Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manga-Gaga


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Manga-Gaga
Effort has been put into this article. That can not be denied. But we should not judge whether to delete it because of the quality of the content, but what that content actually refers to. The webcomic, which can be found here, has zero alexa stats. The deadspot forums can be found here. Note that the forum is shared between 3 webcomics, and has less than 100 members. The claim that there have been 150,000 visitors to the site since its inception is due to the shoddy nature of their webcounter, you click refresh and it updates! I have probably added about 5 to it just by browsing around the site, and the none existent alexa numbers back it up. Moderate success on newgrounds? Is the "Daily 4th Place Award - 08/13/2004" moderate success? I could write a great article on the lamppost outside my house, that doesn't mean it's notable. Same for this webcomic, nothing here suggests why its more notable than any other website. - Hahnchen 01:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So, basically your entire logic for the need for this article’s deletion is because you don’t think that enough people care about the subject matter? That’s completely absurd for an online encyclopedia that exists for the sole purpose of providing information for people on as large of a scale of subjects as possible. I’d agree with you that an article on the lamppost outside your house should be deleted, as it covers a subject that would be just about identical to every single lamppost in existence (other than location, of course). Comparing said lamppost to a webcomic, no matter how small however, is an utterly gross exaggeration of the situation at hand. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to only make individual articles that will only be popular to as large of a degree as possible; an encyclopedia’s purpose is to provide a plethora of all types of information so as to allow anyone who comes with a reasonable and legitimate interest in a subject matter to learn more on the topic at hand. That’s one of the great things about Wikipedia! The fact that anyone can submit material and create articles on whatever they wish allows for the online material to grow larger and larger and let the amount of possible material to be covered to become more and more complete as time passes. Simply saying that a subject doesn’t deserve coverage because it’s not popular enough goes completely against the essence of Wikipedia at large. Your logic that we should delete article because of the content regardless of the quality is likewise flawed because it suggests that a horribly written article on Star Wars would be on a higher level than a very well-written article on a relatively unknown novel. Sure, more people would be interested in a Star Wars article, but does that immediately discount the people who would have a legitimate interest in a smaller subject matter? If it does, then I’m obviously missing the entire point of an online encyclopedia. – RPH
 * Reply - No, a horrible article on Star Wars would, and should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  The place for very obscure and unnotable webcomics is not wikipedia.  The lamppost may be a poor analogy, but judging from the links given above, there is nothing which would lift this website above any other website.  I am sure that there will be some teenage girl's livejournal with a larger readership than this.  Do you know about comixPedia?  It is the place for none notable comics to go.  And Manga-Gaga is already there.  For those wanting to find out about comics, comixpedia is great, and Manga-Gaga belongs there where those who want to find out about comics can go.  If it attains notability beyond other websites and other webcomics, then it would be worthy to import it back to wikipedia.  We have to stop wikipedia being used as a web directory, and so standards of notability have to be maintained. - Hahnchen 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, deletion precedent is on the side of keeping the Manga-Gaga article on Wikipedia. [] The term "notability" is used as the key for keeping webcomic articles on Wikipedia, and Manga-Gaga clearly meets the citeria listed there.  The only mention there is of the need for a webcomic to have been updated once a week for at least a year for it to be considered notable.  There is no mention of a webcomic's popularity in regards to its notability.  As of now, Manga-Gaga has had three full seasons, each one averaging out at one comic a week for a full year.  Therefore, using that logic, keeping the article on Wikipedia is in concordance with the regulations and precedent set by past decisions by the site's administrators. - RPH
 * Reply - Please see the talk pages on WP:COMIC, they have been criticised for being overly lax. Compare those guidelines, (guidelines, not policy), to say WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO.  The guidelines were not set by administrators, and did not take into account past deletions/decisions.  By the webcomic guidelines, every comic with 100 strips would be included.  This is clearly wrong, what about bloggers with 100 posts?  wikipedians with 100 articles?  I still maintain that a webcomic with no alexa rank, no mentions of notability on google and only 98 forum members in a shared forum does not meet common sense notability criteria. - Hahnchen 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You may think that if you wish. Heck, you can even try to change the Wikipedia guidelines if that's what you truly believe, but the fact of that matter is that is the policy that has been set by precedent for webcomic articles on this site.  In your previous post you even said that "standards of notability had to be maintained," and Manga-Gaga fits the standards laid out by the site itself.  It may be different for other types of popular (or unpopular) media, but it's not for the individual users to make arbitrary decisions for the deletion of articles based on what they may or may not see as important by themselves.  However, even if we used the guidelines proposed in your link [], they clearly state that a comic that has been regularly updated for three years deserves a place on Wikipedia.  Manga-Gaga fits under that guideline, arbitrary though it may be. RPH
 * As much as I enjoy defending webcomics, this one statement:
 * "the policy that has been set by precedent for webcomic articles on this site."


 * Is completely false. Never has the "100 comic" rule saved a webcomic from deletion. What it does do is get webcomic articles under 100 deleted really really quickly. Hence my introduction of the "500/3year" rule, which I'm sad to say has never even been discussed. *sniff* Nifboy 04:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you may be right about that. I really don't know as I've never followed the deletion patterns on Wikipedia.  All I know is that the official discussion on the subject matter defends Manga-Gaga's place on the site, so unless there's listed evidence elsewhere, it deserves an article on Wikipedia. RPH


 * Delete per nom. The faulty nature of the hit counter (as in not counting unique hits) and the ambiguity of the forum usage makes their mentions in the article seem POV.  Also, the more-than-one-author rule of the alternate proposal of WP:COMIC goes against this article, in this case, so using it to support an argument wouldn't really help (as Nifboy said earlier, the 100-comic rule has never saved a webcomic article).  However, in a sense, that is beyond the point, as it isn't even a guideline.  What those proposals seem to be are ways to make the deletion of non-notable webcomics easier.  The rest is personal, logical judgement.  This is mine. -Nameneko 05:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The forums have had to be reset several times (IIRC around 3 or 4 times, due to things outside the author's control), its only split between two webcomics,the second webcomic is pretty damn new, and the merger of the forums only occured when Manga Gaga moved servers at the suggestion by the new webcomic author. So citing that as a reason is pretty moot considering the circemstances. Manga Gaga does not have mulitple authors (unless I have mis-read one of the arguements here), and the only time other artists have taken over is during Guest Comics, which nearly every webcomic has periods of. So that arguement is moot. As for the faulty nature of the hit counter - there aren't many hit counters around that provide Unquie vistor stats period. At least none that I know of. And if the comic wasn't popular - why do I seem to see it mentioned in lists about "My Favourite Webcomic" on the many forums I visit? Every time I see the topic, theres around 3 - 4 people mention it. That seems popular to me. Or how a recent merger and reset of a forum which is ISN'T dead due to the moving of hosts, and has plenty of well posting members, is grounds for deletion? Check your facts first, its a forum for two comics, and as stated above, the one has barely begun its run. If its the POV stuff in an article (I can see some words that aren't very, ahem, neutral), then remove the POV stuff. It's notable enough for me to see it mentioned on many forums. Personally I find your other arguements for deletion moot. Care to convince me otherwise? And ESkog - we're trying to have a serious discussion here, take your stupid comments elsewhere.
 * Reply You said: The deadspot forums can be found here. Note that the forum is shared between 3 webcomics, and has less than 100 members. 
 * Delete per Hahnchen's unimpeachable arguments. Dottore So 11:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Beware of sockpuppets. ESkog 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Marcus22 20:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your very arguements DO seem flawed, is no-one seeing that? Mind explaining how a faulty counter is grounds for deletion? (and please, point us in the direction of a counter that counts truely Unquie hits.)

.... oh, and I believe that ESkog's and Marcus22's statements for the deletion should be ignored due to a lack of reasoning (which is required on a discussion for the deletion of an article), as should Dottore So's (as it seems heavily biased in favor of Hahnchen, suggesting that they're either close friends or even the same person!). Last time I checked, an "unimpeachable argument" wasn't based on mere arbitrary personal views on what belongs on a site that are contradicted by a discussion that he himself posted. And sorry.... I just realized that I forgot to put the time and date at the end of my previous statements. Sorry about that. RPH 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I really haven't seen that logical of an argument for deletion of the Manga-Gaga article yet. The only legitimate complaint against Manga-Gaga's presence on Wikipedia is the question on it covering too small or specific of a subject, which I don't see as fair or legitimate as the site's servers have changed multiple times over the course of the comic's creation.  Simply put, there is no legitimate count of the comic's fanbase or interest level.  Sure, there can be no denying the fact that Manga-Gaga has a relatively small fanbase when compared to the titan webcomics (8-Bit Theater and Penny-Arcade, just to name two), but where on Wikipedia is there a stated size limit for websites to be listed as articles?  All I've seen covering this matter has been on discussion topics, and this particular comic has fit the requirements listed there.  In absence of such a requirement, I believe that a quality argument would be the only legitimate argument against such an article.  In regards to Manga-Gaga though, it has already been admitted that the article has had a lot of work done.  If people don't believe that it has a neutral POV or should not include the number of visitors to the site, then the logical conclusion would be to merely alter the article, not delete it.  What should also be remembered is that the article has existed for almost three full months and has been updated by eleven different people (not including Hahnchen's suggestion for deletion).  As many other worthy topics, my own DePauw University being one such example, have received about the same or less attention over a similar time period, I don't believe that one could legitimately claim that this article hasn't been receiving an adequate amount of traffic as well.


 * Perhaps you should start your own tyranny somewhere? Where I come from a person has the right to vote or express an opinion without having to explain him/herself.  However, this once, and just for you, I shall make an exception and expand on my previous 'nn'.  NN means not (or non) notable.  Thus, in my view, the object of the article is not notable and hence not encylcopedic.  What more can I say?  It is my view.  My opinion. OK now?  In any case Delete Marcus22 20:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - The fact the visiters of the web site were unwilling and/or unable to install the Alexa toolbar (or just never heard of it), is not a reason to deem the web site non-notable. Alexa is not Neilson.  It's a partial count, not a representive sample.  Alexa is occasionally useful at confirming/rebutting claims of huge popularity of web sites (like those claiming milliions of visitors).  It's useless in a case like this.  The comic seems to have a regular following and the content of the article is worthwhile.  Also, this will be a good place to re-direct future fictional character articles, without bothering with the AFD. --rob 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonnotable webcomic. --Carnildo 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - While it's true that Manga-Gaga hardly has a huge fan base like many other web comics, have a look at the list of pages set up there for web comics: Category:Webcomics

Now no one can surely tell me that all of those have been ground-breaking internet cultrial markers like..say Penny Arcade, Chugsworth, Dinosaur Comics etc have been. I also doubt at least a few of these have been running as long as Manga-Gaga. Also, that's not the first hit counter the sites had, I've changed it over the years at least 3 times, and I really don't see why it's so important or such a problem.

I mean, look at this comic's entry for example: IndieTits

"IndieTits is a webcomic by Jeph Jacques. It was first published on April 1, 2005."

I don't quite see why it should be taken down, myself. I doubt it's really taking too much bandwidth up, or something.

Oh, and there's also the fact that issue 100 got sprend about the internet quite a bit. I saw it pop up at such places as 4chan, loads of flash portal/blog sites where they linked to the newgrounds file etc. So people may be wanting to know what it's about. 217.42.9.137 08:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply - It's your first post, yes. But let me comment on the Category:Webcomics.  Right now, there is a lot of superfluous fluff on there.  And I am trying to clean it up, this is going to take a long time to work through them.  But I am going to have to start somewhere, hence there are still non notable webcomics on Wikipedia besides this one, does not mean we should keep it.  AFD takes time. - Hahnchen 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply - Someone may of already mencioned this, but in the "Remarks on notability" section of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents", it clearly states that "Webcomics are notable if they have had frequent (weekly or better) updates for over a year" which it has been doing for at least that long, if not longer. On that matter, your statement on webcomic "superfluous fluff" here does not count for much. 81.152.235.72 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hahnchen is trying to reverse the precedent of keeping any webcomic that has been updating for X amount of time, regardless of a claim of actual notability. This is not an influential comic in the webcomic community, and this isn't notable in a newsworthy sense or a historical sense. It's just a generic webcomic of little importance, and, while I'm glad the author is proud of it and the fans are happy with it, Comixpedia is the place to write these sorts of articles about minor webcomics, not Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.