Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 7

message: I've just created Portal:Internet, please contribute! Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Portal 

message: This is a sort of long rambling discussion on the most recent archive.  I'm trying to distill it down to its bones.  Please feel free to add summarised points below. - brenneman {L}  02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[WP:MEME|"meme" guideline]] 

message: If we could list old AfDs for purported "memes" this would give us something to build a base on. - brenneman {L}  14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done before.  I can't dig them out right this second, but they should be in the talk archives of this page or at the WP:MEMES talk.  The striking part of them is that WP:WEB is rarely invoked, nor is sourcing typically an issue.  It's almost always meme notaiblity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I'm aware it's been done, and as I recall all but one item listed as a " defintaly notable" meme had verification, and that "notability" in other cases amounted to testimony of wikipedia editors.  But we're trying to summarise and move on, so having a consice list here is a good thing. - brenneman {L}  15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want bonafide memes here, not just neologisms or protologisms, right? I of course am drawing a blank on any. Digging in the archives may pay. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure we're ready to move on over on the other side, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that means.  You don't want us to dredge up a table of meme AfDs?brenneman {L}  02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that we're not ready to "summarize and move on" at the actual guideline's talk page.  There's still been discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of discussion, and large chunks have been hugely repetative.  So it's really time to summarise the main points and take stock of where we are at.  Really. - brenneman {L}  12:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meme AfDs 

message: Let's face it: there's no widespread agreement among editors on this concept.  That's why different views are presented and favored by various groups of editors with a similar philosophy.  This suggested merge is nothing less than a silencing out of one view favored by a different group of editors.  Until notability is a more accepted terrain, this will be the outlook-- various views, and constant discussion.  Anyone disagree?  I'd like to hear why.  Thanks, --Urthogie 08:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A) We're really not talking about notability we're almost always talking about third party reliable sources.  B) What exactly are you suggesting that we do? - brenneman {L}  12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding A, see below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see it as a silencing, which seems rather an inflammatory term, but rather common sense.  Use an established guideline that covers the subject until something better comes along.  Once discussion on the talk page of WP:MEME creates something feel free to propose it, but there's nothing there as yet.  These things are only guidelines anyway and shouldn't be used or viewed as absolutes.  Part of the argument for rejecting this guideline as applying to internet memes is that no-one references it in afds.  Now I can change that with a series of good faith afd nominations, but I'm not that way inclined.  The other objection seems to be that it precludes some memes that nobody seems to be able to name but that were really important to someone, somewhere, once. I'd point out we don't even have a well written, referenced article at List of Internet phenomena as yet, and that if you can't point to a cite in a reliable source which describes such an activity as a meme, you've got no business calling it a meme anyway, since that's the very antithesis of WP:NOR.  Hiding Talk 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's at least get my argument right.  At no time am I, or to my knowledge, anyone else saying that we should ignore basic policy/guidelines regarding sources.  Yes, WP:RS needs work, but that's outside of the realm of this discussion.  The point of bringing up past AfDs in regards to the sourcing is to demonstrate that it largely has not been at issue in the discussions, and that notability, rather than verifiability, has been at the heart of the vast majority of editors' feelings on the matter.  The point of WP:MEME, at least initially, was to come up with some sort of barometer to figure out what constitutes nobility for this type of medium, considering that there's a general consensus that memes be included, simply not how.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear as to how anything you just said addresses any point I made. There's no clear reason why this guideline doesn't apply to memes. It appears to do so, covering as it does internet content. Hiding Talk 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you're formatting confused me, writing your reply to Aaron directly under mine as if a reply to it.  To reply to your point that verifiability hasn't been an issue in any afds, at every afd you have pointyed me to it has, but that it hasn't been an area of the discussion you have participated in.  However, I'm tired of going round in circles on this; we're too entrenched in our views to listen to each other.  I've yet to be provided with an article which has been deleted but which met WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR so I can't see what people's concerns are. Hiding Talk 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its fair to pretend the meme stuff on this page is a guideline.  The meme stuff was added.  This was notability (websites).  The guideline tag was stretched too far-- for that reason, people refuse to bring up this page in AFD debates.  As far as the claim that a few "good faith" AFD's would prove wrong the need for a seperate WP:MEMES page, I just want to say thats ridiculous-- the whole idea of good faith is you do things as you normally would, not to go out of your way to syntheticaly approach AFD's in a way that backs up your opinion on notability.--Urthogie 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominate things for deletion from time to time, when I see them and don't think they're salvagable.  Were I to turn up such a page, concerning a meme, on a random article hit there's nothing bad faith in nominating it, that's my usual practise.  As a point of order, I'm deliberately not doing so since this discussion began to avoid bad faith accusations.  As to your point about this page not covering memes, as I've stated before, Wikipedia:Internet phenomena has been redirecting here since October 2005 and the guideline has always described itself as covering web content, the earliest form of this page, as seen in this link, states Articles on websites, forums, internet memes and flash animations appear regularly on VfD. That's from June 2005, so it's covered memes since its inception almost a year ago. I don't think it's fair to pretend the meme stuff was added, do you? Hiding Talk 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added is a poor word.  WP:WEB was a significantly different guideline back then, however.  Since its massive overhaul (and a poor one at that, IMO, but I wasn't that involved in project pages at that stage of editing, sadly), the guideline no longer seems to really act as a worthwhile judge of this sort of medium. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because? Hiding Talk 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect was sent here when it dealt with websites.  That made sense, and the rules were different.  The guideline today did not appear to take memes into effect when trying to make a blanket web guideline, nor would it have, as nothing was merged here and memes on Wikipedia weren't as prevalent and sometimes-controversial --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, you're wrong, but what I really asked was "the guideline no longer seems to really act as a worthwhile judge of this sort of medium" because...? Hiding Talk 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm wrong?  So this guideline didn't change? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No fair, I asked first. I'm still waiting for you to answer why you stated "the guideline no longer seems to really act as a worthwhile judge of this sort of medium"? Do you a deal, you answer mine and then I'll answer yours. Hiding Talk 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If a website is popular, it will have attracted attention from reliable sources.  How would we define "a significant number of readers"?  What would we use to measure it, specifically how could we do so in a way that the results couldn't be gamed by websites?  The reason this guideline exists is because without it, every website in existence would have an article on wikipedia, which would greatly lower the quality of the encyclopedia.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability is the wild west of Wikipedia 

message: I have seen traffic ranking mentioned in a number of deletion discussions as a reason to keep a website. Why is this not mentioned as a criteria? -- Barrylb 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primarily because traffic ranking systems are both unreliable and arbitrary. I don't think Wikipedia should have a rule stating "You must have this many hits to ride". Nifboy 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your feeling, however, this "notability" criterion is FAR too plastic...the requirement of media attention is far less objective than (for instance) Alexa's ranking in measuring the notability of, say, a wrestling fan-site, which may be found "not notable" due to snobbery rather than any NPOV. "Media buzz" the current 'gold standard' for notability, is (IMO) far more "unreliable" and "arbitrary." It's the "safety in numbers" game..."if the MEDIA says its important, we won't look like fools for saying its important..." Good ol' sheepthink, which grows more popular around here every time the media cracks a joke about the wiki... Bustter 17:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as an objective measurement of popularity, Alexa has some significant problems deriving from the generation of its statistics via a platform-specific browser add-on. People using Alexa on IE in Windows are, as a demographic, very unlikely to visit websites that specialize in other platforms, or even other browsers.--Santaduck 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic ranking 

message: I've been participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling . It seems to me that WP:WEB is pretty well appropriate to evaluating USENET newsgroups, falling under the category of "Internet forums" and as "content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered."
Still, it would be helpful if this article had a few sentences saying in so many words that it applies to USENET, and dicussing any specific newsgroup-related issues. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree, for three reasons. First, Usenet newsgroups (including alt groups) go through a creation process that serves, to some extent, as a filter. Websites do not have the benefit of that filter. Usenet newsgroups have some small claim to "notability" for the mere fact of surviving that process (vide alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork). Second, since traffic measurement is "hardwired" into Usenet, traffic is much more reliable as a measure of "notability" in Usenet. Third, while the media has a fair grasp of the web, media coverage of Usenet remains mostly as clueless today as it was in 1992. To make "media buzz" a criteria for the notability of a Usenet group is like asking the math department to deliver a list of the top forty hip-hop themes. Bustter 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Creation of "big five" hierarchy newsgroups require a vote (usually CFVs are via the services of a neutral 3rd party vote keeper) and there even exists an ardent community (much as at wikipedia) that patrols trivial attempts to create a new group. Failed attempts require a significant waiting period (6 mo.s?) before trying for creation again. That said, there are notable alt groups, and non-notable big-five groups.  As for reliable sources, remember that Usenet predates the web, so esp. for archival content, it was (close to) the only publicly availble "online" source in the early 90's and before. Santaduck 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify application to USENET newsgroups 

message: Taken from the Wikipedia article Long Tail:
"In the same sense, the user-edited internet encyclopedia Wikipedia has many low popularity articles that, collectively, create a higher quantity of demand than a limited number of mainstream articles found in a conventional encyclopedia such as the Encyclopædia Britannica."
Websites of moderate popularity whose noterity is not nessacarily recognized by the mainstream media deserve to have articles in Wikipedia! Wikipedia exists to provide the long tail of encylopedic information.Britanica provides the mainstream stuff. 
I move that mentions on blogs and discussion forums be included as legitimate references for WP:WEB, in lieu of the current focus on "published" works. All Non-trival works whose source is different from the website in question should be included. 
Check out lostpedia's talk page for a real-world example of how WP:Web is failing. This is why Wikipedia needs to change its policy.
Where can go about lobbying for these changes??  --Wikipediastar 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, blogs and forums are easily spammed. It is quite simple for a single user to create an article and advertise it on hundreds of forums (Even creating hundreds of accounts to create the illusion of "discussion"). That single user can then turn around and say "Look at all these forum posts about X! X must be really popular!" Nifboy 03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the "anyone can make a blog" argument.  But what about blogs published on websites of newspapers and magazines that are considered legitimate sources, written by regular columnists of those publications?  I think there should be a standard which defines what makes a blog a legit source or not.  If Roger Ebert makes a published film-related comment, is that comment valid if it's in the paper but not if it's in a blog (just an example, I know he doesn't have a blog)?  Same goes for forums - increasingly we're seeing "official" forums that include participation from people who are considered experts in their field (at least when they publish on paper).   --Milo H Minderbinder 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand The Criteria!! 

message: As per the discussion at army.ca regarding deletion, the notion has been made that a site is used as a reference. Does the fact that a site is used by others in itself confer notability?Michael Dorosh 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria - reference 

message: I've removed the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards as an example of "a well known and independent award." While it may be well-known among some web comics fans, I don't believe it is well-known in any general sense. Also, a WHOIS of ccawards.com shows that it is registered to Keenspot Entertainment, making it less than independent. -- Dragonfiend 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "well-known in any general sense"? Do you mean well-known within the context of the webcomic community, or within the context of the populations of first-world countries? -- Zeigfreid 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Although unfamiliar with this topic, I would lean toward keeping the award. WP:WEB needs more subgenre-specific notability criteria, as are being covered by the wikiprojects linked at the top of this page.  Adding a subgenre-specific award to the category of awards would be one plausible way.  --Santaduck 21:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since non-keenspot related comics have won WCCA awards, how can these awards be regarded as self-promotional? If you are a web cartoonist, you get a vote. The committee is listed on the web-site and there are plenty of non-keenspot names on the list. That keenspot has provided hosting services does not, in itself, prove that it is a promotional vehicle for keenspot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award examples 

message: There isn't a solid way to verify something on the net. Thousands of interesting articles get deleted everyday by the wikinazis.
Well, they don't want their club to be filled up with crap, now do they? I mean, what are the wikinazi geeks without their power to lord over the sub-geeks? Chris Furniss - weeklygeekshow.com 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupid

message: I've noticed that there might be a lack of suffucient criteria relevant to podcats in this parent area of WP:WEB.  Disadvantages to listing podcasts as notable:
#As podcasting are a relatively new medium, notability of such alternate media via coverage in traditional media (e.g. wall street journal) is handicapped. And although admittedly blogs have recently garnered wider traditional press, podcasts have not.
#WP:WEB notes that Category:Awards may suggest notability, but there are no podcast-specific award categories, (and if any are added, they should be added to WP:WEB IMHO).
#Traffic ranking sites such as Alexa (used in older versions of WP:WEB) also do not accurately reflect podcast traffic, which may be directly downloaded by music applications rather than web browsers. 
In general, I am left wondering if discussion for a WP:PODCAST , or a Wikiprojects for Podcasts (following those for blogging and webcomics, at the top of this page) would be of merit.  Otherwise for the time being, adding some podcast-specific awards categories, or an alternative podcast-specific criterion (e.g., iTunes podcast Top 100 ranking), may be of merit. (Note: Actively participating in meta-wiki areas of WP is relatively unfamiliar for me, so if these opinions are totally off-base, my apologies). --Santaduck 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To give you a little background, WP:MEME tried this exact argument with internet memes and failed miserably. WP:WEB is just a codification of key unmutable policy WP:V: Articles must be verifiable using reliable sources. Trying to set the bar lower than that, by creating exceptions, doesn't work. Nifboy 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nifboy. I'm simply unfamiliar with how 'notability' interacts with reliable sources, which are skewed toward citation of information (as opposed to a measurement of a datum).  Popularity of websites or podcasts by independent measures might be a measure of notability but veers close to an editor doing independent research.  But if that is not an issue, then is 'viewership' (i.e. popularity) a common-sensical measure of notability for a podcast?  If so, then it would be useful to research such measures (e.g. itunes ranking, parallel to a billboard ranking for songs), and explicitly list them. If not, then notability leans more toward broad cultural influence, for example of the sort that would result in a news article in traditional media( e.g., "podcast X incites riot", "podcast Y sued for indecency", "podcast Z investigated for release of state secrets", etc. ). Could you quickly fill me in on these issues (balance between an objective popularity measure vs. broad cultural influence) with regard to podcasts?  Thanks! Perhaps I'm just barking up the wrong tree here. --Santaduck 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an essay on notability, if you're interested. Long story short, notability is very much an importance/influence question, not a popularity contest. WP:WEB once had an Alexa requirement back when it was the Webcomics Notability Guideline, which we eventually decided was entirely too arbitrary to be useful. Nifboy 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, I appreciate it. I'll read that article, but already you've cleared up the big issues for me. --Santaduck 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Podcasts

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Style guidelines also use a different guideline template. Doesn't make them any less of a guideline, though. Nifboy 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it doesn't, apparently. But i'm asking because I see this as dubious. Should I take your sarcasm as a "yes, yes this is a guideline"? Fresheneesz 07:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was sarcasm?  It read like a pretty clear "yes, it's a guideline" to me... -GTBacchus(talk) 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no sarcasm intended; yes, these (both notability and the MOS) are guidelines. I'm still not sure what, exactly, caused any doubt about this, but there it is. Nifboy 16:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, would it be prudent to put the Template:guideline on the top rather than the one thats there? I am not sure of the utility of having two separate tags for things that basically have the same stutus. I would say that while style guides are guidelines, they don't really have the same status since they are about style rather than about the inclusion of information. Fresheneesz 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As has already been mentioned, we use different tags to tag our guidelines to contextualise what the guideline refers to. For another example beyond the notability guidelines and the manual of style, see the individual naming conventions. Hiding Talk 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it can't be a full-on guideline because it's a notability standard, and notability is rather clear in regards to deletion.  And yes, it's sly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would a guideline like this refer to a proposal? Fresheneesz 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a proposal last I checked.  I see it is now.  Hm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: The template should not refer to WP:NN, thus we should change the template to the regular Template:Guideline.  Personally, I disagree with this page becomming guideline - and I don't see any consensus gathering to make it so. Someone just decreed it "in common use". Fresheneesz 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change template 

message: Would games distributed exclusively over the Internet (specifically fangames) be subject to WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE (or either or both)? Jeff Silvers 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games distributed exclusively on the Internet 

message: Hello, I am trying to figure out if a site like [AtomFilms] would be grouped in with a site like Newgrounds and not be counted towards making web content notable if it is hosted their.  Please note that AtomFilms does not allow instant uploading and only high quality flash is allowed and they pay the author to have a non-exclusive license. --Simonkoldyk 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AtomFilms 

message: In this AfD a matter of content distribution came up.  The only example we give is a blog syndicated on a news site (backed up by a newspaper).  How about file content on a site?  Newgrounds wouldn't count, as the files are user submitted.  How about download.com?  Gamespot?  There are potentially lots of files that would get past WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB by this criterion alone, and I'm a little bit apprehensive about this (I'm not sure about how the standards for content are handled at download.com and gamespot).  ColourBurst 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content distribution 

message: I was curious if the website  would be considered notable enough to merit an article.  It's been referenced by Kotaku, joystiq.com and a few other places.  I think it's noted attempt to gain some of the attention that GameFAQs has is worth mentioning, and of course the fact that almost all video game guides from wikibooks were moved there (although I don't know if that's "notable" enough).  I put it here because I'm a contributing member at strategywiki and I'd rather the community here come to a conclusion on it's notability before I attempt to start up an article that would be deleted anyway :). Chris M. 02:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  StrategyWiki 

message: I'm not a good sample, but Keenspot in this arena is clearly well known.  The question is do we mean "well known" like New York Times well known or more like Poynter Online well known? (That had better be a blue link.)  The "average" person would never have heard of it, but there is little question that amoung journalists it is well known. - brenneman {L} 04:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have to judge it in the context of the medium it's providing.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should continue with this guideline reading, "well known" rather than "well known to an online subculture."  "Well known to an online subculture" is not a verifiable standard for "notability." -- Dragonfiend 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: if something is well known to an online subculture, there are sources that one can contact, and there should also be evidence in that subculture's fora, sites, etc., pertaining to that subculture's website's notability. Thus, it IS a verifiable standard for notability.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as well.  If we were to use "well-known" as excluding "well-known to [any] subculture", then very important and relevant information about all subcultures would be missing.  That is more grave a missinformation than is unverifiable information.--NicholaiDaedalus 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Well known..." 

message: This one looks fuzzy to me.  (Just to be clear: I didn't raise this because I want to delete the circa fifty comics from KeenSpot.) - brenneman {L} 04:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keenspot is a distributor, and they're different from who writes the comics.  As far as I know, that's always been the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As mentiond above, Keenspot is clearly not independent of everybody "who writes the comics" as it is founded and being run by some of the people who create comics for them. For further discussion of this and the "well known" issue, see the aforementioned Sorcery 101 AfD as well as the Crazy in Love AfD. -- Dragonfiend 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then for the case of those specific webcomics (such as "Nukees") which are precious few, Keenspot is not independent.  But for all other comics hosted, it is most certainly independent.--NicholaiDaedalus 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "and independent of the creators..." 

message: I think the major problem currently is that Keenspot and its ilk are overrepresented compared to other notable webcomics, and this has partly to do with the demographics of Wikipedia editors.  By which I mean Derek Kirk Kim has only a mid-length article on himself, not on his comic, and he won 3 industry awards over the length of a year or two.  Takehiko Inoue, who's a relatively famous mangaka has an even shorter article.  When I am King, something that's been had newspaper articles written about it, is shorter than most webcomic articles period.  , but it's hard to fix systemic bias.  This is combined with the WP:ILIKEIT arguments presented in quite a few webcomic AfDs.  But I do want to say one thing, even if Keenspot is notable, Comics Genesis' comics are not by themselves satisfactory, as their criteria is more indiscriminate.  (P.S. I do want to know where Keenspot's third-party reliable sources are, because they're not in the article.)  ColourBurst 21:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do larger articles about less notable things damage or cheapen Derek Kirk Kim or When I am King? What are you talking about when you say "overrepresentation", unless you mean that the depth and extent of an article should be limited by the prominence of its subject? What's wrong with the present situation? --Kizor 03:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal experience is that anyone attempting to use Wikipedia as a reference for webcomics has to wade through so much unverifiable, non-notable vanity and fancruft as to make the encyclopedia near worthless. I shouldn't have to read article after article on the blood types of various megaman sprites before I find out which webcomic became the first graphic novel to win a National Book Award, for example. Things have been getting much better in recent months, however, as more emphasis is placed on verifiable information from reliable sources and we see less discussion on how "we should have an article on every keenspace comic" or "we should have an article on every webcomic that manages to update 100 times." -- Dragonfiend 03:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It has to do partially with WP:CSB (people tend to think article size and article quality are indicators of notability, but casual editors which WP is mostly composed of only edit things close to them, and this creates a demographic bias), and partially to do with WP:ILIKEIT (I realize that one's an essay, but part of the argument is "It doesn't do any harm". Actually unsourced material does do harm... This means it's entirely possible that the information could be completely false, and spreading disinformation is always harmful. Adding companies or bands who don't meet the criteria, meanwhile, could give them undue prominence and thus harm their competitors.) Wikipedia has a lot of hits now, and there are quite a few people who understand this, including people trying to raise their profile. ColourBurst 04:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that even though there is an emphasis discrepancy caused by wiki demographics, this does not necessarily mean that the over-emphasized article is not notable, this applies to all articles and not just webcomics.  Also, there is a list of Keenspot's sources in Talk:Keenspot, if I understand your request correctly.--NicholaiDaedalus 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keenspot emphasis 

message: What is the hurdle for speedy deletion with regard to web content whose article does not assert its importance? In the WP:BIO guidelines, any claim which is perceived as one toward notability makes the article ineligible for speedy deletion. What is the hurdle with web content? Can an article on a blog be speedily deleted for not meeting the notability criteria, or only for not asserting that it meets the notability criteria? —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific example I was thinking of was My Left Wing. An article was set up for both the blog and its creator. The blog's article was speedied, but the creator's can't be, because the claim of importance is made, that she was a talk radio guest and hosts a blog. The blog made similar claims of being featured in the Post, yet it was speedied. Am I to understand, then, that even if the article for Some Random Blog claims to be popular and meet the web notability criteria, but it is found to not meet it, it can go ahead and be speedied? —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for the incorrect assumption. Tiamut 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion and web notability criteria 

message: I have a question. Are articles on an individuals podcast now being allowed? Searching Wikipedia I have found several entries devoted to specific podcasts. Do they now meet the same web notability criteria as many blogs? Buster 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe podcasts follow the notability criteria as all other web content.  If they meet the criteria, they're in.  If not they're out.  ColourBurst 02:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcasts (again) 

message: I have placed a question on the village pump regarding content distribution.  Please comment.  ColourBurst 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:WEB and content distribution 

message: Update: Changes were made. Feel free to add more. SolelyFacts 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Rules and regulations such as these... cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity." 
I am certain common sense will understand. Though it is too minor for me to press on any further. "See also" it is, unless you reconsider.
*The term many saturated the version I had initially edit on, though I saw no problems with the term many. Nonetheless, if there are far to many many, I would be more then glad to rid of that extremely vague word.
*This the best suggestion yet: "Many Wikipedia editors support that" — simply state the remainder as its own sentence: "Wikipedia is not a web directory..."
This is the current revision: . Honestly, is there is something so dire and harmful about this that it must be discussed endlessly? Well, if there is, I wholly fail to see it. My apologies. FactsSolely 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of things ''any'' editors will change so it will please those who have issues

message: As I'm working on this. I can't really save since how does one save comparing and contrasting? The final one takes from both, but both are so similar... —SolelyFacts 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on man, drop the ridiculous paranoia already. I have just explained in full detail above why I reverted. Pascal.Tesson 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit man, not revert.  Wow, and now you're telling me what I seem and have not seem-- ridiculous. —SolelyFacts 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You know what?

message: When editing a guideline, or even an article that has been stable, if you feel many edits are needed, it's best to do them individually, or at least in sections.  In policy/guideline matters, there can be big disputes over a single word.  Otherwise, it's can be hard to see what changes were made, and it doesn't give people a chance to react to changes.  On the other hand, successive edits shouldn't be used to repeatedly change the same section, or to repeatedly fix typos or formatting (that would have been caught by careful proofreading of the preview).  And on a talk page, there's generally certainly no reason to make multiple edits to your own comments - just preview, proofread, and post it (and then give others a chance to respond).  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he or she explains the distinction well. We should make that policy or a guideline. Where do we go to purpose this. I shouldn't purpose since I don't want to steal his or her idea. —SolelyFacts 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small edits/major edits 

message: I changed "Criteria for web content" to "Criteria" but most of the other pages states "Criteria for [something]. "Criteria for web content" sounds so much better, so I changed it back. I wanted to get some opinions on which some users prefer. —SolelyFacts 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Opinions

message: I don't feel like there's enough emphasis on either of these any more.  These previously each had their own section which went into detail, now they're just items listed off in one sentence along with the recently added "soapbox".  Are they covered enough?  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising/Web directory 

message: Why did you revert the last change? It "falls under wikipedia's links policy". —SolelyFacts 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: External links may or may not be considered as legitimate. That is indeed a question for WP:EL but the notability can be established through links provided in the external links section. This is why I reverted that change. Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why revert minor change?

message: There has been a discussion on how databases meet WP:WEB after the Internet Book Database was proposed for deletion for failing to meet the criteria. My personal opinion is that a database which contains the largest amount of data in a particular field (especially for popular fields such as books, music etc) is notable and worthy of inclusion. Thoughts? Dunk the Lunk 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunaly you won't be able to read the discussion because the article has been deleted. Much of WP:WEB has been written to stop peple advertising their own websites, podcasts etc on wikipedia. I think it would be useful to have some definitions in relation to databases as they are unlikely to ever qualify for sections 2 and 3 of WP:WEB. Dunk the Lunk 11:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That is an entirely valid point and amazon is probably by far and away the biggest book 'database' and these days probably music, film etc. However the aim of amazon is to sell you stuff. It is not a user friendly information database, rather a book selling website. If you are doing research on books, authors, publication dates, book series, music albums, musicians, films, actors, release dates etc it is not a database that I would use. I actually think the Internet Book Database article should have been deleted because although it has a large database it lifts its data straight of amazon, so it is not user friendly or accurate because of that. However I do not think the articles on the IBDoF (contains the largest database of Romance books except of course for book selling sites like amazon), IBList (contains the largest western genre database and is probably close to having every western ever published in it's database) or the excellect and well established ISFDb which has by far and away the largest database of short stories (over 100 000-try finding short stories on amazon and see what you get!) should have been deleted or merged. So yes I think they potentially can have larger databases than amazon-I supose then it's down to whether you regard amazon as 1) a usable database and 2) whether individual genres etc are important. Seeing as most people prefer to read one or two type of genres I think it is, but I fully except you may disagree. Sites such as the Internet Adult Film Database and Adult Film Database are the largest in their respective genre of film (except maybe for amazon again!) and because of this are truely notable and would be against removing them, but do they qualify for WP:WEB?  Dunk the Lunk 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Databases

message: I notice :Category:Blogs lists over 200 blogs that have not been categorized, then within individual categories, there are many more. Has anybody looked at all of these to see if they are notable? I suspect there are some vanity articles there, but I am not qualified to judge blog notability. --A. B. 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just pick the ones you're interested in, and insist the others are not notable. Trollderella 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds of articles about blogs 

message: A nexus of a POV, such as a message board which numerous people visit and debate on, resulting in mentions by other people and attracting (and/or potentially influencing) more people, should be notable because it is the heart of a POV - a spot where adherents to a particular point of view cluster around, debate that POV, and take action thusly. Furthermore, major nexi would be the principal sites for discussion among adherents to those POVs. Some nexi may be nonnotable if the POV they discuss is nn (say, a message board supporting shopping at the Old Navy in the Brunswick Square Mall in East Brunswick, New Jersey), but such topics as Criticism of Islam and Conspiracy theories are certainly notable, and thus major nexi of those POVs should be notable.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 13:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of nexi of points of view

message: An interesting point was raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Whiteboard. Is a webcomic that's notable (not verifiably so, arguably) within a specific subculture to be considered notable enough to keep within our guidelines? --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No -- if this is just wikipedia editors saying 'This is notable in my subculture" with no verifiable info from multiple reputable third party sources, then that just sounds like another version of "Keep, I like it." -- Dragonfiend 07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The point being that you would have to "prove" its notability within the confines of WP:V/WP:RS, which is to say you'd probably have to present the sources WP:WEB wants in the first place. Nifboy 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But what is a "reputable third party source" in a subculture? Is magazine publishing considered "non-trival" (according to WP:WEB if circulation numbers are < 10k or 100k or whatever? How does one determine if a source is trivial?--Nitehawk337 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question on subculture notability 

message: Following on from a  discussion in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adventure_Gamers, does a review site's quotation on multiple game box covers count as an indication of Notability? It doesn't really fit #1 (one-line quotes are hardly non-trivial) or #3 , but if multiple game publishers think they are worth quoting on their game boxes it is certainly indiciative. --Amaccormack 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game box review quotes 

message: I find the following sentence in the Criteria section impossible to parse with any degree of certainty:
*Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
With all the commas, ands, and ors (along with a such as and a that), I can't tell what goes with what.  Could somebody who thinks they know what it means please restate it? Jwolfe 10:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Criteria