Talk:Keenspot

PROD
I'm having trouble understanding why this is being PRODed instead of being put up as a Deletion Nomination. The way the editors go with these things seems so arbitrary. In any case, most of the Wikipedia editors seem to live in a completely different world, so I can kind of see how they would not know about the importance of Keenspot. But in all fairness, the article DOES need work. Wikipedia articles need to cite their sources now, and Keenspot's article simply doesn't do so at all. A quick Google search is all it'd take to find a dozen mainstream sources that mention Keenspot. It's just a matter of someone taking the time to collect them and add them to the entry. --SuperHappy 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keenspot notability
I will add sources as I find them. -Anþony (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comixpedia's List of 25 People in Webcomics for 2005
 * A list of notable people in webcomics, published by Comixpedia, an independent journal for webcomic authors and fans. Keenspot is mentioned in passing as being one of the top two players in the "webcomics subscription market". Chris Crosby, co-CEO of Keenspot is #13 on the list.


 * Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards
 * Several awards have been given to comics published by Keenspot. Chopping Block alone has won 4. Additionally, Chris Crosby was nominated for a "WCCA Advancement of Webcomics Award" award in 2003.


 * UC Berkeley's Engineering News Profiles Darren Bleuel
 * Darren Bleuel, the other co-CEO, is profiled by his alma matter's engineering newsletter. The article discusses Bleuel's comic Nukees in detail and mentions Keenspot in passing.


 * Convention Review: Thousands Converge on San Diego Comic-Con
 * The Tech, MIT's student-run newspaper, reviews the 2001 Comic-Con. The article briefly discusses online comics and notes that Keenspot "is probably the only online comic site that generates revenues" after the then-recent dot-com bubble burst.

Several press releases and news clippings from printed sources about Keenspot can be found here: http://www.keenspot.com/pressbox/

Webcomics, Books from Keenspot.com in Publishers Weekly.


 * DOT-COMICS: Online cartoons skip traditional syndication and draw loyal fans on the Internet
 * Published in the printed edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. Profiles co-founder Darren Bleuel and discusses Keenspot.


 * The History of Web Comics (Paperback, 2005) by T. Campbell devotes much of chapter four to a discussion of Keenspot and the role it played in both the development and promotion of webcomics.

Additionally, you can search the Comic-Con International site for mentions of Keenspot and it comes up a few times as an organization itself which whole panels are dedicated to, or as a general representative of webcomics alongside Modern Tales. Here is just one page, out of pages marked for the past three Comic-Cons, where Keenspot is mentioned, and listed specifically as a general representative with MT. In other words, it's considered worthy of some serious attention at major cons devoted to comics, both print and web. Also, it might be notable that the Keenspot comic You Damn Kid was reportedly optioned by the FOX Network for a cartoon, though the sources I tend to find are either on Keenspot's own sites or Comixpedia, or reference them. And I'm not sure if Comixpedia is taken as an "unbiased" source -- though the claim it was optioned is listed without source right on YDK's own site here on Wikipedia. Nerrin 08:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of print-media citations of Keenspot: http://www.keenspot.com/pressbox/ http://www.keenspot.com/pressbox/pressbox-2000-2002.html

I really don't understand what that mess about webcomics on Wikipedia is about. What the heck is this "notability" thing about ? Should we remove entries in regular enciclopedia just because most people do not know what this entry is about, or because they are not of utter importance ? Then, I guess we should start deleting entries about Georges W Bush, after all he's only one of many presidents in a single country in the world. Or maybe Abraham Lincoln, that's such old news, no one cares, I guess. Maybe the whole cooking section should be deleted too, this ain't a reciepe website. See where I'm going ? Until now, I had seen Wikipedia as a major source for ALL KINDS of informations, academic, important ones, as well as trivial ones that you might have trouble to find anywhere else. Now, I'm starting to think I should better get a subscription to the nearby library, like in the days of old. They're going to a deletion spree, deleting anything webcomic related ? And that's because it's not "notable" ? I've seen stupid arguments like "when it will have a show on a national TV network, maybe it's notable". Okay... Define "national" on a world-wide website then. I'm french, so I doubt the idea behind "national" was in any way related to what I consider "national". As far, off-sea, and of minor importance I may be (should I say that I am not "notable" ?), I have been reading some of those deleted webcomics for a while, and I do consider that this kind of media at a whole is a notable enough phenomenon to be kept tracked in this so called "people made encyclopedia". The narrow-minded view of a few idiots who still think the world goes no further than what they can see from their windows should NOT prevail when it comes to define sources of information. As for verifiability... Did anyone care to seek if characters named in Stephen King's novel really existed in the place he put them ? No ? Well, probably because it's fictional characters and as such, nothing can be verified. Should we start to remove every fiction-related entry because not everything in it can be verified ? Give me a reason to find an excuse to delete something I don't like, and I'll find you a reason. Or maybe people could start acting like they're a bit more than 3 years old and accept that even non-mainstream media are somewhat notable, interesting, and acknowledge by enough people around the world to be worth an entry on the people-made information database. If you really feel like deleting stuff, get to clear the porn section, most pages in there are poorly disguised advertising for webstites. Well, at least people know those people, so they meet the "notability" requirement. Am I the only one to find it stupid ? - Uriel, non-member of Wikipedia, and now proud of it, at your service - February 12, 2007

Webcomic Notability, tangent discussion
Does Keenspot's notability extend to the comics produced under it? For example, if a comic is a part of Keenspot, is that comic also notable? Also, is the Keenspot print publishing wing notable enough that any web comic with a print book published by Keenspot is notable? Is the WCCA a good measure for notability for web comics? -- Ben (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been quite a bit of controversy over this point. AfDs on Keenspot comics have been a little inconsistent. See WT:WEB for some past discussion.


 * It is my opinion that Keenspot comics do satisfy WP:WEB criterion #3 and are therefore notable. Keenspot itself is both well known and notable as arguably the largest publisher of online comics and per the multiple non-trivial media mentions above. The comics are independent of Keenspot and selected for publication non-trivially.


 * However, others have claimed that Keenspot is not sufficiently "well known" per WEB #3. IMO, their definition of "well known" is pretty vague and seems to set the bar just high enough to exclude Keenspot. Beyond that, they've also claimed that #1 is the determination of notability and #3 is not actually sufficient to prove notability, despite what the guideline says.


 * There's also a fair bit of skepticism about using the WCCA as evidence of notability under WEB #2 for almost identical reasons. (Not "well known"/notable enough, criterion #1 has supremacy.) A Keenspot-published book might help the notability claim indirectly, but there's no support for that in the guidelines. On the other hand, if there's a non-trivial published review of the book from a reliable source, that is unquestionably a sign of notability.


 * In practice, if the comic has all three (published by Keenspot, WCCA awards, print book), I think the article will probably survive AfD. In theory, being published by Keenspot would be enough. – &#160;Þ&#160;  10:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The thought process behind "#1 has supremacy" is actually "WP:V has supremacy and WP:WEB is merely a way to determine if a subject can be verified, therefore the bar should be rather high." Nifboy 13:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no conflict at all with WP:V since the details of a work of fiction are inherently verifiable by checking the fiction itself. – &#160;Þ&#160;  23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You would be hard-pressed to say anything of encyclopedic worth with just primary sources. And by encyclopedic I mean more than a plot summary and list of characters. Nifboy 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A work of fiction is not exactly a "primary source". To paraphrase WP:RS, primary sources typically require some sort of interpretation, which is not at all the case with details taken directly from the fiction. Such details are plain facts and essentially beyond question. In terms of the three core content policies (NPOV/V/OR), they are the ideal sources.
 * As for whether or not the articles are "encyclopedic", that's pretty subjective and usually those problems can be fixed without deleting the article outright. I'd rather have a plot summary and character bios on a notable work than no article at all. Still, feel free to present that argument at the next AfD, so long as you don't claim the subject isn't notable or the article isn't verifiable. – &#160;Þ&#160;  00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The key is real-world perspective. You can't get that just by reading the work itself. You can get some of it, by way of whatever information the author has provided (all of which, including the work itself, is by definition primary sources), but not enough. There is a second side to the story, which is what the real world has said about it. Until that happens, the article is incomplete, and to me there's no point in having an article on Wikipedia that is literally impossible to complete because there is no other side. Nifboy 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear to me that being published by Keenspot certainly qualifies as notable. Those comics that are created by the founders and staff of Keenspot have found notability in other ways, and the rest are notable for being published by Keenspot.  I think it's safe to say that ALL Keenspot comics are notable and satisfy WP:WEB.  The only thing that should be up for debate is whether or not the article also satisfies WP:V.  And that has to be settled on a case-by-case basis.  --Daedalus 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. That is, something that is notable will be noted. Being hosted by a particular site alone does not make something notable. As we don't do original research and we don't write from our own point of view, we do not decide that something that hasn't been noted by others really is noteworthy. So, no, from what I can tell very few Keenspot comics are notable, and Keenspot itself is barely notable, in a general encyclopedic sense. -- Dragonfiend 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keenspot comics are notable because Keenspot, as a well-known and selective online publisher, has taken note of them. WP:WEB is clear that this is sufficient. If you'd don't like that, the natural response would be to convince the community to demote WP:WEB as a guideline rather than ignoring it because you disagree.
 * The crack about Keenspot being "barely" notable is ridiculous, given the many mainstream media mentions. The handful here should be enough, but there are many more in Keenspot's pressbox.
 * An article using a work of fiction as its source need not be written from an in-universe perspective. "Ahab is the name of a fictional captain from Herman Melville's Moby Dick" is a verifiable, NPOV, out-of-universe statement requiring no original research to interpret or corroborate, based solely on details available in Moby Dick. An article comprised of statements like that isn't going to be the best article by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't violate any of our core policies and it's much better than no article at all. – &#160;Þ&#160;  04:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. This article has only the two independent sources which I've added, so, yes, it barely meets the "multiple" requirement of notability. Also, articles using only works of fiction as sources clearly violate many if not all of our core content policies, such as WP:NOT's "articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot," WP:V's "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it," etc. -- Dragonfiend 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, "Keenspot isn't notable". It has been established that it is, in multiple occasions and in multiple discussions.  Just the mentions on this page alone should be more than enough to make that clear.  It's established, it's verifiable, and it more than qualifies for Wikipedia's purposes as well as general encyclopedic purposes.  Enough is enough, it's notable.  Can we move on now?  --Daedalus 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where exactly are you quoting from where people have said "Keenspot isn't notable"? Your use of the phrase "Here we go again" seems to suggest that this is a oft-used phrase, yet I don't find that quote anywhere on this page except by you. -- Dragonfiend 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing, not necessarily quoting, and it was here, and here, and this page itself by you ("Keenspot itself is barely notable"). Multiple times.  I also stated multiple pages, which would imply that it is not limited to this page, which would imply that it may not be found multiple times on this page. --Daedalus 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is extremely innacurate to paraphrase "Keenspot itself is barely notable" as "Keenspot isn't notable." Try to avoid mischaracterizing other editors views, expecially inside quote marks. -- Dragonfiend 02:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very innacurate. For the purposes of Wikipedia something is either notable, or it isn't.  You should avoid words like "barely" when discussing whether something meets criteria or not.  There is no middle ground: it either meets the criteria or it doesn't.  --Daedalus 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion (and opinions are what we're really talking about here), Keenspot is notable, but Keenspot comics are not notable simply for being on Keenspot. That's like saying every book printed by Random House is notable simply by virtue of that publisher.  However, there are some webcomics on Keenspot that are notable.  I would say Melonpool, Newshounds, Schlock Mercenary, Nukees, Bruno the Bandit, It's Walky!, and You Damn Kid are the one's I've been pointed to by other fans.  This is by no means a complete list, and it's not my personal list of daily reads, but it's the ones I've actually heard of more than once by other people or other websites.  Keenspot itself is notable, and a few of its more notable comics can be listed; but if this comixpedia thing really takes off, I'm sure it'll have a complete canonical list that all the various Keenspot authors and fans can drool over.  I disagree with the recent spate of webcomics article deletions, but I agree in principle, if not in implementation.  Among geeks like us, Webcomics are the web equivalent of garage bands. --BlueNight 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

References needed
This article has been marked as needing to cite its sources, yet no assertions are marked as needing fact-checking. What needs sourcing?
 * Pretty much everything, so start anywhere you want. See Verifiability. For examples of webcomics related articles that properly cite reliable sources, see Gene Yang, Amy Kim Ganter, Megatokyo, Fetus-X, Penny Arcade (webcomic), When I Am King, etc. -- Dragonfiend 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the information in the article is easily verified by checking the Websites themselves. A more specific list of what needs verification beyond that might be more helpful. -NicholaiDaedalus, 11/28/06
 * Then cite the website itself, if that's all it takes. The very first sentence, the claim that Keenspot is the largest publisher of webcomics, would be a good start. Nifboy 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added sources for the founders, however there is a fourth we are not listing. I believe it is Nate Stone, but have no reliable source for this. -- Dragonfiend 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

rewrote, tagged, still needs update
I rewrote most of the large lead, detailing the financial and pageview growth from 2000, applied citations from the old press clippings in Keenspot's pressbox, and sprinkled with tags. I checked the first two comics in the lists and immediately saw they are out of date, hence the update tag. I feel it still needs a few more (one maybe) independent references in order to meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements. -Wikianon 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comics in Keenspot: redlinks and redirects
The "Comics in Keenspot" section includes redirects and redlinks. Should links that redirect to Keenspot article be delinked? (Examples: "Candi (comic)", "Geebas on Parade", "Marry Me (webcomic)" and other). Should all the redlinks in "Comics in Keenspot" section be delinked? --EarthFurst (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Red link editing guideline says "Articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article". Do you think these are likely to have an article? Starblueheather (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Summaries, not mere titles
I think a stand-alone Wikipedia article for each comic hosted by Keenspot is not likely to happen. I suggest that summaries of the comics be added to Keenspot itself. patsw (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

listed titles
The list of titles on Keenspot's own front page is very different from ours.

Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been a decade since this issue was brought up, and it looks like this is still an issue. Looking at Keenspot's site, they list 56 comics, but only 6 as actually currently active. This page needs to be reworked to reflect the most current information. Aquova (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)