Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 6

Archives:
30 October 2005 2 November 2005.

Websites

Articles on websites, forums, internet memes and flash animations appear regularly on VfD. It strikes me as odd that we have inclusion guidelines for bands (WP:MUSIC) and people (WP:BIO), among others, but not for websites. It has been established that Wikipedia is not a web directory; in other words, the vast majority of websites likely do not deserve a Wikipedia entry. On the other hand, sites such as Yahoo and eBay obviously do. So, I'd like to open discussion on what criteria would work for inclusion of websites. Radiant_>|< 12:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Massive refactoring

Previous discussion

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

I think it's inappropriate to clear discussion that's only a week or two old, and ask that you reinstate at least the last few sections. Phil Sandifer 08:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and certainly won't object if anyone else wants to do so. I did make a link to the unexpurgated discussions at the very top of this page. However, I'm sure that you noticed that things were, well, venemous? A little fresh air couldn't hurt, and if you'll look over what was cleared not much was actually being said. And, by the way, why have you changed you sig? I was thrown until I realised that Snowspinner = Phil Sandifer. - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines for Websites

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

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

Webcomics

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

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

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

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

These points have proven highly contentious.

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

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

1. Having a printed collection listed at Amazon with a sales rank of 100,000 or better.
   • This would be in line with other Wikipedia guidelines regarding publication
   • Some questions regarding what constitutes "self published" in this area exist.
2. Coverage within the webcomics community. If a webcomic has significant, detailed coverage in an editorially-written section of a combination of the major sources devoted to webcomics, or has warranted continuing mention in a single source, it should be included. Due to the subjective/popular nature of all these sources, and the relatively small size of the webcomics community, it is recognized that the issue of conflict-of-interest may arise. If articles from said sources that are written about a comic under consideration are seen to be promotional in a "conflict-of-interest" manner, this category for inclusion must be disregarded as a means of viewing a comic as notable (ie. A comic must become notable under its own power, not because of a self-interested comic author/writer).
   Popular webcomic sources currently include:
   • Comixpedia.com (.org is the wiki)
   • The Webcomics Examiner
   • Websnark

Open and/or hot items detailed

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

Membership in a syndicate

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

New discussion on this topic

• To me, the issue boils down to whether admittance into X collective (Keenspot et al) is an acknowledgement of the strip's quality, thereby verifiably elevating it above its peers, to the point of notability. Modern Tales is the odd one out here because, by virtue of not giving away all its strips for free, Alexa rankings aren't as good an indicator of notability, and there's not much else for distinguishing between different MT strips, save the really obvious ones. Nifboy 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The problem I have with this one is small time collectives like Dayfree Press. This is not a commercial venture, but a collective of webcomics dedicated to mutual promotion of one another's wares. We've seen that some on this "syndicate" are quite popular and notable, others on it however, are not. And the only sort of notability offered, is "affiliated with Dayfree". How does one get onto Dayfree? Well, if the editor likes your comic, and he thinks it fills a gap in the portfolio, then you're in. Following those guidelines, would be like saying any band which were ever signed by a minor label would instantly be notable. Or any band that John Peel ever liked, was an instant include. Dayfree Press is made up of some notable comics, and some non notable ones, and they should be looked at individually, not with a blanket include all. - Hahnchen 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• And failed aborted comics which happened to once appear at Graphic Smash, like Big Dick's Ball mentioned in the previous examples. No. I already am against the "every band ever signed" guideline, I am totally totally against "every band ever signed and then disbanded and were kicked out by theire record label" guideline, or "every author who although managed a a book publishing deal, never wrote more than 12 pages of his book" guideline. - Hahnchen 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Top 20 in a large webcomic hosting service

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

Coverage within the webcomics community

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

List of comics referenced in previous discussion

To illustrate, here are the comics talked about before. Under each, if we could list which of the above criteria would apply, perhaps we could get a better idea of how close we are to being happy?
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A Softer World

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Softer World

• Coverage outside the webcomics community [1]. Dragonfiend 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Umm, that's "Daily comic book news" so it's not 100% outside, is it? - brenneman^(t)(c) 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, are we now saying that when a webcomic gets attention from the print comics world, that's not valid? Phil Sandifer 16:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I see your point, brenneman; it's definitely inside the *comics* community but definitely outside the *webcomics* community, which is how our proposed guideline reads. Newsarama has an Alexa of 6,991, making them far more notable and influential than any of the minor webcomics fan blogs in our proposed guidelines. Dragonfiend 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And this begs the question that if something passes one section of the proposed guideline can it then rope something else in? There is logic to that, even though I'd never heard of Newsarama before. (Please note that the link to Newsarama I've just put in the previous comment is really poor.) - brenneman^(t)(c) 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Survived previous VfD. Phil Sandifer 16:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not really helpful, though, is it? I mean, we're looking for signposts that we can point to objectivly in some supposed future AfD. - brenneman^(t)(c) 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's very helpful - for whatever reason, there is something about this comic that was explicitly found notable. Phil Sandifer 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, since we're left with nothing to take away but for the fact that had you not convinced one person to change their vote it would have been deleted, how does this help us to move forward. If "Able and baker" had not just been closed, for example, how would you reference this VfD decision to that decision? We're trying to make standards.
        brenneman^(t)(c) 20:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Able and Baker

• Syndicate Phil Sandifer 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Big Dicks Ball

• Syndicate Phil Sandifer 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Count Your Sheep

• Syndicate Phil Sandifer 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Diesel Sweeties

• Alexa 16,590. Dragonfiend 16:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics

• Syndicate, Coverage on sites Phil Sandifer 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa 51,529. Dragonfiend 16:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Explodingdog

• Substantial coverage in major outside source (Peer-reviewed journal ImageTexT) Phil Sandifer 08:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • imagetext and the article. - brenneman^(t)(c) 19:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa 70,823. Dragonfiend 16:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Get Your War On

• Coverage outside webcomics community (Published in Rolling Stone, alt weeklies). Two printed books. Dragonfiend 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Girly

• Alexa 81,984. Dragonfiend 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Goats

• Alexa 37,247. Dragonfiend 16:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Helen: Sweetheart of the Internet

• Print collection - migrated to newspapers Phil Sandifer 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Megatokyo

• Print collection through Dark Horse Comics. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

PvP

• Print collection through Image Comics Phil Sandifer 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Content

• Syndicate Phil Sandifer 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa 13,370. Dragonfiend 16:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Something Positive

• Heavy coverage outside of webcomics when author was able to get a full year's salary and quit his job from donations. I know at least Neil Gaiman's blog carried it. Phil Sandifer 16:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Websites for inclusion/exclusion from medical articles (discussion reference)

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

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