User talk:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines

List of webcomic AfD debates
This is a list of AfD debates regarding webcomics. Since these AfD's often come down to notability, it is interesting for this article to follow the debates, and you can leave your comments in it as well.

Ugly Hill

 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Possibly meets Awarded webcomics; otherwise merge with publisher Viper Comics.

Greeneyes

 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. It hasn't even got a domain name of it's own. Hard to consider notable.

The Noob

 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. It is clearly referenced by notable sources.

Look What I Brought Home!

 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Merge into Keenspot. It is an archived webcomic, and the article has little information which can easily be merged.

Flint Again

 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Merge into John Troutman.

Starslip Crisis

 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Strong keep for it's great number of awards / nominations.

F@NB0Y$
The result was delete
 * JackSparrow Ninja: Delete, doesn't (really) meet any of the criteria.

ExtraLife
The result was delete
 * Fforde: Meets requirements stated here for Established Webcomic. Also meets requirements for notability based on redistribution via mmorpg.com and gamerevolution.com. Result was delete based on many of the keep votes allegedly being SPAs. -- Fforde 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Warbucket
The result was delete
 * JackSparrow Ninja: Suspended url doesn't help, but the hardly any updates make it non-notable.

Superosity
The result was keep
 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Strong keep with a very clear case of notability.

Terinu
The result was No Consensus
 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. A 20 year old published comic, judged as a webcomic. Selfpublished doesn't hold it when it makes it to (Australian) real-life stores. They don't just take anything non-notable. 
 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Because the information is unverified. Let's work on trying to verify it however, because it is correct, I'm going back to keep. 
 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Based on new sources, keep.

Viper Comics
The result was keep
 * JackSparrow Ninja: Commented. Meets Published webcomics and Established webcomics. Possibly awarded as well.

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards
The result was overturn and relist
 * JackSparrow Ninja: ''Commented. There are multiple non-trivial sources, sadly enough neglected by the closing admin. There are also a lot of endorse voters, incorrectly stating the only source is "one line in an NYT article". Please don't overlook the incorrectness of this.

Joe Loves Crappy Movies
The result was delete

Notability general
The webcomic notability guidance was merged into WP:WEB. Steve block Talk 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And rightly so. Why shouldn't webcomics be held to the same standard as other web sites? Why should a two year old webcomic about 'gamer' culture be considered notable, when a website about fishing or rockclimbing wouldn't be?--Nydas (Talk) 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So why shouldn't a web site about rockclimbing be included, if the site has a sizable following within its target audience? The notability guidelines are simply too restrictive, and it seems to me that it would be better to include content that may not be notable rather than to delete stuff that may later turn out to be useful. I think too many people have forgotten what this is all about. Wikipedia isn't here for the owners, editors, or administrators. It's here for the users. We should be preserving their heritage, not satisfying some self-indulgant desire to feel important. TomXP411 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only problem is that Wikipedia isn't here to preserve heritage. It's an encyclopedia aimed at a general audience. The self-indulgant desire to feel important could also be said to be felt in the minds of those that wish to include material. Steve block Talk 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, thus there is no reason to be extremely strict about only having articles about million dollar enterprises. JackSparrow Ninja 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And further down that page we can see that Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not an internet guide and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We don't limit ourselves to million dollar enterprises, but we do preclude very small "garage" or local companies.  Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's an encyclopedia, and should have topics that are relevant to any field of study. If I were, say, a high school student doing an art project on webcomics, I'd have a hard time knowing were to start. Wikipedia is not a directory, but its category pages often DO serve as lists of notable topics. When I type "webcomic" in to Google, the second name that comes up is Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is going to be that high in the list, it by default becomes something of an authority on the topic. If it's an authority on the topic, then there's some burden to either provide a relatively comprehensive list of reasonably qualified comics or to simply re-direct the whole thing over to ComixPedia or some other site that wants to feature Webcomics.


 * What I'm seeing is NOT a bunch of unbiased people trying to keep Wikipedia down to size. What I'm seeing is a bunch of people who seem to have an active bias against anything they don't personally see as valuable, or even worse - against the more popular comics, just because they want to "make a point". If someone thinks that webcomics as a whole need to be trimmed, why are there so many in the category list? Even more to the point, why are there comics in there that, strictly based on WP:WEB ought to be deleted? As others have pointed out, WP:WEB doesn't fit webcomics very well.


 * If webcomics are a trend worthy of note (and I'm sure you agree that they are), then it's important to note not just their similarities with other web sites but also their differences. Webcomics don't fit WP:WEB very well, so perhaps it's necessary to evaluate them as they relate to each other, not as they relate to the Internet as a whole. TomXP411 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what an encyclopedia is. It is not, never has been and never will be an authority.  It offers a summary of other sources. It doesn't matter whether you and I think webcomics are a trend of note.  It matters what established sources think, because that's what we summarise in Wikipedia.  Inclusion in Wikipedia isn't based on what we think, it's based on what we can summarise.  Webcomics fit WP:WEB because they are web content.  I cannot think of any reason why a webcomic is different from a webzine or a blog. Steve block Talk 09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Webcomic fans seem to have an unrealistic view of how popular they actually are. Someone suggested on the Fanboys AfD that 'the global consensus' could 'go against' Wikipedia by applying the Web guidelines to webcomics.--Nydas (Talk) 09:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How many folks here don't start their day with at least one webcomic? -- Jay Maynard 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of them?--Nydas (Talk) 10:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Established Webcomics
Sorry to interrupt the discussion, I would just like to comment on the concept of 'Established Webcomics'. It could possiby even be extended to other websites (within reason), but I think the present proposed term of 2 years is just too short. In my opinion 5 years would be a more balanced period. We have to err on the conservative site when establishing new measures, unfortunately. In fact perhaps it should be longer, if you consider it from the jaundiced viewpoint of "How come it has been around so long and is not notable by any other measure?", which many will. Aclapton 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. You are more then welcome to leave whichever comment you would like to.
 * I must say, I agree with your proposal, and have changed the article accordingly.
 * If anyone else has a say about this, or any other concepts, feel free to add here or edit the article. JackSparrow Ninja 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hopefully the more who contribute the better the chance of changing WP:WEB will be. I'll also add Freefall as another example of an 'Established Webcomic'. By the way, a comment on the talk for WP:WEB points out that the 'Well Known Webcomics' uses a circular reference. I think I understand what you are saying - these are webcomics most often recognised outside the 'webcomic community', the ones that usually get mentioned in articles in the traditional media about webcomics. Aclapton 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I liked the general gist of the guideline JackSparrow Ninja has suggested, I do feel misgivings regarding the case that it needs to be currently updated frequently. Remember that notability does not change. Thus assume a case in which a webcomic has been around for 8 years and then stops being updated, before that point it could have an article but afterwards it can't?!?! Doesn't make logical sense, so I'd suggest your updating guidelines need to somehow be slightly modified to be made just a tad more flexiable with regards to this. Best of luck with this page. Mathmo Talk 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that while I agree with two years generaly being too short a time to define a Webcomic as established, I view five as too long a period of time. Many webcomics have proven to be established in much shorter of a time: from four years (Mac Hall, Girly), to three years (Something Positive), two years (Order of the Stick, Ctrl+Alt+Del), or an even shorter amount of time (Goblins, Grim Tales from Down Below). I honestly think that a period of roughly three years is fair. (Justyn 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Maybe we could split it into two. Like, 5 years for a weekly webcomic and 3 years for a comic that updates often? I think it's about there being a pattern, and the artist having shown to put work into the comic, and continuesly. Maybe we could put the limit on amount of comics in archive, rather then time.
 * One of the reasons that got me thinking of current updates, is actually zeldacomic.net. They've been around since 2002, yet last year it was pretty much a joke, with updates, sometimes even just a news item of what's going on, being months apart. That, in my view, is a way you could lose notability.
 * In that line of thinking, it'd have to be corrected to apply active webcomics, while archived of course can stay. If you still don't agree with it, please let me know. Just saying what I think. JackSparrow Ninja 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't lose notability. Something that was notable, is notable. Steve block Talk 10:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been busy, so I have not had the time to respond to the last post for... wow, two weeks. Anyway, I'm just saying that a strict five-year rule will not work to it's full intent; as I pointed out, some webcomics are established in far shorter then five years (Erfworld was established and notible from the get-go), and update schedule can have an impact on the matter, but sometimes not. I'm simply stating that generaly, when a webcomic updates reliably for around three years, that tends to mean that is established. (I'll continue later, but I'm out of time.) (Justyn 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

Awarded/Nominated Sites
It's been mentioned before that winners of WCCA awards and other awards would be considered "notable" The Joe Shuster Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuster_Awards) is a fairly big-name (Joe Shuster, creator of superman, etc etc) awards site, which has recently expanded to a Canadian Webcomics category. Would a webcomic being nominated and listed on the Shuster Awards website be considered "Notable" enough to warrant a Wikipedia article? Cthon98 February 8, 2007


 * Well, the idea is that it needs at least a number of nominations for one or more awards (currently proposed 3). Being a winner (proposal count is 1) is bigger then being nominated, hence the difference in wins and nominations.
 * However, we could also look at a combination of things from the guidelines. As the title says, it's as a guidance, not as a rule. Thus, if a webcomic has a bit of everything, but might not have enough looking at just one point, we could still consider it.
 * Hope that's clear. That's how I see it at least. JackSparrow Ninja 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that certainly does prove helpful. (how do I tag it with name and time, when I made a reply to talk threads, anyways? I've just been copy-pasting the template for username, and editing it with my own info.) Cthon98

The Wrong Tree
I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree a little here. I'm doubtful you will get a consensus for this proposal because of our verifiability policy. What you may want to do instead is focus on finding reliable sources for webcomics. You've got Scott McCloud, he's a reliable source since he's a published author on the subject and a respected scholar in the field, so anything he's reviewed is good. You've got T Campbell, he's a published author on the subject so his blog is reliable. You've got Tim O'Neill, who reviews webcomics for The Journal, so that makes him a reliable source. Then you've got the Webcomics Examiner and Comixpedia, the magazine side of it. Anyways, those are my opinions on what you should do to take this forward. Steve block Talk 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Necessary
I think there needs to be an insertion in here about WHAT a webcomic article needs to have before we it is considered noteable. At this point in time, this essay mainly relies on what makes a comic notable. We need to focus on what makes the article needable. There are too many webcomic entries in here that have only two things: Plot and Characters. Well woo hoo, I can get that on the page the comic can be found at.

Here is the problem, what is a webcomic other than a DeviantArt page with it's own URL. On the general page for most comics I can already find character bios and a plot. Many also have a history. So basically, many of these articles are simply copy, paste, and rewrites of the actual comics page. THAT is not what wikipedia is for, this isn't a place to post free advertisements to your site!

We need to list what an article on a webcomic needs. Please feel free to add to this list:


 * Intro
 * Synopsis/Subject
 * Characters
 * Dates of publication as well as update schedule
 * Style of: Art & Humor
 * Community (if it has a forum this could be a nice addition).

Please list more, this needs to be addressed because a comic that just got a keep vote, Ugly Hill, is NOTHING MORE THAN A LIST OF CHARACTERS. That's it. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that is what makes an article qualitative. Notability is about the subject, not the quality of the article. Please also see Deletion is not a substitute for tagging.
 * That said, it could be a good idea to make some guidelines to improve webcomic articles. I'm gonna think about it, and invite everyone to. JackSparrow Ninja 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. At the very least, every article should have a general summary of the comic, the "info box" at the right with the artist & such, and a list of lead characters. It would be nice to perhaps see a list of important events, both for the comic itself relating to the real world (awards and other notable events) and big events in the comic: (major events in the story lines). Also, is there currently a category/rating system for webcomics? Specifically, I'm thinking of both family-safe ratings (G/PG/R/MA) and the the subject material: "everyday life", "office", "gaming", etc. Also, I think that we ought to try hard to get at least one or two images: one showing the comic's logo and another showing a typcial panel, with one or more of the lead characters shown. -- TomXP411[Talk] 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)