Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doghouse Diaries


 * 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  Sandstein  06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Doghouse Diaries

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I've just declined a quite longstanding (by speedy standards) A7 on this. It's quite borderline, but being mentioned by some of the sites that it has been may well be enough to get through A7. However, the discussions taking place on the talk page do indicate that some wider discussion would be useful about the notability of this article, hence why I've brought it here. Ged UK  16:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete ‣ I agree that the A7 did not apply since the article explicitly claims importance stemming from "considerable exposure" but after a variety of Google searches I would say that this topic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 17:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep ‣ A simple google search would not be good enough to determine notability of a webcomic. Textual description of a webcomic is akin to explaining a joke, which is seldom done. Most often  just  the image from the webcomic is used and nothing much is talked about it . There are ample examples of usage of comic strips from doghouse diaries, ranging from xkcd blag to geekosystem or mashable or Gizmodo.  Few such links: gizmodo, geekosystem etc. However, I also searched google images for doghouse diaries by uploading the images, which is a better measure of notability when it comes to images and comic strips. One such example is color names if you re a girl. In short I think if webcomic attains some critical level of sharing, it should be considered notable enough. What that critical number should be and how that could be determined would still be debatable. But in my opinion, I think Doghouse diaries certainly has achieved that. Shashi B Jain (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That just is not related to the Wikipedia concept of notability. A comic strip, or a comic strip's content, being linked to in various places or even published in print doesn't make it notable by itself, any more than say advertisements for a company or a company's products being linked to or widely printed makes the company notable.  Wikipedia notability (which is a technical term here described by policies and guidelines, we aren't simply talking about the English definition of the word) requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,".  XKCD, for example, had entire magazine articles being devoted to it half a decade ago, gets discussed in books like Theorien des Comics:Ein Reader, and even receives mention in things like The Metareferential Turn in Contemporary Arts and Media.  The Doghouse Diaries hasn't received anything approaching this so far, though it might in the future. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that Doghouse Diaries doesn't have the same coverage as XKCD, but it still has significant coverage. Also the coverage cannot be compared to advertisement, as they are paid for and are promoted by the interested party. Whatever coverage doghouse diaries has received is from independent sources, and the sources are all reliable social magazines (mashable,gizmodo and geekosystem), and it's not just a mention in passing but more concrete than that. What I would not agree to is that only if its discussed in a book, or an academic journal would it qualify to have an independent existence. If you could (and I ask this very politely) state why you think the sources I have mentioned in the article not 1. independent, 2. reliable (else I would suggest we should nominate their pages for deletion in wiki), 3. not significant coverage.  Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (GMT)
 * Also just to put points in perspective, according to wiki, '1. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material'. 2. Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. And for rest see [|here] Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2012 (GMT)
 * Because simply linking to or re-publishing content from the comic strip is not coverage. If you don't like the advertisements example, here's another: just because a film is available for streaming download on Netflix does not make it notable if it hasn't been the subject of any critical reviews, hasn't received any awards, and hasn't been included in any sort of curated film archive.  If you think that Wikipedia notability standards need to be revised so that a webcomic which "attains some critical level of sharing" meets notability requirements for its own article you need to convince the Wikipedia community overall and make your arguments at the project pages for the policies and guidelines, not in individual AfDs.  But even besides that, items like the Mashable "15 Great Geeky Web Comic Strips" are basically blog or web farm content - in fact it looks like it's split across 15 pages to maximize advertising loads - not journalistic or other editorially-reviewed coverage.  Perhaps the text of this article is encyclopedically valid enough for incorporation into another article, just not eligible for its own; if you can propose an appropriate article I'll consider changing my !vote to a merge, though of course you would have to convince the editors working on that article as well to get it to stick around if consensus in this AfD supported a merge. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still am not convinced with your next example, as they do mention and talk something about Doghouse diaries (its not profound as Albert Camus discussion on absurdity, but it does refer and talk about comics from doghouse diaries). I would also like to mention there are also many other places where Doghouse diaries has been discussed as the main topic, for example this as I was not sure about the editorial system. All the links or references I provide are well established magazines. If this doesn't sound convincing enough I have another reason, lets assume that probability of an article being mentioned in one of the magazines with editorial system, just out of randomness and not owing to the notability of the article be 'p'. But once its mentioned in another magazine this probability drops to p^2 and so on. With it being cited in more than 5 of such magazines (which are independent and with editorial system) the probability that it was talked about out of sheer coincidence or bias would be p^5. Even a moderate assumption of p being 0.1 would make this probability extremely low ( 1 in 100000) and I guess this could be a risk worth taking. Shashi B Jain (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the places I found its been rated as top X webcomic -> 1. top 8, best webcomics, 60 funniest (its ranked 1),top 5, Quora,top 15  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi B Jain (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you want to argue that notability should be based upon some quantitative formula or that Gawker blogs and web sites which describe themselves with statements like "The mission of Geekosystem is to unite all the tribes of geekdom under one common banner" should be regarded as reliable sources for establishing notability an AfD is not the place to do it, you really need to campaign elsewhere within the Wikipedia community to change the standards. You could also get involved in WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group to help articulate guidance for assessing notability for webcomics in particular. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I should point out that I haven't included Geekosystem in the references, I do understand wiki standards. I am still trying to figure out if the article would be justified within the existing framework. I also do agree after going through wiki pages for say Cyanide and Happiness, that the present article can be greatly improved, but also it should not be deleted. I do not have any more arguments, but just hope that reason prevails over personal prejudices which result in statements like 'web sites which describe themselves with statements like "The mission of Geekosystem is to unite all the tribes of geekdom under one common banner" should be regarded as reliable sources ' (which also reeks of condescending attitude) Shashi B Jain (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you feel offended, but that is literally the first thing it says on Geekosystem's "About Us" page and Geekosystem is among the sources you describe as "reliable social magazines" above. This is not personal prejudice, the sites you are linking to and things like most top x lists are not what are normally considered reliable secondary sources or otherwise notability-establishing here on Wikipedia. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 21:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry as well. What I wanted to say is, on one hand you follow the wiki guidelines in the strictest sense, and on the other hand you judge the editorial integrity based on what is written in the "About Us" page.  The  article  in  xkcd blag on 'Color name if you are girl or guy', is of  academic nature (on a subject which wouldn't be funded in a research institute to be seriously dealt with), and is brought out in a humorous manner by doghouse diaries (which is humor all about) . However,  I also agree that blogs involve individuals and no editorial system, and so shouldn't be considered as reliable source. On the other hand although mashable etc do mention doghouse diaries in articles which are not of serious nature, they do have an editorial system, and shouldn't be considered as reliable source.  If we follow strictly the wiki guidelines, not judging the editorial system of a magazine or journal based on what is written  in their "About Us" page, nor going by who funds a magazine ( which could even raise questions on the editorial capabilities of the CNN) and occasional misinformation in articles which could have far reaching consequence (as has happened in 'The Nature'), I think my sources on doghouse diaries suffice the minimum requirement of reliability. Wiki was not meant to be solely elitist, in which case , a  grandiose and serious "About Us" could have had been criteria to judge the editorial integrity of a magazine, and until the rules are changed in wiki's notability to explicitly address this point, we need to accept mashable and gizmodo to be reliable sources.   Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that these sorts of sources are fine to use in articles to support and source non-controversial claims, but they just don't appear to be what this community would consider notability-establishing. However, you make good arguments for your case and I think that other editors assessing the article for this AfD should look at what you say.  Here's another idea though, in case consensus in the AfD does not support keeping the article: how about you use this material you've written and sourced to start a Wikibook cataloging the webcomics that are out there?  Or, perhaps it would be appropriate to add to this one?  Or perhaps post it to a non-Wikimedia project about webcomics like http://webcomics.wikia.com?  (Conversely, since that content is under an open license, you could use stuff from that Wikia web site to start a Wikibook if you properly attribute it.) -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 19:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think i did some editing while you were already posting :). I agree it could be merged with a bigger article, but for time being, until I or someone finds a place for it,  could exist without the tag for deletion.  Also given more time, it could be presented in much better style, which could dispel all the concerns raised here. Thanks for being patient in this discussion. Shashi B Jain (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interestingly I found the comic strip of color survey discussed in Language Log here. On surface, you might discard it as another blog, but on close inspection this is maintained in academic manner by Mark Liberman from UPenn and group of other eminent linguists. Should this be considered as a reliable source ?Shashi B Jain (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am familiar with Language Log and that's a notability-establishing source IMO, I have seen it treated as a reliable source among academic linguists. Some argument can be made that the posting concerns one particular item of content from the comic strip rather than the comic strip itself but if you can find one or two more sources of this caliber discussing the strip itself or particular comic from it in addition to the color survey here I would change my !vote to Keep. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I found another one from Language Log, but I haven't included it yet. The whole idea was to test  ( humorously, as would come out in the comments) what was pointed out in Doghouse Diaries. These do not come out of just simple Google search, but I think there would be more references around, but for time being are these enough ? I have yet to include this one in the wiki page, but haven't done it as I need to think how exactly to include it. Shashi B Jain (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That second link is just a reprint of a comic, unfortunately. But the first Language Log link definitely makes it look to me personally that it's on the edge of notability and if it doesn't qualify for its own article now it probably will shortly if it continues to be produced and more secondary sources continue to appear.  In case it gets deleted from this AfD you should probably make a userspace draft so that you can continue working on it and re-create it or submit it as an article for creation when you think you have sourcing that passes muster. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 17:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for actually seeing through my points, its already feels like an accomplishment to see that you are somewhere convinced. However, there are two more admins who think this article is not good enough and I could imagine in the future there would be a few more. Suddenly I think it doesn't make any sense, if its notable enough, and there are many people talking about, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to find out about it on google, maybe it won't be as convenient as having all reliable information in one place, but still it should be easy, and if its not no one would look up for it. In all of this I am not able to see why I wanted to push for this page so much in the first. But thanks for your comments, I think you have been very patient as well. Shashi B Jain (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a worthwhile effort - it's still good to collect the most important or most notable information about this comic, it just isn't quite at the level for its own Wikipedia article yet. I really think you ought to at least copy it to the Webcomic Wiki at Wikia, and with luck it will have the coverage needed for notability soon.  And by the way, I don't have an admin flag on my account; any editor is welcome to participate in these Articles for Deletion discussions.  (And any discussion at Wikipedia, actually; administrators don't have any special authority or weight to their opinions, just extra capabilities on their accounts.) -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 00:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Inclusion requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and in this case, we don't have such sourcing to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Existing sources are trivial (Mashable), unreliable (TV Tropes) or primary. No one has proven that better sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - First, at the time of nomination the article was a valid A7 in my opinion, as the only claim to importance was being mentioned by another webcomic and an unsubstantiated claim that the comic went viral and received a couple hundred thousand hits in a few days. Having said that Shashi B Jain properly contested its deletion, and has put a lot of effort into the article (which is commendable), and Ged UK was quite correct in declining the speedy deletion as it was indeed borderline A7 at the time of removal.  Having said that, I agree with TPHs assessment of of the two sources, which leaves the Language Log source remaining.
 * As I have never heard of Mark Liberman or Language Log I am willing to accept at face value that they are some sort of authority in linguistics. Having said that, the posting at Language log is not actually about Doghouse Diaries, it is about a post by xkcd, who in turn posted a reprint of the Doghouse Diaries original comic.  I see the post on Language Log as the equivalent of Barbara Walters retweeting one of Justin Bieber's tweets, and suggesting that the Beeb's tweet could be used to establish notability (yes, I am aware of the rhetoric I am using here). --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Often re tweet is how scientific works are cited, with a small mention of who else has worked on a particular problem in the introduction, not discussing in large what the other work did. In this case it appears what they are discussing was first done by Doghouse diaries. Now its matter of how you present it, Bieber retweet or citing a work done for the first time. But I do get the point, the sources I have cited are not reliable and the topic should be discussed in a serious publication (seriousness and reliability still being subjective ). Shashi B Jain (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pet peeve: CSD A7 states, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." - so, an unsubstantiated claim to importance is enough to disqualify speedy deletion. At the point the "assertion of importance" language was added to CSD, importance was defined like this: "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." So, articles that claim that their topic is the object of considerable exposure or note that their topic is prompting discussion within something like the XKCD community of web comic fans (spawning a blog post with a thousand comments, if you follow the link) really shouldn't be subject to A7 speedy deletions: saying that a web site has gotten considerable exposure is not an incredible claim. An incredible claim is something like saying that asteroid 1134 Kepler, while not described as remarkably different from other asteroids, is getting considerable exposure and is being discussed widely on social media sites, or that a Howard Johnson's hotel in Gary, Indiana is important because Napoleon Bonaparte slept there.  (But, as I said above, I agree that the material presented in this AfD does not add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources for the purposes of notability.) -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that saying something on the Internet went viral and had a lot of page views is a credible claim of importance (or a claim of importance at all). I also didn't consider being covered by XKCD to be a claim of importance either, regardless of how many comments the XKCD post received, because the comments are about the XKCD study, which was inspired by the comic. I understand your position (and often remove inappropriate speedy deletion tags myself), however I disagree with it in this instance.--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, so long as we note that the claim here is that a considerable "number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject" and that the particular part of my point that you're disagreeing with is the historical consensus definition of importance that I am quoting. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 05:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was going to say per Kelapstick, but I don't have a clue what he's talking about. Weird Aussie. Delete per Hammer, then--basically, the paucity of real, reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per either the Wierd Aussie or the Lovable Otters. Get some reliable sources  p  b  p  03:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added yet another reference which puts doghouse diaries in the list of Top 8 web comics. This was in the web-magazineMakeUseOf, an independent media magazine, with an independent editorial board. MakeUseOf, Mashable and Gizmodo, each of them have covered Doghouse Diaries well enough to qualify it to be notable. The objection however could be as to whether the above sources are reliable or not. Here are my points why they could be considered reliable
 * They are not related to Doghouse Diaries, nor does it seem that they are trying to unfairly promote Doghouse Diaries.
 * They have editorial system, for which I refer to their corresponding wiki articles, for example the editorial for MakeUseOf is Editorial staff. Each one of them has an Editor-in-chief and so on.
 * The clarity of this discussion would be enhanced if the other wiki editors could cite the reason why they think the above references cannot be taken as reliable. Points like Mashable is a trivial source, is a trivial argument. Shashi B Jain (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2012 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.