcomics Nation is less notable than "Big Dick's Ball" than we could all agree that we shouldn't have ANY articles on ComicGenesis or Webcomics Nation comics. Certainly that's not what you or I or anyone esle here wants. Now, I'm not sure if they are even the most notable comics on Webcomics Nation, but certainly Webcomics Nation comics like Tom Hart's "Hutch Owen" and Batton Lash's "Supernatural Law" are more notable than "Big Dick's Ball" and its ilk. In case they've slipped past your expertise, Tom Hart has been nominated for the Harvey, Eisner and Ignatz awards, and "Supernatural Law" has been in print for well over a decade and a film version is in development by Universal. "Big Dick's Ball," on the other hand, was on Graphic Smash, so in your expert opinion it's automatically more notable than comics that have been nominated for major awards or have a decade's worth of books and a movie in the works? That's not expertise; that's just wrong. I'd also like to add that despite it's supposed notability, this discussion is ironically the most attention anyone has ever paid to "Big Dick's Ball." Dragonfiend 20:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't strips that are making it in by virtue of being "Top 20" on the site either. Phil Sandifer 20:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is that a retraction of your statement that all Webcomics Nation comics are less notable then the least notable comic on Modern Tales, Graphic Smash, etc.? Or do you still assert that "Big Dick's Ball" is more notable than "Hutch Owen"? Dragonfiend 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  More a clarification of sloppy phrasing than a retraction. I assert that Big Dick's Ball is, in all probability, more notable than whatever the 20th most notable strip on Webcomics Nation today is. Phil Sandifer 20:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you "assert that Big Dick's Ball [and any and all other MT family subscription comics] is, in all probability, more notable than whatever the 20th most notable strip on Webcomics Nation today is." I just checked, and "Hutch Owen" is #34 on the "All-Time Top 100" and doesn't even make Webcomics Nation's "Today's Top 25." I disagree with your assertion that "Hutch Owen," with three major awards nominations outside of webcomics, three books on my shelf and coverage by TIME and other major news sources, is therefore less notable then every comic on the MT sites, including "Big Dick's Ball"? Or maybe you need to clarify further? Dragonfiend 21:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Huh? When did I say Hutch Owen was less notable than whatever is in #20 today on Webcomics Nation, little yet Big Dick's Ball? I don't think the Webcomics Nation rankings form some sort of linear list of notability. Phil Sandifer 22:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you wrote that "Big Dick's Ball is ... more notable than whatever the 20th most notable strip on Webcomics Nation today is," I took your "20th most notable strip" to be a reference to our current guideline concerning "If a webcomic is verifiably among the top 20 most read strips on a large hosting service." Therefore, since "Hutch Owen" is outside the top 20, and you think "Big Dick's Ball" is more notable than what's at #20, it seemed to follow that "Big Dick's Ball" is more notable, in your opinion than "Hutch Owen." If I've misinterpreted you, please clarify. It seems you've retractced your "Every comic on a subscription Modern Tales site is more notable than every comic on Webcomics Nation" stance and replaced it with something involving the number 20, but I'm not quite sure what. Maybe you're saying now that there are quite a few comics on Webcomics Nation that are more notable than the least notable Modern Tales comic, but you think that number of notable Webcomics Nation comics is less than 20? Again, please clarify. Dragonfiend 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No... I'm saying what I've always said. A comic who's sole claim to notability is "Was on Graphic Smash" is more notable than a comic who's sole claim to notability is "Is in the top 20 on Webcomics Nation." Phil Sandifer 23:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that's not what you've always said. This is the first time you've placed the "sole claim" qualifer on your stance. Previously, you've been writing things like "you are very, very far off base in your understanding of Modern Tales ... The least popular comic on a professional webcomics syndicate is more notable than the most popular comic that still hasn't been found good enough for a syndicate." Are you retracting your previous statements and replacing them with your new "sole claim" statement? It's difficult to craft guidleines around unclear and/or shifting positions. Dragonfiend 23:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assume good faith, it's not that hard. I'm entirely unclear on what it is he's supposed to gain from whatever you're positing (which isn't clear either) - can you please clarify both? - David Gerard 23:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what you're asking for here. As far as I know the only thing anyone in this conversation has to gain/lose is a good set of guidelines for determining the notability of webcomics. I believe some of the concepts Snowspinner is trying to be adamant about would lead to very bad guidleines. All of us have managed to agree upon five guidelines, and the dispute over the other two come down to basic questions of "At what point does a Modern Tales comic become notable?" and "Might there be conflicts of interest within the webcomics community?" There have been compromises on the Modern Tales and webcomics community debates which I have endorsed and there seems to be a consensus on. Where do you stand, David? Do you think that all Modern Tales comics (such as "Big Dick's Ball") are notable? Do you feel that it's impossible for their to be conflicts of interest within a tightly knit webcomics community? Dragonfiend 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A apologize for my lack of clarity - since we were talking about notablity, I assumed that my words would be taken as being limited to comics who's primary notability was via Modern Tales or via Comic Genesis. Phil Sandifer 00:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Yes, I agree it was an odd phrasing.  However, we are going to have coverage within the webcomics community as a criterion—only the wording is under debate—and I have an idea for how to write the extra catch-all point in a reasonable way.  I'll write it up when I have time. -- SCZenz 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attack parole violation

message: "A forum with 5,000 unique members." Isn't this too few? I'm worried this might open the floodgates on non-notable forums. I think this number should be increased significantly or they should have to show 5,000 members and another claim to notability. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly what you're talking about, JiFish.  If you're referring to Websnark (a blog, not a forum), I think you may have missed the point of the discussion so far(?).  -Tedzsee 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's referring to WP:WEB, not the stuff from WP:COMIC. -- SCZenz 21:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (After edit conflict...) JiFish is referring to number 3 under Wikipedia:Websites#Guidelines_for_Websites, which does not concern webcomics or the "discussion so far." This is a new discussion he is attempting to start. android79 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree that this is an issue, but it might be resolved by simply adding the word active as a requirement for the user base of 5000 or more. A higher number may be desirable as well. android79 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 5,000 active users seems like a good idea. However, it might lead to disputes over a forums active user count. How would you calculate such a value? How do you define an "active" user? I'd like to see 5,000 users combined with a high alexa rating or other claim to notability or else to increase the figure 5,000. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they post semi-regularly, they're active.  So basically if you're getting each post normally filled with hundreds of responses from different individuals, then that's pretty active.  Are there sites for which there are 5000 active users, but they aren't notable?  Because then you'd be approaching Slashdot levels of posting, which should be automatically notable by any standard, unless there is some freak circumstance I'm not aware of (like perhaps a very closed physical community with its own personal forum?).  Nathan J. Yoder 12:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And AfD consensuses can be wrong. Phil Sandifer 01:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And random trolls can claim to be the world's foremost authority on trivial internet subjects.  How is either relevant to anything? —Cryptic (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What random trolls are you referring to? Phil Sandifer 04:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: To put it in a much less inflammatory way, I'm not sure how "wrong" in this sense can be anything but an opinion given that it's quite difficult to have any universal standards of notability to compare VfD AfD decisions to, unless one takes guidelines as gospel (which they are explicitly not meant to be). Nifboy 04:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  makes it explicit that there are times an AfD "result" is irrelevent to what should be done. Admins have always had the right to say "Ummm... AfD is on crack today" and disregard AfD consensus in the face of clear evidence that the consensus is wrong. Phil Sandifer 04:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: He only advocated that in a borderline case, where the vote was only slightly over 2/3rds and that shouldn't have been done anyway, since that was a vanity article no one else would have bothered to create.  His notability was borderline at best and there was no "clear evidence" that the consensus was wrong on Cyrus Farivar, you just personally disagreed with them about what you considered notable.  Jimbo having the technical authority to override any decision doesn't make him right.  Nathan J. Yoder 12:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to have gone off base a bit here.  Anyway, 5000 unique members seems to be sufficient, 5000 seems to be a reasonable amount, should keep most small forums out.  And if it were a webcomic forum, it would probably be speedily kept, and then moved to a list of valid publications who can establish notability instantly for any webcomic.  5000 active members I would probably definitely support.  And that Cyrus farce, I'd have voted delete.  An article for every journalist out there?  Not if I were king, but I'm not, Jimbo is. - Hahnchen 01:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 5,000?