Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Internet Portal

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

Merge of "meme" guideline

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)

Arguments for seperate guideline:

• Notability (web) is rarely invoked in AFD, especially with regard to memes
• This is merely a guideline, so a seperate approach is acceptible.
• Notability is a controversial subject, and so many opinions should be considered in the development of the wiki.

Arguments for mergeing:

• Memes are on websites
• There's nothing new in the new guideline
• Numerous guidelines can be confusing and it's preferable to keep it short and simple

Opinions/Comments:

• My opinion: keep separate - they are about two different things ... websites are websites, while memes are rarely websites. I don't particularly like the new version of the meme guideline - it is just a copy of one of the WP:WEB guidelines. I much prefer the old version [1], which was more reflective of a meaningful notability standard. BigDT 03:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Meme AfDs

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)

• Example one
• Example two

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notability is the wild west of Wikipedia

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)

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)

Regarding A, see below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Because? Hiding Talk 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

i'm wrong? So this guideline didn't change? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think people are geeting bogged down in the details, rather than looking at the big picture. Sometimes a web site is notable simply because it's popular, yet popularity doesn't seem to be a criteria for inclusion. TV shows are cancelled or retained almost exclusively on their viewership numbers, and in the era of mutli-format media companies, newspapers and magazines often do articles about specific TV shows or movies only because the publisher is owned by the parent company of the movie studio. In the web world, smaller individuals can make a bigger footprint, so there should be more inclusive guidelines, not less.

Why shouldn't web sites be included that have a significant number of readers? All I hear is "it doesn't meet the guidelines," but that doesn't tell me why the guideline exists in the first place. The core issue should be "why does this guideline exist, and how does it serve the mission of Wikipedia?" When you've answered that question, the question of whether certain web content is worthy of inclusion should become much more clear. TomXP411 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Traffic ranking

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)

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)

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)

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)

Clarify application to USENET newsgroups

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)

• It would be useful. We also need to clarify exactly how Usenet counts towards verifiability and whether any Usenet groups qualify as reliable sources. Frankly, I would be reluctant in the case of most if not all newsgroups but I would be happy to listen to arguments. Capitalistroadster 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As one who has seen many forged Usenet posts, I would strongly argue that Usenet posts (that are not digitally signed) are not reliable sources. But that's an argument for Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. As far as notability of Usenet newsgroups is concerned, I would suggest that, although Internet is not the sole distribution medium for Usenet, WP:WEB is the best set of notability criteria to apply, and that the primary notability criterion works. If someone writes a FAQ about a newsgroup and faqs.org decides to publish that FAQ document, then (as long as the FAQ ocument has a decent "about this newsgroup" chapter) that is a non-trivial published work that is about the subject. Whereas a line in an "active" file is a mere directory listing, and not a non-trivial work; and thus newsgroups are not notable merely for someone having issued a "newgroup". See Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (AfD discussion), Alt.tv.real-world (AfD discussion), and Sci.psychology.psychotherapy (AfD discussion) for past applications of the primary notability criterion.

    Perhaps the addition of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling to footnote #5 is in order. Uncle G 09:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Expand The Criteria!!

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)

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)

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)

Just random thoughts: hits=currency in the www. However, some sites will come and go, while others will stick around for years. The question is, which ones should be preserved through the ages, and which ones should be let go? Think about movie stars from the 50's. Would you keep an article on James Dean? Of course! Would you keep an article about Penny Arcade or PVP? Of course, since they broke a lot of ground in their genres. On the other hand, a great many sites are trivial and yet still get lots of readership. Perhaps the best way to go is look at things like the established lifetime of the site: one gudeline suggested 2 years with regular updates as making a site relevant.

The problem I see is this.... Wikipedia is a web-only database. It's hypocritical to rely on non-web resources to validate inclusion in a product that lives entirely on the web. There's got to be a solution, and randomly deleting articles can't be the way to solve the problem. TomXP411 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Change Notability Requirements for Wiki/MediaWiki Projects

For example, someone could conceivably nominate each of these for deletion now:

The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.

In fact, the whole category that houses them, more or less, could be torched by someone bringing up Notability and WP:WEB for each article therein. What do you say? What is typically required to get a policy like this adjusted? I'd hate to see Wikipedia itself and maybe 4-5 other Wiki projects be qualified to be listed here... rootology 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I, quite frankly, am not convinced of why any of these should have their own articles. Almost all of them would work quite well as an external link at the bottom of the article on their subject matter. The most egregious example, Open Source Reiki, describes it as "modest" and states "It recently moved to its own domain name". Sounds like PROD candidacy to me. (Edit: Read all of them, and must revise my position; Symbolwiki is worse "The website the article talks about is now defunct", but PSConclave is by far the most awful, being dedicated to Pen spinning and claiming "120 legitimate content pages") Nifboy 03:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Is it supposed to be obvious that these articles shouldn't be deleted? I just read through all of Star Trek Gaming Universe, and I did not come away thinking this unreferenced article meets our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this is the tip of the iceberg for borderline pages on WP based on WEB. We'd flood AfD unless the notability was expanded. Probably thousands of articles (let alone the Wiki ones). rootology 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried about flooding AfD with articles that are obviously unverified by reliable sources, then just WP:PROD them. -- Dragonfiend 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There being a lot really isn't an argument not to get rid of them - it's an argument to get rid of them in some sort of large, group AfD or several large, group AfDs - or Prod, as Dragonfiend suggests. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats the policy/method to this? rootology 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be allowing original research, even if it is about a Wiki. That's called bias. --W.marsh 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tagged a bunch of them as PROD, what are all of your thoughts? I labeled them as "Non notable subject matter, unsourced. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB not met.". Short list: Encyclopedia_Gamia, EditThis.info, Doom_Wiki, DKosopedia, BluWiki, AlacraWiki. The problem as I see it is that "media" generally don't cover these all, and likely never will. However, on the flip side, they ARE worthy of an encyclopedia entry, even if short, a stub, unsourced, not notable by WEB standards. It's no different how a legitimate entry on some random little river in South America, or some tiny little ghost town in Nevada has an entry--things like this are all out there. Why is the standard different for content simply because it's "online", as opposed to a physical thing that exists in real life? rootology 20:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We require encyclopedia articles to be based on information verified in reliable sources because an unreliable encyclopedia is useless. We'd rather have no information on a topic than unreliable information. Also, nice job on PRODing those articles. -- Dragonfiend 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to bring folks up to speed on user Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s actions of late. His mass AfDing/PRODing campaign was essentially done to "illustrate a point" relative to this AfD of Encyclodpedia Dramatica. Please understand these actions in this light. Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that all small, irrelevant articles should be PROD'd to clean up the thousands of them lurking? Or should WEB change to accomodate what is a reality of the modern Internet? Scores of notable sites that get press, and notability, but not through standard media channels (which each year will factually grow more irrelevant)? rootology 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Except the internet at large is not a reliable source, and you would be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise. Nifboy 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the current standards no. That's why I'm bringing this up to see if it needs to be revisited. When were they last updated? rootology 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did not make myself understood: Using forums, blogs, and wikis as sources is a very bad idea, and standards that include them would be very low indeed. (Edit: My usual rule on sources is that I don't use sources I wouldn't use in a college freshman English paper. Relying on forums and blogs would guarantee I failed a high school paper. Our standards should be higher than that.) Nifboy 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair enough viewpoint and I agree with this totally. What do you think of news sources that are 'niche', simply by virtue of covering more niche fields? Computer/computer science related, and related to the Internet specifically. All the hubbub on this from ED (again, for those just seeing me defend it--I got nothing to do with any of that, I stumbled upon that fracas and argued what seemed the right course of action then) got me thinking about this, as I'm putting together hopefully what could be a decent sized project. Some of the source material might not count as RS, which is another reason I'm bringing all this up. For example, just picking out two at random from the type of thing I usually read here: RFC 3951 which leads to [IETF]. Similar would be things surrounding say the Hacker (computer security) article (look at the sources/magazines listed there). Or, issues related to relationships between various operating system companies and groups, their relationship with the government. I focused on the Wiki articles first as an easy example for clarification without getting this deep into it.

Short version: nearly all the sources for this sort of information generally fall outside the realm (far outside) of mainstream media. For many of these things, the only news sources are strictly online, in niche realms, even perhaps only via mail lists. Many news things come out/can be found via the NANOG mailist, but won't even ever reach any real 'media' or reference source beyond that, but are just as notable, when relating to things that are found "just online". This is why I'm wondering if perhaps the qualifications for subject matter strictly of an 'online' nature perhaps should be expanded. There is an ever dwindly supply of traditional media, due to loss of circulation at newspapers (just for starters) and more and more things move online. At the same time, news coverage expands each year to cover more and more things, but strictly "online". Another good example: comic books. How many print magazines are "about comics"? Comics Journal? Wizard? Most of the big news these days breaks first at places like Slush or Newsarama. Would they be valid (RS) sources?

That's the root of my concern--that a lot of sources which for 99% of the non-Wiki editor community would be a completely legitimate news or reference source, is excluded. Looking at the examples here:

• The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
• The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

It would seem to raise the bar artificially high. A great many, many things that are "notable" online will never be covered by things that fall under the realm of "traditional" media, or media that is notable itself to a wide variety of the the population (unless I'm utterly misreading this, correct me if I'm wrong). This ranges from silly memes like Tubcat to serious matters on internet security that aren't picked by the mainstream, or the aforementioned Internet RFCs. It just seems... needless prohibitive for things of an online nature. rootology 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The RFCs themselves might be a great illustration of what I'm thinking about it. IANA may put out an RFC--they make up the groundwork of how the whole Internet is generally supposed to run. But for something that notable, where would you find RS that meets our current requirements for that kind of thing? IANA publishes/cites back to itself? Sorry if this sounds disjointed at all. rootology 08:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This conversation seems to crop up every so often. We've had it with "webcomics don't get covered by reliable sources," but then we discovered that they do. We had it with blogs and internet memes, and came to the same conclusion. I'm not sure where these conversations start, but they seem to start from an assumption that the people who create and fact-check traditional reliable sources don't have internet access or something. But then we do a little reseacrh and find out that people at The New York Times do read webcomics or whatever, and they do write about it. I'm not familiar enough with the VoIP issues you're talking about, but a quick search at my library shows plenty of artilces on the Business Wire and in Wireless Design & Development magazine. For example, articles like "GIPS iLBC First Speech Codec to be Standardized by the IETF for IP Telephony Solutions" and "Challenges for VoIP deployment in the enterprise." Also, take a close look at WP:RS; some online sources (those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, for example) are acceptable. Mainly what you can't do is use something a blogger wrote as if it's a reliable source for anything other than an article on the blog (which of course needs to be supported by relaible third-party sources to support the importance of the blog). -- Dragonfiend 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me dig around and compose my thoughts more, in light of your reply. And just so I'm clear, even blogs of accomplished and noted journalists fall under not meeting the RS requirement? Last, does circulation/distributation typically play a role in the reliability of a news source? When I say niche, for the online stuff, I mean niche. Vital importance to core parts of the underlying internet possibly, but stuff that say a 'normal' media source wouldn't touch unless there was a dead body involved. rootology 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria - reference

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)

Award examples

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[2] shows that it is registered to Keenspot Entertainment, making it less than independent. -- Dragonfiend 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Web Cartoonist's Choice Award would fall under self-promotional and not independent by any stretch of the imagination. Anybody can make up their own award, and that's what they did. Anyone hoping to justify an article here needs something more than that, as it falls squarely in line with examples in the guidelines of people making their own sites to promote themselves... would need to be some other, well-repected and truly indpendent source. 172.130.239.49 19:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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).

Stupid

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)

I'm sorry

I was just trying to show you the website. Because when I clicked on the name of the website it wouldn't come up. So I was just trying to make it easier for you! Sorry!

Podcasts

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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Podcasts do get mentioned and discussed in the media, The Guardian, for example, discusses them irregularly. It's often argued that foo doesn't generate any discussion in mainstream media, but this is always proved a fallacy. Often, what people really mean is that my favourite foo hasn't been mentioned in a reliable source and yet it deserves an article. Sadly, nothing deserves an article on Wikipedia unless it is verifiable. The Official OverClocked ReMix Podcast is reviewed in "Critic's choice" The Independent (London); Aug 29, 2006; Robert Moss; p. 19, for example. Hiding Talk 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

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)

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)

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)

That was sarcasm? It read like a pretty clear "yes, it's a guideline" to me... -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why would a guideline like this refer to a proposal? Fresheneesz 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a proposal last I checked. I see it is now. Hm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the core of the confusion is that notability almost exclusively applies to article deletion, and on any given day AFD may or may not be a psychotic seven-headed hydra that has no regard for the rules whatsoever. Certainly, at no point in time will notability ever be policy, with the implication that we categorically reject any and all content that doesn't pass muster (although it would certainly save AFD a lot of headache). Nifboy 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Change template

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)

Games distributed exclusively on the Internet

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)

• I believe they presently fall under WP:WEB, but that's imply because it's the older of the two guidelines. It would be in the wiki's best interest if the guidelines matched on this point. >Radiant< 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Fangames tend to do exceedingly poorly at AfD almost regardless of any other consideration; I highly recommend having a pile of good sources. Nifboy 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, fangames tend to be self-published which tends to fall under vanity. >Radiant< 23:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SOFTWARE is still a proposal, so WP:WEB would be the best one to use. That said, they are pretty similar in their criteria. Hiding Talk 15:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AtomFilms

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)

Content distribution

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)

• Anything self-published (such as on any fileserver) doesn't count as "having a publisher" and is generally non-notable. >Radiant< 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Educational sites

I see room here for an extra clause covering sites that hold free and editable educational content, to that extent in line with Wikipedia's mission, but perhaps not complying with one or two of the core principles -- somehow POV, or allowing OR.

This kind of site should have a lower barrier for inclusion; a certain length of time online, with growing community; some indication that it is one of the main sources for free or editable content on a subject. A recent example is the nominally educational anarchopedia, whose other language verisons meet notability standards in their wikipedias, but which has come under fire on this one.

+sj + 21:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think at one point there was a proposal for Wikis in general, and that was very handily shot down (WP:ASR, for one). The determinants you suggest were discarded long ago for websites in general. That Encyclopædia Dramatica was ultimately put down is another example of this. Nifboy 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Anything free and editable is probably not a good source unless it has a strong WP:CITE-like policy. This is roughly the reason why blogs aren't generally good sources either. >Radiant< 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nifboy -- Right. I would classify these both under the same guidelines; and think that we should reconsider ED at some point. But an educational and multilingual mission should could for a good deal.

Radiant -- I am not talking about something being "a good source" -- we have articles about many sites which are absolutely not good sources, but are widely known or otherwise important in popular culture. I am talking about what makes something notable or useful enough for Wikipedia to include a description of it. +sj + 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. For web-related matters, the google test tends to do the trick. >Radiant< 08:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

StrategyWiki

I was curious if the website [3] 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)

Keenspot

While I'm loath in some qways to re-open this discussion, it was never fully resolved before. It's also been raised at Talk:Goblins (webcomic): Does Keenspot in of itself satisfy the "The content is distributed via a site etc." criterion? - brenneman ^{L} 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, being published on a site like Keenspot does not mean that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." Keenspot is not well known by any stretch. If it were, reliable third-party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) would notice the things that it publishes. It's also not independent of every comic that it publishes; its article plainly states that it is run by some of its cartoonists. -- Dragonfiend 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keenspot is very well known as a comic distributor online, however. I think it should satisfy it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And this is precisely why we never finished this discussion. Nifboy 23:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• For all practical intents and purposes, this AfD of Sorcery 101 tells me that, although it is mildly controversial, Keenspot by itself is not enough to save a comic's article. Nifboy 23:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ...only because there's no difinitive answer regarding Keenspot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's because there is nothing definitive about Keenspot. It lies in a vague grey area, and therefore Keenspot membership isn't something that should be relied on to save an article from AfD. Nifboy 00:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll be honest, I'm not sure what's so vague about it. To quote the footnote to the relevant section, "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless...Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Keenspot is not like GeoCities or Newgrounds, that's what their Comic Genesis thing is for. Keenspot hosting is certainly not trivial in the sense that anyone can be hosted there (like Geocities, YouTube, Newgrounds), and given that they only host approximately 50 comics, we're not in any danger of a deluge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • What I'd like to get out of this is some more objective' way for us to make the determination. Most of my favorite comics were on Keenspot at one time. All of them now satisfy other criterion, having been published in dead tree form. So clearly Keenpsot means something.
          brenneman ^{L} 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I promise I'm not being difficult when I say this, but "Keenspot qualifies" is objective via the criteria. It's a noted third party distributor of web content, and it isn't trivial in that you can't just be any schmo who draws pretty pictures to be hosted via Keenspot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It's vague because there isn't a whole lot of WP:V going on in the world of webcomics, in general. Even if you were to accept that all Keenspot comics meet WP:WEB, you still have to meet WP:V, which has been emphasized much more (both in AfD and elsewhere) than it was a year ago. Nifboy 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well known..."

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)

I think you have to judge it in the context of the medium it's providing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"and independent of the creators..."

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)

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)

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)

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)

Keenspot emphasis

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. {{Sofixit}}, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whether Keenspot is notable well-known

Quoting: No, being published on a site like Keenspot does not mean that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." Keenspot is not well known by any stretch. If it were, reliable third-party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) would notice the things that it publishes. -Dragonfiend

Per my review of sources on the issue, Keenspot has been noticed by a newspaper (The San Francisco Chronicle: DOT-COMICS: Online cartoons skip traditional syndication and draw loyal fans on the Internet), a magazine (Publishers Weekly, the US publishers' trade magazine: Webcomics, Books from Keenspot.com), and et cetera (chapter four of The History Of Webcomics (ISBN 0976804395)). What more could you possibly want? Are you saying that The San Francisco Chronicle and Publishers Weekly aren't "reliable third-party sources"? Why do we have the third criteria of this guideline if not for cases exactly like this? –  Anþony  talk  08:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• How many pages do you intend to have this discussion on? I've already pointed out on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darken that attempting to refute my statement that Keenspot is not generally well known by trying to show that Keenspot is notable is a non sequitor. There are plenty of things which are notable but not well known. You may want to keep in mind that not everything published on a notable site is notable. And that a "History Of Webcomics" book written by a former Keenspot artist that talks about Keenspot isn't exactly the third-party, independent, reliable source. If you want to write an article about a comic hosted on a particular site, you need to find some reliable sources talking about that comic, not the site it's hosted on. -- Dragonfiend 08:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, being well-known is actually a less strict requirement than being notable. Prior to your post at the Darken AfD, I assumed it was sufficient to prove Keenspot notable, which is why I repeatedly used the objective criteria established for determining notability. There are no established criteria for determining if something is "well-known" and that's why this argument has come up time and again. Even so, I believe I have shown that Keenspot does indeed meet the requirements you specified paragraphs above. Frankly, it seems like you disapprove of the third criterion altogether, which is a valid position to take. Are there other examples of articles whose notability has been established by the third criterion?

I responded to your arguments at AfD because they are pertinent to that debate. I chronciled the evidence of Keenspot's notability where is most applicable and will be available for future reference, as opposed to the AfD. I requested assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics to honestly solicit advice from fellow comics editors on improving Darken. I have responded to the arguments here because it is likely the appropriate place to have the discussion in general. If I sound like I'm repeating myself, it's because I find myself facing the same arguments in each case, but I do have a different intent for each discussion.

Please note that I have not been involved in previous discussions, so previous arguments are still new to me. I do not intend to keep bringing this issue up myself. If the rationale can be explained to me satisfactorily, I will happily concede the point and move on. On the other hand, if I find that rationale to be faulty, I will pursue the options available to me to effect a change in whatever practice I believe to be in error. And even at that, after having said my piece, if the consensus is still against me, I am willing to accept that too. But if the guideline remains as it is, which opens itself to a subjective decision on what makes a publisher "well-known", I expect you will have this discussion yet again with someone new. –  Anþony  talk  10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "being well-known is actually a less strict requirement than being notable." For example, there are plenty of obscure concepts and cult phenomena that are not well known but that meet the Wikipedia:Notability concept that "A subject is notable if it has been documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent, published sources..." Also note that "Notability does not equate to I've heard of it." That is, being well known (lots of people have heard of it) does not mean something is notable. To your genreal idea that being published on Keenspot meets requirement #3, see its related footnote. "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion [That the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself]." Will a comic hosted on Keenspot almost certainly be the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources? The answer to that seems to be a resounding "no." -- Dragonfiend 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of the argument, I'm willing to accept that notability != well-known. Regardless, I do maintain that Keenspot is well-known, even by the requirements you specified. Would you care to speculate on what sort of evidence could be provided to prove Keenspot (or any similar publisher) "well-known" and further explain why your previous requirements are no longer sufficient to convince you, now that I've met them?

Your argument also seems to be that <insert-Keenspot-comic-here> does not meet #3 because it doesn't meet #1, which seems an implicit acknowledgement that <insert-Keenspot-comic-here> would otherwise meet #3 and Keenspot is well-known. Further, the guideline explicitly says the criteria are independent and any one of them is sufficient to prove an article's notability. The note only mentions that it is likely that such articles will meet both standards while it explicitly acknowledges that some articles will not.

I direct you to the example given in the note of The Ricky Gervais Show, a podcast deemed notable because it is distributed by The Guardian. The Ricky Gervais Show does not cite any independent sources which would satisfy #1. (All of the links are to related websites or Audible, which offers the podcast for sale.) Clearly, it is not necessary to meet #1 and #3 simulataneously. –  Anþony  talk  00:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ricky Gervais Show show falls into that category of things which "will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion." Just because no one has taken the time to find the sources yet (Wikipedia is a work in progress) does not mean that those sources don't exist. Because this podcast is distributed by a publisher that is well-known to the general population, we can pretty safely assume that there are multiple non-trivial sources discussing it. This not the case with Keenspot -- those webcomics published by Keenspot that are discussed in multiple non-trivial sources are the exception rather than the rule. -- Dragonfiend 05:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to address the rest of my comment, specifically why you think the other criteria are subordinate to #1, even when the guideline clearly says otherwise?

I'll leave the question of Keenspot being well-known to the discussion below, which I hope will result in objective criteria for determining if something is well-known. From your choice of argument here and reticence to provide new objective criteria (and explain why the old objective criteria weren't good enough), it seems you have conceded that Keenspot is well-known. –  Anþony  talk  05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand at all what you are asking (maybe you could be more clear? Not make so many vague references to previous comments?) but I'm 100% certain that I don't believe Keenspot to be well known. --Dragonfiend 06:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

<--- reset indent

There are a few issues which you neglected to address:

1. Do you agree that Keenspot is well-known under the requirements you specified and why are those no longer sufficient?

   You stipulated in this edit from October 10, 2006, which can still be seen above, that:

   Keenspot is not well known by any stretch. If it were, reliable third-party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) would notice the things that it publishes.

   Keenspot and the content it publishes have been discussed in The San Francisco Chronicle[4] and Publishers Weekly[5], both of which are reliable third-party sources. It is clear to me that Keenspot qualifies as "well-known" under those requirements.

2. Do you now propose some new definition of "well-known" that excludes Keenspot?

   The inherent vagueness of the current guideline lends itself to subjective decisions influenced by personal bias. I seek a clear and objective test which is not a "moving target" to determine if publication is sufficiently well-known for the purposes of this guideline. This discussion is being held further down the page. I'm not asking you to respond directly to this point; I include it only for clarity.

3. Do you disagree with the guideline's assertion that the three criteria are independent and that it is sufficient to meet any one of the criteria?

   Again, quoting your post from 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC):

   To your genreal idea that being published on Keenspot meets requirement #3 ... [quoting guideline] ... Will a comic hosted on Keenspot almost certainly be the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources? The answer to that seems to be a resounding "no."

   You seem to be saying that because a Keenspot article does not meet #1, it therefore does not meet #3. That is contrary to the guideline, which states explicitly that the criteria are independently sufficient to establish notability. Also, the note you cite only says that it is likely, but not required that an article will satisfy both #1 and #3.

4. Can you make a case based on logic and evidence that Keenspot is not known by many people, independent of its status on Wikipedia?

   Relating to the previous point, because your argument does not directly contest Keenspot's status as well-known publisher, it seems you no longer have faith in your ability to argue that point successfully. If you cannot, you should concede that Keenspot is well-known. –  Anþony  talk  08:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to answer your questions: #1, when I wrote "reliable third-party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) would notice the things that it publishes," I did not mean "reliable sources would notice a small fraction of the things that it publishes," As far as I can tell, such nontrivial sources only notice a small fraction of Keenspot's content. #2, No, I'm not proposing a new definition of well-known, you just misunderstood my previous description (it wasn't a definition). #3, No, I'm saying that because Keenspot articles are not almost certainly able to meet criteria one, then they do not meet criteria three since criteria three describes well-known independent publishers as those whose content is almost certainly to meet criteria one. #4, You lost me there, but no you have not convinced me that Keenspot is well known. I guess my question to you would be, what sort of encyclopedia articles do you intend to write on topics without multiple non-trivial reliable sources? Unreliable unsourced articles full of original research and your own point of view? -- Dragonfiend 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Your explanation is why I refer to the "well-known" requirement as a moving target. For any specific case, for whatever evidence is presented, someone will always be able to say "it's not well-known enough". That is unacceptable.
2. In your reply to #1, you just provided a definition that excludes Keenspot, so I don't know how you can deny it. Still, I have hope that we will reach a compromise to clarify the meaning of "well-known" (or obviate the need for one) in the guideline.
3. The note does not say what you think it does. It says only that Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. That is a straight factual statement pertaining to the likelihood of the content in question meeting both criteria. It does not place a requirement on online publishers and it certainly does not define what it means to be "well-known".
4. I have presented an argument based on logic and evidence that Keenspot is known by many people. So far, you have responded only to say that you disagree. I ask you to make a parallel argument to convince me that Keenspot is not known by many people. If you cannot, whether or not you are convinced, you should concede the point. Unless or until you present such an argument, it is implicit that you have conceded.

–  Anþony  talk  09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AnÞony. As long as #3 is met, #1 is irrelevant. I'm not saying that we should have an article on every comic on Keenspot, they must also meet WP:V, but I am saying that every comic on Keenspot meets WP:WEB just by being on Keenspot (excepting, of course the comics made by the Keenstaff, but those usually meet WP:WEB through other ways). Regardless, Keenspot is well known. In multiple discussions, you continue to assert that Keenspot is non-notable and not well-known, despite how many times Keenspot notability is provided and cited. It seems to me that you are personally biased against Keenspot. If you cannot demonstrate that you are not (fulfilling AnÞony's request would be enough to convince me), then I must wonder as to how nuetral your arguments in other subsections are. --NicholaiDaedalus 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nicholai, could you point to the "multiple discussions" where you believe I "continue to assert that Keenspot is non-notable"? I don't recall ever suggesting Keenspot was non-notable, let alone making such a suggestion in a mutliple, continual fashion. In fact, I'm the only editor to any add third-party reliable sources to the Keenspot article that suggest any sort of notability. What I have said on many occasions is that simply being hosted on a site like Keenspot does not make a webomic "notable." This is borne out by the large number of Keenspot comics which reliable third-party nontrivial sources fail to take any note of. Also, I'm not sure where your accusation of "personally biased" is coming from, but it sounds like the sort of personal comment that is best avoided in a friendly collaborative working environment. -- Dragonfiend 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I said that you denied it was "non-notable and not well known", looking back over your past comments I may have been premature to include non-notable, but nevertheless my comment was focusing on the "well-known" aspect as implied by the context within the discussion. I admit I wrote my comment unclearly, and that is my fault. My point was that it's notability through the media is evidence of it's well-known stature.
2. You made such claims against it being well-known in AfD:Darken on November 28, AfD:Sorcery_101 on August 8, and this discussion itself. That's just what I personally know of offhand. Maybe there are more instances, maybe there aren't, but three examples makes my statement of "multiple discussions" factual.
3. My "accusation" of personal bias is based on your multiple claims against Keenspot in which you keep asserting "I do not believe Keenspot is well-known", yet you do not support your claim with logic or evidence.
4. It was not a personal attack but rather a personal observation of which I have not yet verified, which is why I bring it up to be verified or denounced. Your comments and what I know of your past history lead me to wonder about your neutrality.
5. Since you addressed a tangent and not the main issue, your last comment only convinces me further that you are biased, how else am I to interpret the observation that you have responded to my "personal attack" (as you seem to view it) almost immediately, yet you have not yet responded to AnÞony's points nearly 21 days later? Yet I still am not trying to attack you, I will accept other explanations, should you provide them.

--NicholaiDaedalus 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't feel it is necessary to respond to every single comment everytime this discussion gets replayed. We have a guideline which says that "content [that] is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" "will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion" meaning that such content will have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Being hosted by a site like Keenspot is not "well lnown" by this criteria. Also, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and we only write articles on topics for which we have multiple non-trivial third-party reliable sources which allow us to cover topics from a neutral point of view without resorting to original research. -- Dragonfiend 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you're going to quote Note 7, then at least use it's full context: "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless" (quoted as of today). Operative words being "however", "ensures" and "regardless". It does not say that all content distributed via an independent site will satisfy #1, it says that it will likely satisfy #1, but the criterion ensures that it does not have to. You are right, being hosted by Keenspot does not make a webcomic well-known, but this criterion ensures that the content of Keenspot does not have to be well-known as long as Keenspot itself is. And according to this criteria as you have explained it, Keenspot is well-known being that it has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works. And since it is an exclusive independent publisher, it does not meet the trivial content examples of Newgrounds and Geocities, they have Comicgenesis to fill that role. --NicholaiDaedalus 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment. Does anyone who regularly reads web comics not know what Keenspot is? The group (web comics readers) is large in size. Keenspot is huge in that domain. So Keenspot is well-known. Certainly better known than say (hits random page) than How 'Bout I Love You More. I don't even see how there can be a discussion here. (Mark) --141.212.111.116 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and web notability criteria

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)

• I'm not sure what the difference is between an article that doesn't meet the notability criteria and one that doesn't assert that it meets the notability criteria. Do you have a particular article in mind? -- Dragonfiend 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I am assuming that Cfred has the article Michael Rivero in mind, since the argument he is putting forward was made by me there in defense of the article's inclusion. Tiamut 19:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• First, Rivero would be under WP:BIO and not WP:WEB, and he would not be speedy-able because the article made the assertion that he's notable.

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)

My apologies for the incorrect assumption. Tiamut 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Podcasts (again)

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)

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)

WP:WEB and content distribution

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

Suggestion Requested

I like to know if anyone has any comments of improvement to make the following edit better: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29&diff=86676826&oldid=86675421. FactsOnly 09:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a step backwards. I have expressed my opinion: now have the patience to wait and see what others think. --Francis Schonken 08:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can edit my changes if they feel a certain word is more appropriate, and I would be fine with that as long as they provide good reasons.

How is it "a step backwards"? You have absolutely no support on how this is "a step backwards." I do not believe you are a very good judge of my edits or of me by stating "now have the patience to wait and see what others think." Even when I fixed whatever issues you had, you still reverted my edits repeatedly. Don't you have the patience to realize that many people will not have a problem with harmless edits, and if they do, they can simply suggest improvements and edit my changes.

I have stated I would fix anything you did not agree with, though you would need to tell me precisely what it is that troubles you so greatly with this revision. I had edited the proper names as you wished and see no other concerns. Again, if there are, I am happy to hear them and fix them, so the revision can be pleasing to you, Francis Schonken; instead, you have chose not to reply with which edits troubles you on my talk page even while I have been contacting you on yours requesting exactly that.

Can you specify prior to reverting multiple times? FactsOnly 09:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[...] "have the patience to wait and see what others think" seems perfectly clear to me. --Francis Schonken 10:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[...] I'm beginning to think it futile to reason and communicate with you, when you stubbornly said the same old thing without considering what I wrote. [...] FactsOnly 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, my $.2 on the differences... linking to the list of policies isn't very useful, we should link to specific policies. Other than that, I don't see any real difference other than some bits of layout and a few minor tweaks in wording, and I have no real opinion on that either way. >Radiant< 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, if you prefer to link to specific policies, I will do that and keep that in mind for the future. FactsOnly 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, I think the section title should be "Criteria" not "what are the criteria for ..." Pascal.Tesson 12:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. We will take that into consideration. FactsOnly 13:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rrfayette, policies should only be edited when there's consensus to do so. When someone reverts an edit on policy, there's obviously some dispute of those edits. Instead of having a revert war, you should propose your changes on the talk page and see what the reaction is - if there's a consensus to accept those changes, do it then. Also, it's confusing when you sign your posts with a name that's completely different from your username (especially when there's already a user named FactsOnly[[6]]). --Milo H Minderbinder 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"When someone reverts an edit on policy, there's obviously some dispute of those edits" and the disputes are what matters. They were trivial and I fixed whatever the complaints were. "Policies should only be edited when there's consensus to do so" only when an editor makes changes that effects the integrity of the policy. My revision was mainly stylistic and I quote no "real difference other than some bits of layout and a few minor tweaks in wording."

A few layout changes do not require trivial criticism on your part, Milo H Minderbinder. This is a request for suggestions, not an attack on me, whoever you are--I did not know there was already a user named FactsOnly. FactsSolely 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note that this page is not policy but a guideline. Per WP:POL, it is generally acceptable to edit guidelines to improve them (that is not to say that I endorse edit wars, of course). Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't have to propose every change before making it. >Radiant< 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am here because of a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. What is the contention? Aside for some wordsmithing differences between the two versions presented, the primary difference appears to be layout. In my opinion, the layout is better in the more recent version, and on the balance I like the wording better too. Aside from that, I'd remove the weaselly-sounding phrase in the introduction: "There is also consensus amongst many Wikipedia editors that" — just take that phrase out completely. It reads just fine without it. -Amatulic 15:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify which version you call "the more recent version". Your last remark ("Aside from that...") is a bit confusing. --Francis Schonken 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see: Radiant had provided the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29&diff=86677387&oldid=86676826 diff at Wikipedia:Third opinion ([7]) – makes perfect sense then, you prefer this version of 08:38, 9 November 2006 (the more recent in the provided diff), *apart* from the "consensus amongst many Wikipedia editors" phrase.

Sorry Rrfayette (FactsSolely), Amatulic implied that (apart from omitting the "consensus amongst many Wikipedia editors" phrase) the changes proposed by you were worse as well from the viewpoint of layout, as from the viewpoint of wording.

Seeing all that, I propose to unprotect the Wikipedia:Notability (web), revert it to the version preferred by Amatulic (to which also Francis, Pascal and Radiant can agree), instead of keeping the version only preferred by Rrfayette. --Francis Schonken 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

...whatever you want. And let's try not to put words in people's mouth, such as "the changes proposed by you were worse." If you view it as worse, then simply tell us what is bad about it. SolelyFacts 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I was referring to the two versions posted in the link on Wikipedia:Third opinion. And I didn't mean to imply that one version was "worse"; I simply stated my preference. To be more specific, with respect to the current version:

• I would omit the "Introduction" heading. An introduction heading is redundant. The lead paragraph of any Wikipedia article serves as an introduction.
• Appendices should follow the order and naming conventions in Wikipedia:Manual of style (headings). That is, "Resources" should be "See also".
• Weasel words must go, specifically referring to "many" Wikipedians. Therefore, the current article still reads fine if the following phrases are completely expunged:
  • "Consequently, many Wikipedians are wholly averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising."
  • "Many Wikipedia editors support that" — simply state the remainder as its own sentence: "Wikipedia is not a web directory..."

-Amatulic 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of things any editors will change so it will please those who have issues

Update: Changes were made. Feel free to add more. SolelyFacts 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

2nd Update Great! It was reverted again. Good Job for reverting everything I done instead of suggesting improvements...

At the people's request and suggestion (Edit this section as you wish, including this writing):

• The question format, ==What are the criteria for notability of web content?==, will be change to ==Criteria for web content==.
  • Will change instead to ==Criteria==,as suggested below, if nobody opposes
• Wikipedia:List of policies will be changed back to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Cite sources, as specific links were considered preferable to the main portal Wikipedia:List of policies.
• "There is also consensus amongst many" was already revised by me (I removed it).
• Will remove {{fact}} tag, though I believe that particular paragraph I tagged should refer to something--anything. I had doubts on it and this is the reason I had initially tagged it.
• "An introduction heading is redundant." If there are no opposition, it is fair to conclude that it is view as redundant and will be removed. I honestly do not have a strong preference either way.
• Other then these, there were no real, substantial, weighty, or noteworthy causes to be concern with. If there is, edit as you will. FactsSolely 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• If we must follow order and naming conventions merely because they are conventions, I am not one to argue for I see no harm in it, unless someone has a diffing opinion. I advocate "Resources" for that is what they are. The guidelines are meant to guide, not as strict rules to control and forbade.

To quote WP:MOS:

"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: [8]. 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)

• I think the correct section heading should be ==Criteria== as it is in all other guidelines (except when there are different criteria for different classes of things). Also, there is no need for a {{fact}} tag. This is a guideline in the Wikipedia namespace and so the content policies are not those for articles. Pascal.Tesson 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit (again)

I just reverted the major edit that was just done by Rrfayette. A number of links were removed, whole sentences were removed, and individual paragraphs on separate concepts were combined. If you're going to insist on trying to make such sweeping changes, I'd recommend making them one at a time and allowing people to see what they are and react. With such big changes, the diff is even hard to read. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is your contention now? That is not "big changes."

• What "number of links were removed"? Links were added as well for your information.
• "Whole sentences were removed" according to the list.
• "Individual paragraphs on separate concepts were combined" to smooth out the article.
• "recommend making them one at a time" Certain people have issues with me making them one at a time. They keep telling me to use the preview button, and when I do, now you complain about it!
• NOT all edits need to be made with consensus, especially a guideline page.
• "Changes were NOT limited..." Change does NOT have to be limited to those proposed on the talk page, as I had indicated in my edit summary.
• I asked you to NOT revert w/o talks, and yet you did.

SolelyFacts 22:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The link to advertising was removed, for a start. I don't see any mention of that in the proposed changes. Nor of removing "... it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links." --Milo H Minderbinder 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Right here: "minor edits for conciseness & clarity;"
• "... it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links." It is call combining similiar ideas.
• The link to advertising is 'one link, and was not needed as I had a link to something similar. You could have just replace if you felt it was needed.

One link removal (with reason) is NOT a just cause for reverting the entire article. If these are all the petty reason you have for reverting, and not simply editing those little things. I am going to revert right back. SolelyFacts 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First, as the page itself says, "please use the discussion page to propose major changes". Second, I did explain my revert both here and in my edit summary (but note that editors don't get to set rules on further editing). Third, please post new comments at the bottom when they are a response to other comments and sign them independently of earlier comments, otherwise it's confusing and hard to see what is a response to what. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what you consider "major changes", and I will consider not reverting your weakly supported reasons for reverting the entire article.

You haven't explain very little. You see those points up there. Reply to them. SolelyFacts 23:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say those were my only objections. I consider the rewrites of the inner paragraphs to be major rewrites and to be inferior to those they replace. The new ones aren't as specific and detailed. And you can't demand a detailed critique of every word of your edit "or else". --Milo H Minderbinder 00:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you consider the revision to the "inferior," then I would hope you explain how the entire thing was "inferior" and not as "specific and detailed." No one is demanding a "detailed critique of every word of [my] edit." The demand is how everything that was changed justify reverting the entire thing. I have opted not to revert but rather to get more information first. —SolelyFacts 00:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Many things were changed in one edit. I considered it too major of an edit for a guideline (especially without consensus), and the number of changes that were for the worse outnumbered those for the better - the previous edit was overall a much better wording, so I used that as a starting point and started to put back in some of the suggested improvements. -Milo H Minderbinder 13:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have expressed the same thing, w/o details and with very weak support as to why you reverted the entire thing. Any examples you had express were all refuted aboved, with exact points. You run out of reasons to justify reverting, so please to do not suddenly make up new ones.

• We do not need consensus for every single edit we make. If that were the case, we would get nothing done.
• You have put back very little of the suggested improvements, and all you really did was erase all of my work. You are so helpful. Thank you for that...

—SolelyFacts 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to get consesus to change every single edit you make, you are totally correct. Although the topic of notability is very touchy with a lot of editors here; and especially recently this article has been hard to get editors to agree on stuff. So now that your edits have had conflict, you have to come here and get consensus from editors here. --Simonkoldyk 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just because it is "very touchy with a lot of editors here" doesn't mean they need to be very unhelpful...
• Ohhh... is this the issue: "especially recently this article has been hard to get editors to agree on stuff." If i had known this, I would have stayed away from this page. I thought it was resolve, as there was a list of changes (up there) that nobody had oppositions with.
• Btw, I cannot get "consensus from editors here" when few already have closed minds, have attacked me in the past, and reverted everything I do.
• Don't you understand? They do it only because I am the editor. If someone else had edited it, I bet you there would be no problems. Just look at ALL the reasons above (starting with Suggestions requested) and hopefully, you will find them reasonable. They had no opposition, so what is the problem? Is it because I am the editor? Hmm..?
• Those who had conflicts are not with revision, but with me, as they have suggested few reasons.
• I also contacted two neutral admins to hear their opinions, but I didn't get a responds.

O well, what can you do... —SolelyFacts 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how many times do you have to be told that you should avoid making sweeping rearrangements like this one? [9] You also have an edit summary that says "Days have gone by. There appears to be no problems, so let's get to work." Are you kidding? I will leave to others the task of explaining all of this carefully to you since you somehow have gotten the idea that I'm out to get you. Pascal.Tesson 13:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. Again, the paragraph on advertising has the links mostly changed, and it's watered down quite a bit from the previous version. And I'm not sure why footnotes are used for content that could easily be in the main body of the text, usually that section is for references, specifically links providing info. Overall, while this is better than the last major edit, I still prefer the previous version. Why is is to necessary to do a major edit to the entire page, instead of just working on say, one paragraph at a time. These edits have been so sweeping that it's not even realistic to discuss them all at once, commenting on the edits would be almost as long as the page itself. Why can't you just edit the page in stages, and see if there's consensus for those edits before moving on? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think Milo has a good point; if you make smaller changes that'd make them easier to discuss. (Radiant) 15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, smaller changes would be better. --Dragonfiend 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

New Revision

The changes by Dragonfiend and Pascal.Tesson improves it all that much more. I vouch for it. The only change I'm going to make is to combine [10] by Dragonfiend and Pascal.Tesson. I haven't yet done so. I'm thinking of how to do this best. —SolelyFacts 19:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC) They will be step by step. I think this counts as "smaller changes"... hopefully. It's just going to be a combination based on Dragonfiend and Pascal.Tesson. Looking for that middle ground... —SolelyFacts 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Still thinking, I just thought this would be helpful explanatory note on why I didn't take small steps:

I made many, many, many, many, many small edits (w/o saving), including many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many previews for the new revision. The reason why I was reluctant to save those small edits is because people also complain either way (it all depends on the user). I don't care either way.

I think we should have a policy or a guideline (more likely a guideline) that states something like: "Changes made on policies and guidelines page should be done in relatively small steps, while changes on mainspace articles should not, but rather in a single mass improvement."

People have problems with small steps and big steps. Wikipedia users should learn to get along :) —SolelyFacts 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll ever see people complaining about too many incremental changes when it comes to guidelines and policy pages. Precisely because it makes it so much harder to discuss things that need to be fined tuned. Alos, I have reverted your lst two edits. First this one: it's important to realize that notability guidelines are not intended to define a threshold for inclusion. They're supposed to be descriptive of the current practice at AfD and to give a rough idea of what most editors agree on. Your formulation is much too prescriptive to be consensual.

As for this one, I really don't like the use of the word propaganda. Pages that are propaganda are deleted as POV junk, this comment should really be about the use of Wikipedia as a soapbox. Note also that your modification to the footnote makes the sentence gramatically incorrect. Pascal.Tesson 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This was mostly Dragonfiend's formulation which was much better than mines and yours.

O wait, you had none, you just like reverting-- so be it. I will fix up the little issues you have with those that contributed. If you have any more problems, just state them. Will use "general" instead of "rough". —SolelyFacts 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I had also reverted Dragonfiend's version with the edit summary "reinserting the paragraph asserting that the guideline is descriptive not prescriptive" [11]. I think that it's important for notability guidelines to be worded flexibly. Note also that all other guidelines begin with this same kind of sentence. It's more consensual as it is acceptable to inclusionists and people who think that AfD should be as flexible as possible. Pascal.Tesson 20:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you advocating flexibility. Yes, you are correct and I agree, it should be as flexible as possible; it is a guideline after all.

All other guidelines begin with typical sentence and we will improve on them. Hope you help improve them, and we should have no problems.

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what?

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)

OK, I think I have nothing more to add. I'm going go do projects I'm a member of. —SolelyFacts 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

...someone just reverted? and surprise, it was him... (Btw, I posted this before you explained) —SolelyFacts 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Small edits/major edits

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)

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)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Opinions

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)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertising/Web directory

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)

But they link to places where they could read more. If you wish to add details, by all means do so. It's just that, if I were coming to the page for the first time, I've wish that I've not have to pass such things, when there is already a direct link (which explains the idea better). This is the reason I changed it in the first place (days ago).

To your question "Are they covered enough?":

No, no they are not on that page. But is there really a need to cover them when I could just click on the link? There is really no need for the extra words.

The guidelines are what we users/editors want, so a limited intro would be nice to have. The criteria are the focus, and hopfully, editors will add more details to them in the future. —SolelyFacts 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In many AfD cases, this guideline is the single deciding factor whether a page stays or goes. If a page is advertising, it should go. Same goes for if it's something more suited for a web directory. I think it's a mistake to deemphasize the advertising and web directory points since this is often the main guideline cited when people try to get rid of advertising pages. I don't want people to have a weaker reference to cite for the sake of "conciseness". --Milo H Minderbinder 01:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't they see if it is consider advertisments by going to Wikipedia is not a soapbox? I don't see how it's "weaker". —SolelyFacts 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is. —SolelyFacts 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive."

What does this line have to do with web notability? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is to link to a useful section, but you're right. It should be re-worded. Maybe "Wikipedia is not censored." —SolelyFacts 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"such as an irrelevant link to a shock site"? Now I'm really confused. I don't think the bit at the end fits in, but the addition at the end seems almost random. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"an irrelevant link to a shock site" is an example of a "component" that does not merit having an article on Wikipedia. I'll try to explain it better. —SolelyFacts 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That line has got to go. It's completely irrelevant in the notability guideline. Pascal.Tesson 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The line if it can't be re-worded, but the link should stay somewhere. —SolelyFacts 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's important to keep the guideline focused and this issue has absolutely nothing to do with notability criteria. Pascal.Tesson 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't, then we should get rid of the soapbox, and the web directory link as well. I shorten it. —SolelyFacts 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But these are relevant. Think man... Pascal.Tesson 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are relevant, and so is the link. I was being sarcastic to illustrate to you. —SolelyFacts 01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship has absolutely nothing to do with this guideline, this page can't mention every wikipedia guideline and policy. There are examples of what "components" are on the page already: " forums, articles, sections". cupcakes.com may be notable and deserve it's own article on wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that there should also be pages for forums.cupcakes.com, blog.cupcakes.com or pictures.cupcakes.com - if they deserve a mention at all, it can be on the main cupcakes.com article. Also, "a link to a shock site" would be a link and fall under wikipedia's links policy, not notability for articles. And why would the web directory mention go? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed "a link to a shock site". It's not so much about censorship as it is about irrelevant, objectable materials. It has the same importance as web directory and soapboxs. —SolelyFacts

I reverted it. You have to start listening to others. Pascal.Tesson 01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to start a revert war. Just explain why it is not relevant. How is "irrelevant, objectable materials" not relevant? —SolelyFacts 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying hard to assume good faith here but it's getting harder and harder. Have you read Milo H's detailed explanation? This is not the guideline on external links, it's not the policy on censorship. It's the guideline on what web content we consider deserves an article. That is utterly independent from issues of censorship. Pascal.Tesson 01:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for you to explain. And then if it makes sense, I will remove it myself, as I have done. —SolelyFacts 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that two editors had explained to you carefully why they felt that this change was unwelcome, the least you could have done before reinserting it is getting third opinions. Pascal.Tesson 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. If the article is objectable and irrelevant, then it does not deserves an article.

I am not talking about censorship so the explanation is irrelevant. How is "irrelevant, objectable materials" not relevant? was never answered. Shouldn't irrelevant, objectable web content be consider to see if it deserves an article? Of course. —SolelyFacts 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why revert minor change?

Why did you revert the last change? It "falls under wikipedia's links policy". —SolelyFacts 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Notability can also be established by looking at "irrelevant, objectable web content". So you can't use the same reason as to why you reverted that concept. —SolelyFacts 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

At least Cryptic had a reason that made sense, while you reverted and had provided none. —SolelyFacts 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Databases

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)

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)

• (AFD link) A question though - can a database really have the largest amount of data in a particular (useful) field without having any media references and such? If a site intends to be the largest database, perhaps it should accomplish that goal first. At first glance, it appears that Amazon.com lists more books than the Internet Book Database. (Radiant) 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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). BTW the way you've link to the wrong AfD discussion for the Internet Book Database. The link is for a previous deletion, which was carried out months ago and then the article was recreated.

• • Right, claims like "largest database" need to be verified through reliable sources. If no relaible source believes that something is the largest database, or even that being the largest database of something is worth writing about, then it's really not "notable." -- Dragonfiend 19:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How "Well Known" is "Well Known"?

"Well known" is a relative, and highly subjective term that changes by the person. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are very "well known" in the webcomic community, but outside of that, almost completely unknown. Should this stay as a subjective term; or should be changed it to a term that can at least have minor concensus reached on? (As in changing it to "any award that meets Wikipedia's notibility guidelines") (Justyn 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

I agree with your change, I think that was the original point of the words. --Simonkoldyk 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I find odd the idea that someone or something could win a notable and/or well-known award but not be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works." How notable can an award be if no reliable sources take note that they are given out? In other words, if winning an award does not generate the type of coverage that would make the website meet criteria #1, then the award isn't well known or notable enough to meet criteria #2, making criteria #2 redundant, useless, and unnecessary. If a site winning an award is only noticed by one online subculture or an other, then that is not notable. Keep in mind that we can't try to write a notability guidline as a dodge around official content policy like WP:V or WP:NOR. -- Dragonfiend 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with Justyn's intent, in practice his rewording will have the exact opposite effect. The scenarios I see playing out on afd:

WP:WEB criterion 2: "well-known and independent award"

WP:WEB criterion 2: "notable independent award"

Sam's Silly Scrawlings Doesn't meet WP:WEB. --User:A Keep, won the 2006 Webcomix Arbitrary Authors Award for comic started in October with most S's in the title. --User:B Delete, WAAAs are hardly "well-known"; nobody except web comic authors have ever heard of them. --User:C Delete per User:C. Duh. --User:D Delete per User:C. --User:E Delete per User:C. --User:F

Sam's Silly Scrawlings Doesn't meet WP:WEB. --User:A Keep, won the 2006 Webcomix Arbitrary Authors Award for comic started in October with most S's in the title. --User:B Delete, WAAAs are nn; nobody except web comic authors have ever heard of them. --User:C Keep. If WAAAs weren't notable - and they are, here are two reliable nontrivial independent mentions of them [12] [13] - then they wouldn't have an article. Duh. --User:D Keep per User:D. --User:E Keep per User:D. --User:F

—Cryptic 07:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In a more general sense, notability is not a transitive relation; Else we could play six degrees of notability all day: X wins award Y, X does a writeup of Z, therefore Z is notable. Z writes on website epsilon, therefore epsilon is notable. And so on and so forth. Nifboy 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "well known"? Define how "well known" an award has to be for it to count. Each person has a different view on what constitutes being "well known". And so what if one crappy webcomic meets this because it won an award that is notible but not well known, when thirty others can have well deserved articles back because they where deleted by "I don't believe that that award is 'well known'". (Justyn 00:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

I agree that "well-known" as used here (also used in criteria #3, which I am debating above) is far too vague and invites very subjective decisions. I could understand why "notable" might not be the preferred alternative, as the objective notability criteria were established for different reasons and may not coincide with the intent here. However, if it stays as "well-known", I think we should establish some similiar objective criteria to judge whether or not something is well-known. In my view -- and I recognize that others disagree -- being notable should be enough, simply because establishing a level of "meta-notability" would be far too much effort to justify excluding a few "crappy webcomics" as Justyn put it.

As for the argument about transitive notability, it's not as bad as all that. There guidelines here are very specific on when notability is transferrable. If you disagree, then your argument should be to remove the criterion from the guideline entirely. In fact, it seems like the only criterion everybody wants is #1. –  Anþony  talk  02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A potential compromise: An award or publication is well-known for the purposes of #2 and #3 if it itself meets criteria #1. In that way, you could never have a "chain of notability". –  Anþony  talk  02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I could have, and should have worded that better. (Justyn 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm of the opinion WP:V is the overriding principle here, and #2 and #3 are meant to be, in a sense, shortcuts around #1 so we don't have to go through something like this for every single article we want to save from AfD. Instead of having to slog through Google searches and whatnot in the week AfD gives, we can say "Look, even if we're too lazy to prove the article could ever become WP:V compliant it's safe to presume it." To me, that is the bar we should use for them; "Would a typical X have the sources to meet WP:V?" Nifboy 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried several different ways to read your comment but I'm having a really hard time understanding what you mean. I'm not sure if you're advocating a tougher standard or a looser one. Would you mind explaining what "Would a typical X have the sources to meet WP:V?" means in some more detail? –  Anþony  talk  04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of what I think what Nifboy is getting at are "Would a typical myspace page have the sources to meet WP:V?" No. "Would a typical Webby Award winner have the sources to meet WP:V?" Yes. "Would a typical youtube video have the sources to meet WP:V?" No. "Would a typical Washington Post blogger have the sources to meet WP:V?" Yes. "Would a typical Modern Tales or Keenspot comic have the sources to meet WP:V?" No. Of course, if a Washington Post blogger got through AfD by association and then six months or a year later still didn't have any reliable sources, it would probably get deleted. --Dragonfiend 05:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. As I understand the point, an award or publication is well-known if most of the articles which could rely on it to confer notability do not need it to, in that they meet #1 independently. I can't say that I agree with that because that's not an intuitive way to read "well-known". If there is consensus to support that interpretation however, I move that the guideline be changed to reflect it more clearly. –  Anþony  talk  06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about we just get rid of the "well known" bits that there seems to be so much difficulty over interpretting? I'm not sure what type of article one is supposed to write about a site that won a "well-known" award or hooked up with a "well-known" publisher but somehow got completely ignored by multiple non-trivial sources. A few words about the award the site won followed by a page of unverifiable POV original research? Or maybe we need to stress in the intro to this guideline that all articles must meet WP:V including "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"? To me this page ought to be a guideline for editors who have verifiable information and are wondering whether the topic is notable, not for editors who have no verifiable third-party info but want to be able to write articles anyway. That is, this guideline cannot be used to get around our policies regarding verifiablilty and original research. -- Dragonfiend 09:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we get rid of criteria #2 and #3? That seems pretty major -- they're there for a reason, no? –  Anþony  talk  10:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting that we either get rid of #2 and #3 or explicitly remind editors that this guideline can't be used to dodge around our official policies that articles must be include no original research, be written from a neutral point of view, and be based on verifiable information from third-party reliable sources. We already include these policies in the "See also" list, but including them in prose may help make this guidleine more clear. It seems that #2 and #3 are being chronically misinterpretted in isolation from our official content polices, and either clarifying them or removing them would seem to solve this. As written (and I was here when we were writing this) and read in isolation, I can see how #2 and #3 seem to be misleading people to believe that their unverified original research about a web site is appropriate as long as the editor believes that the site is somehow associated with something they believe to be "well known." --Dragonfiend 17:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but worry that, because people see WP:WEB as a minimum, we start seeing underworked articles deleted simply because no one put any time or effort into researching it. And research is a pain. Nifboy 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, now that WP:CSDUA is in the works, it may or may not make this and other pages effectively obsolete. Nifboy 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with this. Mostly because #1 can be just as badly misinterpreted as #2 and #3 are. I've been thinking of starting an article on Kean Soo, who's the assistant editor for Flight (comic), and his comic, Jellaby, is Eisner-nominated. Disney has also acquired the rights to the publish Jellaby, but the only place that mentions it is [14], which can be interpreted as a passing mention. He has articles in silverbulletcomics [15], popimage [16] and webcomicsexaminer [17]. So right now I'm at a bit of a loss. ColourBurst 05:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of articles about blogs

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)

• You can probably get some mileage out of the google test here, as well as by checking whether the article on the blog lists anything special about that blog. You could help by tagging them cleanup or PROD as appropriate. (Radiant) 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Honestly, looks like a good start rather than something to trim. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose one could start a WP:BLOG WikiProject. (Radiant) 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You mean the tagged-as-inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging? Nifboy 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• A good start would be tagging any blog article that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject with Template:Notability or Template:Db-web. A google search looking for reputable third-party sources is a good idea, too. -- Dragonfiend 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've got nothing against blogs -- I'd love to include my own on Wikipedia, but that would be inappropriate. I'm busy enough with WT:WPSPAM so I can't take this on, but I thought perhaps some others might want to look at some of these when they have time. --A. B. 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just pick the ones you're interested in, and insist the others are not notable. Trollderella 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability of nexi of points of view

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)

A question on subculture notability

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)

I'd say yes. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Basically, it depends on how large the subculture is. If the subculture isn't notable, then the comic probably isn't either. If the subculture is "Trekkies" for instance, that's a different matter. (Radiant) 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Playing devil's Advocate here...what is a large enough subculture? For example according to the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, the #4 extreme sport (in terms of participation) for 2004 is Artificial Wall climbing, and the #5 is snowboarding. If a webcomic was notable in the Artificial Wall Climbing subculture (which may not be well known to wiki editors) does it meet criteria for WP:WEB based on the participation numbers of 8.8mil which is more than snowboarding? --Nitehawk337 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that can't be answered in strict numbers. We don't do numerical cutoff points since any number we might pick would be arbitrary. I note that we don't have an article on Artificial wall climbing, so you may want to start from there. Other than that, it's easy to claim that a comic is well-known in some subculture, but can you prove it? For instance, if the comic is showcased in Wall Climber's Magazine, that's a good argument. If the author claims "yes, it's so famous, I get fan phone calls all the time, honestly!" that's not such a good argument. (Radiant) 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with what you are saying - let's go one step further: you mention if it's published in Wall Climber's Magazine it's a good argument - then isn't any published source (other than a vanity press where the author is self-publishing) then considered notable? Let's say that Wall Climber's Magazine has a circulation rate of 10k, and XYZ magazine (a different subculture) has circulation of 100k. They are both published by a publishing house, that the author is not affiliated with. For the purposes of notability, do they both carry the same amount of weight, based on the fact that they are notable within their own subculture? How about if Wall Climber's Magazine is published worldwide, vs XYZ which is published regionally. How about if Wall Climber's Magazine is one of 5 magazines that are published worldwide, vs XYZ which has a subculture that only supports one? Again, I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate. Also, wall climbing is just a good example for this discussion, while the number is correct according to the SGMA, I've never heard of it as a sport until recently, and wouldn't be the person to author an article on it :-) --Nitehawk337 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • In general, the smaller the circulation and the shorter the mention the more trivial the source. Obviously, regardless of circulation, one magazine does not equal multiple sources. Keep in mind that we need enough sources to write an article from a neutral point of view without using original research, as well as sources that attest to notability. For what it's worth, we've deleted articles on websites discussed in multiple major newspapers (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Nunziata) and on websites that The Washington Post reports has 2.4 million readers (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuzzFlash). -- Dragonfiend 14:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Smaller circulation goes back to the concept of notability in a subculture. How big (or small) does a subculture need to be to be considered a source of notability? How many references in a sub 10k circulation magazine for a subculture denotes notability. What if the subculture is only 100k, and can only support one magazine with a circulation of 10k? Again, I am trying to help the discussion by pointing out flaws that may result in articles being kept or deleted based on an editor not knowing about a particular subculture, not on their notability. I understand the idea that putting numbers down is counterproductive, however none of us seem to be able to answer 1) What denotes a "Notable" subculture? Size? Amount of published references outside the subculture? Enough wiki editors knowing about the subculture? and 2) How does one determine notability within a (defined as notable) subculture? --Nitehawk337 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
            • D: All of the above. Nifboy 18:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
              • That's all well and good, but do we even have any standards or other way of determining what constitutes a subculture and what doesn't? Webcomics, the subject of continuous debate on this page, have a readership in the millions, and they are often dismissed outright as a subculture, and the WCCA awards therefore as "not well-known". Is there a non-subjective way of determining it? --Kizor 12:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Personally, I tend to dismiss the WCCAs because I voted in them one year, but I digress. "Standards" are a per-person per-case basis, when we can't rely on the "golden rule" of WP:V to carry us. There are varyingly objective ways to make a guess at it, but the problem is that wherever a "line" is drawn, it's an arbitrary position regardless. Nifboy 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
                • If I were trying to make a case that something like the WCCA awards were "well-known," I'd try to point to multiple instances of nontrivial media coverage they've received in their past six years of existance. As far as I know, the WCCAs have been mentioned maybe two or three times in reliable sources, which would make them at best barely notable, and this is hardly the type of notability that is going to be magically transferred to each comic that recieves one of their 25+ awards and/or 125+ nominations per year. Basically, if someone wins an award, and no reliable sources take note, then it's hard to claim that this win was "notable." Using the WCCAs as a source in articles about comics probably violates our rules against using self-published sources in anything other than articles about themselves. -- Dragonfiend 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Game box review quotes

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)

• I'd like to see sources talking about the site rather than just quoting it. Otherwise we'd be trying to make an encyclopedia article out of a string of advertising quotes. -- Dragonfiend 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed that would be preferable, but who goes around reviewing reviews? Ican't sse that as likely to happen to any site that specialises in doing reviews, no matter what quality or respect they may have. Do you see the problem? The current rules effectively ban a review site from ever being mentioned in Wikipedia. --Amaccormack 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with the origional issue with Adventure Gamers, but here's my 2 cents on game box review quotes. Obviously, game boxes quote the reviews that are positive for them, it's a form of advertising for both parties. If a game does not have good reviews from notable critics, then it logically follows that they would look for one from less-notable critics, it makes the box look better to have something on it at the very least. A non-notable critic could theoretically be quoted on multiple game boxes if they gave good reviews to multiple games for which the notable critics gave bad reviews. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but this is a possible scenario. Whether the critic is notable or not, having quotes on multiple game boxes should not be indicative of notability. --Daedalus 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Criteria

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)

• It says that trivial coverage doesn't count, and gives four examples of trivial coverage. HTH! >Radiant< 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Jwolfe 11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Trivial coverage, such as (example 1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (example 2) the times at which such content is updated or made available, (example 3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or (example 4) the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. >Radiant< 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand it now. Thanks. Jwolfe 14:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)