Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 8

Alternative ways of qualifying are needed
Looking at the notability of articles about wiki sites (see List of wikis), almost all of the articles that I checked fail the test - even the articles about wikis that seem obviously notable, like WikiWikiWeb. It seems to me that alternative ways of qualifying are needed. See the discussion here. --Chriswaterguy &middot; talk 03:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The example given of something "obviously notable," WikiWikiWeb, has a big "This article or section does not cite its references or sources" box on the top of it. I don't believe we'll find community consensus for a notability guideline that provides "alternative ways of qualifying" for unsourced articles. If something is notable, sources other than ourselves will take note of it. -- Dragonfiend 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant obviously notable in the broad sense, rather than the sense of meeting the current criteria. As for alternatives, I'd urge people to respond specifically to the suggestions given at the link above. If something is notable, sources other than ourselves will take note of it. - Yes, but not necessarily in the traditional media, thus not qualifying under the current guidelines.


 * Note that to follow the logic of the current guidelines would mean deleting a very large number of articles - maybe that's what we'll end up agreeing on, but we should consider alternatives before acting so drastically. --Chriswaterguy talk 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternatives I see suggested in the link above ("level of activity and/or page hits, size of community and taking into account Google and Alexa rankings") have all been rejected at one point or another as being either unreliable and/or arbitrary. I'm not sure what type of article is supposed to be written based on this type of  information and without reliable sources. "WikiWikiWeb is a website with a X google hits and an Alexa rank of Y"?  If this is actually a website of some significance or impact, then surely there are some reliable sources for it? What was the extent of your search for reliable sources in "traditional media" for WikiWikiWeb? -- Dragonfiend 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough - do you know where the discussions were where they were rejected? These discussions should be linked from this page - that would assist people asking this same question about alternative criteria. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The style of writing is not the issue - if these criteria were considered acceptable, we could find a solution, e.g. have a standard way of putting that info in a box. Otherwise the articles would be much as they are now. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was checking the articles for conformity, not searching for sources. A quick search now reveals nothing suitable (just a passing reference here) but perhaps there's ways of searching for publications/periodicals (as opposed to searching the entire web) that I'm not aware of. (I just used Google and Google News.)
 * Perhaps most of these articles are not suitable, based on what you've said. In that case, we need to look at how to deal with them - deleting seems destructive, so I'd suggest we transwiki them to WikiIndex or another wiki. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Google Scholar. On an unrelated note, I just looked back through the archives of this page and came to the conclusion that I am very glad we don't link to specific discussions all that often. Nifboy 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Google Scholar is a good suggestion for those trying to back up the notability of an article (and clearly there's a number of references to WikiWikiWeb). That's useful, (and I mention it in my proposal below) but I don't plan to personally solve this problem by researching these articles (except in very specific cases).


 * The issue here, though, is about whether we enforce Wikipedia policy, or change it. It's currently not being applied to these articles, and there seems to be opposition to change. I guess that means we work on enforcing the policy, doing mass nominations for deletion (which I would personally not like to be deeply involved with - bound to get people stirred up). But I'd like more responses before pushing this line further, and more thought on the transwikiing option (see m:Help:Transwiki, to make the process as painless and positive as possible.


 * Help for editors in demonstrating notability would be good, mentioning Google and Google Scholar as potentially quick solutions. The Notability template has many links including Reliable sources, but perhaps it should have a prominent link to a quick guide (in the Help: space) to resolving notability issues.


 * The quick guide might go as follows: 1. search on Google Scholar, 2. search on Google, selecting reliable sources (i.e. not blogs or personal pages...), 3. Consider contacting knowledgeable people in the subject area (e.g. via the talk page of a related article, or via a WikiProject page). 4. If no suitable references are found, it may mean that A. the subject is not notable. Don't take it personally. Your article may have a place, just not here. And B. You should consider transwikiing the page to a different wiki. Suitable destinations for transwikiing are found at...(link or list)


 * Thoughts?


 * Another thought: the notability template could have links to Google and Google Scholar (and Google News?) using the template. Favoring a specific search engine might not be acceptable though. But at least a link to the quick guide should be okay. (btw, I just noticed that the template accepts arguments, e.g. web, as in   . --Chriswaterguy talk 03:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you seen Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles yet? It seems to have stalled out but it's the most recent attempt at what you seem to be getting at. Nifboy 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bringing this in line with larger consensus
I've edited this guideline so that it reflects the larger consensus of other such guidelines as WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. That is, I've made it clear that WP:N is the "central criterion" and that others are "criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about particular Web content." This structure and language is consistent with WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC which are much more widely discussed guidlines than this one. This edit, however, was reverted but we can still see it here and discuss it. It would seem to me that we shouldn't have one notability guideline that is out of step with the others, we shouldn't have a notability guideline that implies that articles which violate WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR are acceptable, and that such a misleading guideline can be ultimately frustrating to new editors. This seems like a vast improvement to me, and clears up the most common confusions, but at least one editor seems to disagree so let's discuss. -- Dragonfiend 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been puzzled by the changes at WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC along these regards, and question the consensus of such changes there, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the editor who made the revert. I don't necessarily disagree with all of your statements, I only feel that an edit of this magnitude requires consensus.
 * I would like to start by pointing out that changing the format of a criteria to match others is not enough reason to edit said criteria. By definition, it is a criteria for something that the other criteria does not cover, therefore one cannot assume that the same format will necessarily apply.
 * Even so, you're edit does not "reflect the larger consensus of other such guidelines". I do agree that the structure and language should be as consistent as possible (without violating the spirit of the guideline) with WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.  Which is why I think we should keep the guideline in the same format as it was.  I would like to point out that this already matches the structure of WP:MUSIC and is similar to the format of WP:N, and the only example that matches the proposed change is WP:BIO.  The existing structure also matches the format of WP:CORP and WP:PORNBIO.  Why should we change the structure to match the only odd-one out?
 * I also don't see how this guideline implies that articles vialate WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. In order for an article to survive deletion, it must adhere to all of these rules, and they are not mutually exclusive.  Something can theoretically be notable and Original Research, in which case delete it.  But this guideline isn't here to determine if a subject covers all of the rules, it's only here to determine if it's notable.  And since this guideline does not trump the rest, an article still has to meet the other guidelines.  I see nothing in the existing version to suggest otherwise. --Daedalus 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Badlydrawnjeff just reverted back to a month-old version of WP:MUSIC. The version I was talking about was here. We probably need to centralize this discussion at WP:N to avoid this type of confusion. Also, I agree that this guideline does not trump the rest of our guidelines and policies, however it seems clear to me that many new editors do not realize this from reading this guideline, and we ought to help them out. -- Dragonfiend 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did so at WP:BIO as well, as there was zero discussion on each. The best case scenario would be to centralize all notability discussion at WP:N, but I don't think we're ready for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since those changes that were reverted were recent and had no discussion before modifying, I'm inclined to agree with Jeff and say that they needed to be reverted. Even disregarding that however, it is still true that it matches the format of WP:CORP and WP:PORNBIO, so you're format change to match other guidelines makes no sense.
 * You are absolutely right that the existing guideline does not clarify that it is still required to meet other guidelines. The Reasonable person would realize that all guidelines should be met and not just one, making that sort of clarification completely superfluous as it's already implied.  Besides, this is just a guideline.  WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are official policy, and therefore explicitly trump all guidelines.  Stating within a guideline that you have to follow official policy first and foremost is redundant and will only clutter the page. --Daedalus 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Actually, since WP:BIO has now been reverted away from changes made without consensus, your proposed format doesn't match ANY other guidelines. --Daedalus 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this reversion has been done on at least three separate notability guidelines, I'd suggest it be discussed centrally here rather than in at least three different places. -- Dragonfiend 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussing it there. The primary notability criterion already has consensus: how are we supposed to have an article without violating policy without sources?  It seems foolish to tell people that something is notable if it satisfies certain arbitrary criteria, but then delete it because it lacks sources.  Sourcing is paramount. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. As stated elsewhere, things can be "notable" without reaching Wikipedia's twisted standard of verifiable using "reliable sources." --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Twisted standard? In what way is it twisted to require that assertions be made by an identifiable and reliable source?  It would be twisted if Wikipedia relied on the original research of anonymous editors.  It would be twisted to include so-called information that comes from sources without credibility.  It would be twisted to accept the unsupported opinion of self-proclaimed experts as to what sources should be used, rather than have standards that we can each use to cross-check one anothers' work.  The fact that no such standards will ever be perfect is no more a reason not to have them than the fact that Wikipedia will never be complete is cause to abandon the project.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While we slowly burn back and forth on the main page, our standards are twisted because we assume that the proper sources for web-based items are the same as what would be proper for, say, a historical figure or a classical musician. No one's saying "let's abandon the project" as much as we have to look at this in full context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, per an e-mail I got:

"I'm unable to edit right now, but I'm offering read-only support.

You have my permission to copy/paste this e-mail onto the talk saying that I support this reversion of yours and that I only discovered that I couldn't edit when I attempted to revert it myself." --Aaron Brenneman. I'm sure he'll come along and verify that I'm not blowing smoke.  We need to get consensus on this if people want it changed, you can't simply force it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stamp of verification. There's a lot of talk at that *points* talk page, and it seems previous to make this match that just yet. -  brenneman  12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who made the original revision, I'd like to just add my voice alongside Brenneman and BadlyDrawnJeff. And no one ever said we would have articles that violate policy. Just because something is determined to be notable by this guideline doesn't mean it's verifiable, and doesn't mean it automatically is a Keep. The key point is that verifiability and notability are two seperate qualities, and one does not mean the other is unnecessary. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to tell people that it's notable by satisfying criteria and then telling them to delete it when it isn't sourced. It doesn't matter how notable something is if you can't verify whether it's true or not. --Daedalus 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New edit
Discussion moved to one area, see "WP:V" area below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Web Cartoonist's Choice award
Per this debate: Is there any consensus on the WCC satisfying the awards criterion? - brenneman  04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Awards are only relevant here inasmuch as they indicate that there will be reliable sources available.  Between the sheer volume of WCCs awarded, and the complete lack of any such sources forthcoming in deletion debates where a WCC has had to be brought up to defend an article, I have no confidence this is the case.  (WCCs are also specifically discoved above, at .) &mdash;Cryptic 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I had *blip*ed over that discussion. After posting the above I found Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards which I have closed as delete. - brenneman  05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm shocked and severely disappointed. First the WCCA is removed from this page (while the Bloggies are kept - despite not even having their own article, apparently), and now it got deleted? So coverage by two independent sources is not enough to fulfill "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? I think that a full episode of Attack of the Show should be quite notable, unless I misunderstand the triviality rule. And the NYT article devotes several paragraphs on covering this specific award and its winners. Not even to mention that it directly compares it to the Oscars. I don't understand how this is trivial or anything. None of the four indicators for non-notable mentions were met in my eyes.
 * Since I assume that I am wrong somewhere (otherwise the WCCA wouldn't have been vaped and locked), I'd appreciate it if you could point out which part I got wrong in your eyes... --Sid 3050 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) plus minor edit by --Sid 3050 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, appearing in the Guardian makes a british comedian's webcast notable, but appearing in a NYT article is not enough for the WCCA's to be notable. I'm glad our wayward colonists are finally starting to realise their proper place. Aclapton 12:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it's actually a significant award or not, I think it's worth pointing out that someone has manipulated footnote 6 very recently, I believe in response to the | Starslip Crisis deletion affair —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DannoHung (talk • contribs) 07:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Disputed tag
I have added the disputed tag because of tendentious editing by some and because of a lack of demonstrated consensus for the changes by others. Consensus for anything to happen at WP:N does not introduce consensus here, and it's arguable whether there's really a consensus at WP:N to begin with. Hopefully people will actually be willing to discuss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC) The dispute tag needs to be in place. Whether or not there is consensus at WP:N does not affect consensus here. They are two different guidlines and they are two different discussions. I don't see how one automatically decides the other. --Daedalus 16:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if it has consensus there we need to discuss it again here. How is that not a filibuster?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What happens there is irrelevant to here. Your tendentious editing has been duly noted, perhaps you can actually demonstrate consensus instead of continually being disruptive? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Whenever you have no argument you resort to personal attacks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? Perhaps you can actually make a case instead of being disruptive?  Maybe? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Tendentious editing"? "Continually being disruptive"? Hello? Nifboy 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not attacks. Hello? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a difference in opinion then. Nifboy 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Match WP:V?
I have attempted to bring this guideline in step with our policies of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it because this "notability" guideline does not go against it. Notability can be asserted, but unverifiable articles can still be deleted through the proper channels.  At no time does this guideline trump or move out of step with any other policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple, really. A guideline cannot trump policy. If there are no third party, verifiable, reliable sources that describe a website, that website cannot have an article in Wikipedia. And these reliable sources, should be just more than a mere mention to warrant an article in our project. So, this guideline needs to be made compliant and refer to our existing policies in particular WP:V, an WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're talking verifiability, not notability. Thigns can be notable without being verifiable, and there has to be protection against speedies.  You've essentially created another end-around regarding the failing speedy deletion of unsourced articles criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of our project. There is no notability without Verifiability. If there are no secondary reliable sources that can be used to support an article, that article does not belong in Wikipedia. If you disagree with that, you can take the conversation to WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with speedies. We give time to people to find sources. If sources are not forthcoming after a reasonable period of time, delete! delete! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has plenty to do with speedies, actually - the first place people will look is the "notability" criteria for them. Now, this has nothing to do with the policy at WP:V, which I have no real disagreement with - it simply has nothing to do with the "notability" criteria here.  Things can be notable without being verifiable, things can be verifiable without being notable.  It works both ways, and such a drastic, huge change requires more consensus than "I'm going to do it because WP:V is important."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument does not hold, Badlydrawnjeff. No guideline can trump policies. I will restored my edit and keep the tag you added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * My argument doesn't hold? Okay, where's the consensus for your change?  Keep in mind, if you're thinking I'm saying that a guideline is trumping policies, you're misunderstanding my argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus lies on our core polices, which this and all other guidelines, help pages, etc., are subservient to. In fact, any guideline that does not abide by the principles stated on our core policies, are by default no-consensus. A guideline that does not relates and refers to the application of our policies, but rather defines a process or a standard that is in violation with these, lacks the consensus of the community. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So how does this guideline in particular fail to abide by the principles of our policies? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As an example, your statement "Thigns can be notable without being verifiable" may be true, outside Wikipedia. But in this project, not verifiable = no useful content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "things can be notable without being verifiable" can be true on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that unverifiable things need to stay on Wikipedia. We're talking entirely separate issues that don't conflict with eachother. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, help me out here, because I do not understand your argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Serious question, I'm not trying to be a dick - what are you confused about from my end? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain why you placed a disputed tag, on a section of this guideline that is 100% compliant with our core policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't. I placed a disputed tag on a section that was changed without discussion or consensus to do so.  I don't feel that the guideline, in any form before the last hour or so, was not compliant with our core policies, because these guidelines do not trump our verifiability policy, but rather what can be included if verifiability is reached.  The idea that this was not complaint before is, IMO, a fallacy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

<<< (ed conf) If the issue is protection against speedies, then note that some people just want to have a black & white approach to these and want some kind of machine that will help them assert notability. Well, that is not the way it works. People still need to use their good judgment, guidelines or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. We also know that they don't, thus the extra failsafes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since Verifiability and Notability are two seperate qualities with two seperate definitions, one should not be influenced by the other. --Daedalus 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of our policies and guidelines are related to and influence one another. For example, "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources. This page provides guidance about how to identify reliable sources. Some of the relevant policy pages are No original research and Verifiability." "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research." etc. --Dragonfiend 07:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't think anyone's disagreeing with any basic principles, core or otherwise. But only one person is saying that the guideline is somehow superceding it - it's never been a concern. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mayhaps you're a bit confused. I didn't say anything about interpreting the core policies in isolation from each other, in fact I didn't say anything about the core policies at all.  I was specifically referring to the relationship between WP:N and WP:V, not the core policies.  And moreso, I was commenting that how one determines Verifiability is not the same process as how one determines Notability, therefore the structure of the criteria and wording should not be influential towards each other in either direction.  WP:V provides guidance on how to identify reliable sources.  This guideline, a subset of WP:N, provides  guidance on how to determine if a subject is worth writing an article about.  Big difference, and subjects don't always satisfy both.  --Daedalus 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a lot of policies and a lot of guidelines and many seasoned users and many more newbies, sometimes get confused. I think when possible it makes sense for us to show how different policies interact. This is even more important when talking about guidelines, which do not carry the force of policies. This guideline should guide people in how to talk about notable people in Wikipedia in ways that comply with our policies e.g. NPOV and V. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, can you give an example of something that is notable without being verifiable? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see such an example as well. I find it peculiar that when speaking about websites, we are not willing to apply the verifiability policy. If there are no verifiable, reliable, secondary published sources about any subject, that subject should not be featured in WP. 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Everywhere Girl is a recent example. Plenty of web memes.  Plenty of independent rock bands.  A plethora of books.  Part of the problem, of course, is the way we handle "reliable sources" here, because it's not really sensible as written for articles across the board, but, as stated numerous times, the "notability" criteria and verifiability are not at odds - if something meets notability standards, it can still be deleted for not being verifiable, as well as the converse.  We'd be better off eliminating "multiple, non trivial," since that's a cornerstone policy, and leaving notability to the other parts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The content policies and guidelines all have to work together, and I don't see how something could be notable without being verifiable first. WP:V is policy, which trumps guidelines. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And no one's disagreeing that WP:V is sacrosanct. But things can be notable without being verifiable.  The band that tours the United States and Canada is "notable," but not necessarily verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And no one is suggesting otherwise. We are suggesting that a given subject does not always satisfy both qualities, and therefore the criteria of one should not be based on the criteria of the other. There is a difference between the two qualities and thus a difference between the two criteria. But we are not suggesting that a subject need only satisfy one to be included in WP, we firmly understand that a subject still needs to satisfy both and no one has argued the contrary. --Daedalus 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Without being able to verify the claim of notability, the claim is just worthless POV and/or OR. The band (or my grandmother in her RV) that tours the U.S. and is not noted by reputable sources is not notable. --Dragonfiend 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But, again, you're not talking "notability" but verifiability. A group that does a national tour is notable.  They simply may not be verifiable.  Someday, perhaps our RS guideline will be forward thinking enough to handle this properly, but you're conflating the point.  I can certainly prove that Touring Band Deluxe toured the United States - simply not with the types of "reliable sources" that we require. It doesn't make TBD less "notable," simply unverifiable by our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by "notable" then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe there is some rather large group of items which are worthy of being noted, but somehow all the reliable sources in the world have failed to note them. This sounds like you'd like to edit wikipedia based on your OR and your POV. Rather than trying to think of notability as some concept completely unrelated to all other policies and guidelines, I'd suggest you think of it like this: WP:NOT policy holds that websites must have impact or historical significance. WP:V policy holds that controversial claims must be verifiable by reputable sources. WP:WEB is a guideline on how controversial claims of historical significance can be verified. -- Dragonfiend 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that there is a very large group of items worthy of being noted, but our reliable sourcing guideline is not equipped to deal with it. You've got my rationale for editing wrong - I, again, do not expect unverifiable information to stay in Wikipedia, but something can be "notable" without being what Wikipedia considers verifiable.   --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If a band is notable (for someone) but not notable for WP as prescribed by our policy of verifiability of that notability by lack of published third party sources, that band should not have an article in WP. Notability and Verifiability go hand in hand. We cannot assert the former without the latter in Wikipedia, can we?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can absolutely assert the former without the latter. Going off of the band idea further, I can absolutely prove that a band toured the United States.  I can point to their own touring schedule, archives of the venues they played at, etc.  This "notability" is established, and long-standing here.  Now, is it "verifiable, by multiple, non-trivial sources?"  Unfortunately, no.  Part of the problem is because of WP:RS's failings, but the main situation is that the band in question is "notable," but isn't "verifiable" for the purposes of Wikipedia.  Thus, the band is "notable" enough for inclusion due to its accomplishments, but probably shouldn't exist because the band isn't verifiable enough to stay.  Two separate concepts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability is defined by my dictionary as "worthy of attention or notice". Here on wp, it's pretty much defined as having recieved attention or notice from a reliable source. Anyone can argue that someone that hasn't recieved attention should have, but that's really just POV. If something has been ignored by the media (and yes, I realize "the media" and reliable sources are open to some interpretation). I think the other criteria are more useful for people and things that are further in the past, where we don't have as much access to newspapers or other sources that would have made mentions. Anything current that we can't find a mention won't be notable. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it hasn't historically been defined as such here. These "notability" guidelines, as a whole, have existed with generally wide consensus for quite a while, separate from WP:V, which suggests that "notability" has been defined (and continues to be, at the moment) by a variety of subject-specific standards.  Verifiability has been defined as something else entirely, but not as something that can be discarded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of paragraphs about awards and distribution
Why were these removed? I don't see any reason given or discussion on the talk pages. That's a pretty big change to the guideline. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, their removal should be discussed first. Replacing now.  --Daedalus 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Time-based criteria
What about adding a critera based on the time a site has been in existence and active. By active, I mean updated regularly and kept current. Most sites that don't do their job (gain readership) eventually fold, so I tend to think that sites that have withstood the test of time may be notable for that reason alone.

I'm not talking about advertising, or sites that serve only as support or publicity engines for real-world companies or products, but more for sites that contain original, web-only (or primarily web-based) content. So wal-mart's web store wouldn't fall under this guideline.

Otherwise, we end up with only the sites that caught some reporter's attention, and that just doesn't seem to make sense.

TomXP411 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is it's a fairly arbitrary piece of criteria, akin to "this number is big." Something better would be if it has broken ground in its genre (ie the first webcomic or something similar). There are plenty of Geocities sites that are awful and obscure and have existed for 10+ years, but they shouldn't get articles based on age. --Wafulz 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this meet the criteria?
Does this - User:Djbrianuk/DontStayIn - meet the WP:WEB guidelines? exolon 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if trendcatching or anthems.com count as reliable sources? The Guardian is, of course, but DontStayIn isn't the subject of the article provided. Marasmusine 09:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag
Is the disputed tag still necessary? It's been about a week since any discussion has gone on. I guess I'm asking what (if anything) is being disputed at this moment. --Wafulz 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as this version sticks around, yes. Unless proponents can demonstrate consensus for this version, otherwise we can probably remove it when we go back to the long-standing version that existed in December. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag isn't hurtin' anything for now. - brenneman  07:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, we have had a week since any substantive discussion, and proponents of this don't seem to be knocking down the doors to push their preferred change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you sum up what their proposed changes were? I got lost and confused in the massive blob of text above. --Wafulz 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially treating the first line item about multiple non-trivial as more important for notability than the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so there's no confusion, that's the version that exists now, you want to revert to an older version, correct? Is it safe to say that you propose editing so the first item isn't singled out as being primary?  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, mostly because it isn't primary. Or, if it's supposed to be, there's no consensus here for such a change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Badlydrawnjeff is also disputing this basic idea at WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:N, etc., so any evaluation of consensus or level of on going discussion ought to take in all pages this is discussed on. -- Dragonfiend 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Jeff. Hiding Talk 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the bit about sources is the fabled PNC. The rest stem from it, and to suggest there is a need for a specific consensus on this change is akin to saying that until there has been an actual discussion on talk somewhere involving a broad consensus of editors, no article on any plant species may point out that "grass is green".  If the first line is somehow not more important than the rest, well that's WP:V and WP:NOR out the window.  Chris cheese whine 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. At least not regarding "notability," which is still a separate concept.  --badlydrawnjeff

talk 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Add my support towards Jeff as well. Notability isn't Verifiability, and something can be one and not the other.  Therefore a Notability definition that in actuality proves Verifiability is an altogether bad idea.  Rather we should provide a guide to claims of notability, and then let the claims to notability be Verified.  Blurring the two defeats the purpose of having two seperate criteria.  --Daedalus 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If something can be notable but not verifiable, then that thing clearly does not belong in Wikipedia (according to the all-governing non-negotiable überpolicy that is WP:V). So, the PNC (which essentially mandates V) is necessary as a hurdle.  By suggesting that articles may be included that meet other criteria but fail the PNC essentially short-circuits WP:V.  Chris cheese whine 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No one doubts that. But making it that items may be notable for inclusion based on these things does no such thing to WP:V.  They're separate concepts for a reason - we don't want everything that's verifiable to be included, but we want everything included to be verifiable, and there is no real PNC - it's not even shared amongst half of the individual criteria.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one doubts that the key policies (as embodied in the PNC) must be met, why is there an issue with a "grass is green" statement such as the one you are disputing? Chris cheese whine 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, only one person is voraciously attempting to keep it in place, but I don't honestly understand the other arguments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That looked awfully like an answer, but I'm not sure which question it's supposed to answer, since it's clearly not the one I asked. Chris cheese whine 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In all fairness the PNC is just a bunch of words and is no fable. It's not even policy, it's just a few words I added to a guideline.  I would rather policy trumped guidelines, and our policies are that material must be written from a neutral point of view and be verifiable in a reliable source.  Hiding Talk 22:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So can we put this to bed now and agree that there's no consensus for the December change, revert back, get rid of the tag, and move on? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I'm proposing that User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines be merged here since this page already covers Webcomics. Hiding Talk 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Disclaimer: I'm no Wiki-Expert, so I might be barking up the wrong tree here. Apologies in advance, and I'll try to cover the "I misunderstood the nature of the request" case, too.)
 * The numerous waves of deletions that hit webcomic-related articles suggest that there is a slight issue with the current notability guidelines. A purely web-based medium is bound to get little to no coverage from traditional media, and the few major webcomic awards I am aware of (Ursa Major, WCCA) now suddenly apparently don't count any more because they have been classified as "non-notable" (even though at least the WCCA decision still puzzles me since that award has multiple sources).
 * It's extremely unlikely that individual webcomics will suddenly receive lengthy reviews in CNN or the NYT, and without accepted awards, that only leaves publishing. And the fallout of the recent Evil Inc. debates shows that even that is not going to save webcomics from being nominated or deleted.
 * I'm not sure if I support the Merge, but in case that it happens, at least the two parts about "Well-known webcomics" and especially "Established webcomics" strike me as good candidates for integration into this article. When a webcomic has an established fanbase (visible via forums, major fansites dedicated to the comic, etc.), updates regularly and has been around for years, it should count as notable.--Sid 3050 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree with those subjective criteria, but would like more detail on the awards issue. Hiding Talk 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a highly subjective issue, and I don't say that this is the best solution. But I think it's a starting point at least. The current rules, combined with the recent deletions, make it harder than ever to count as notable. The suggested guidelines would at least let the comics in that have been around for 5+ years or so and have a considerable readership. Comics with hundreds of strips and a steady readerbase simply don't count as non-notable to me.
 * The award issue... if you mean what I think you mean, the links of reference are Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and (arguably less important) User:Aaron_Brenneman (brief attempt of a discussion about the decision since I didn't understand the reasoning).
 * More generally speaking, both Ursa Major and the WCCA were deleted recently (WCCA had been listed next to the Eisner Award in this entry until recently, even), and many webcomics based their notability on these awards or multiple nominations. Now that both awards are gone (and declared non-notable), this potentially opens the door for more webcomic-deletions and definitely blocks a path of re-entry for others.
 * Case in point: Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (link to AfD) recently got a second WCCA nomination but was deleted because "the consensus amoung the more established editors is that it (=WCCA) does not count as a a notable independent award". Incidentally, the deletion happened just half an hour before the same Admin closed the WCCA discussion as Delete. --Sid 3050 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. The situation regarding coverage of the WCCA may change in the next few days as they are to be given out live at the MegaCon on Sunday week.  I suggest interested parties hit google news the following day and see what turns up. Hiding Talk 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In principle merging two pages on the same topic makes sense, but I don't see anything new on User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines that's worth keeping. -- Dragonfiend 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging it here doesn't mean we have to include stuff from there, just redirect it. At least, that's my take on it. Hiding Talk 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose importing any of the content from JackSparrow Ninja's essay to this page. It's completely incompatible with the well-founded primary notability criterion of WP:N and also with substantial components of WP:NOT, such as WP:NOT. It's also very poorly written, as it establishes notability by way of circular reference: "When a webcomic gains a certain status of fame, it's [sic] notability speaks for itself". Not guideline material by a long shot. Sandstein 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment It may be poorly worded, but the examples listed for that one are precisely the ones that ALREADY meet WP:N and WP:V. --Random832(tc) 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The guidelines proposed by JSN are his own personal views. That's all well and good and he is of course welcome to keep his essay in user space, but these guidelines are (in my view) far too loose to be merged into actual WP guidelines. It is premature to propose a merge of them when his guidelines haven't really been submitted for community appraisal. Just leave it in User space so that it doesn't even have an air of officiality to it. GassyGuy 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Circular - "should not be a guideline because it's not a guideline"? --Random832(tc) 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is clear that WP:WEB not at the moment adequately address many special cases, the decimation of Webcomic articles has merely brought this to light. I do think that the idea in User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines of considering a website notable after a regularly updating presence several years (I think 5 years is a good number) has a great deal of merit to it. However this would have to be limited to certain types of websites such as Webcomics. My homepage will never be notable even if it is up for 10 years. Obviously these ideas at are meant to start a discussion about the present WP:WEB and hopefully they will, however they are obviously not ready to be included yet, if at all. So I would say leave it there and hopefully something good will come of it. Aclapton 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to a merge. If individual parts of JackSparrow's proposal are discussed and meet consensus, they could be added, but at the moment almost all of them are very problematic with respect to WP:V and WP:RS. I'm amenable to using awards like WCCA to give webcomics a fair shake, so to speak, but I'm wary of proposals involving years in existence. Most of the rest I'm simply unpersuaded of. (I would also like JackSparrow to stop linking to it as if it's a guideline or even an officially proposed guideline, but that's irrelevant to whether it should be promoted.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge for now, but JackSparrow has brought up some good points. I'd like to see some guidelines specifically for webcomics. The WCCA's board is composed of people who are active in the webcomic community, but not "giants". Also, there is no mention on the WCCA site about the names of the entire voting body. If their process were more transparent, I'd be more likely to think the WCCA was a more valid body. On WP:V and WP:RS don't really apply to a webcomic. There's nothing to verify, since the entirety of the comic is available at the web site. However, if you want to verify awards and things like newspaper circulation, then I see your point. TomXP411 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Dragonfiend 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On time-based criteria: I think it's an arbitrary criteria. But I do think that we need a yardstick for webcomics to determine notability. I certainly don't think that every amateur webcomic should be included, but the few that have been around for years DO tend to have quality, a large fan base, and tend to be influential just because of their presense. I'm not implying that duration=notability, but I am saying that the two are often somehow related. The key is regular updates for an extended time. Yes, it seems arbitrary, but think about it: Most artists would give up after a time if nobody read their comic. How many guys would post 3 times a week for 3 years if only 10 people were viewing their work? It would be nice if there was a way to validate the viewership of a comic. Alexa helps, but I don't know how reliable those numbers are. Can they be gamed? More to the point, even if they WERE gamed by one or two people, would it really hurt Wikipedia overall? On the other hand, if we let dozens of influential comics slip through the cracks, will that hurt Wikipedia? What best serves our mission - including a few that are trivial, or leaving some out that should be here? I favor looser guidelines. Try it for a while, and if it gets messy, then trim the fat.TomXP411 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Before we look like even bigger idiots. It needs work, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have. Adam Cuerden talk 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose this. We do need webcomics guidelines. These are not the webcomics guidelines we need. --Random832(tc) 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support until someone makes a better suggestion. This is at least much better than the AFD delete fests we webcomic supporters have to put up with on a regular basis. Timmccloud 01:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the merge tag off, per this discussion. - brenneman  15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics
These rules are, frankly, a farce when applied to Webcomics. Can't we do something to not make us laughingstocks? Adam Cuerden talk 11:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
How about we put a moratorium on deletion of webcomics-related articles (except egregious violations) until we sort this out? You know, to control all the damage and astoundingly bad publicity this is 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that. This is just one big mess of minimalists clashing with informatists (don't know a better word for it, over outdated policies.
 * I tried to make a start with the guidelines, though I find it a shame that many people just put it off as going against all policies (yet they refer to other guidelines). JackSparrow Ninja 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're trying to stop a speeding train here. At least seven comics are currently in AfDs, and I only looked for the word "comic" in the recent daily AfD entries. I'd welcome a sort of ceasefire, but the nominators seem to agree that the current rules are just fine (or not strict enough). So I wouldn't bet on it. --Sid 3050 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, please review the lengthy history here. We've got a widely-accepted, robust guideline for all web content.  It's lasted because it's mostly removed all overly subjective criterion: When push comes to shove, rather than endless rounds of "I say this stays" VS. "I say delete it" we can look to the guidelines.  Clearly these are not meant to be utterly proscriptive.  Each article is it's own self, so to speak.  But seemingly endless rounds of discussions have failed utterly to generate anything other than:
 * Wikipedia's webcomic coverage is sneered at by some1 webcomic fans/blogs/doctoral students,
 * There is nothing tangible to go on when it comes to deciding how to "fix" it.
 * Whenever the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics#Aaron_Brenneman.27s_warnings_to_new_users|OMFG-you-can'

t-delete-that]] comic-of-the-month rolls around, we ask the same question: How are we to know that this is so important that it's obvious that it shouldn't be deleted. And almost every time, we come up empty other than "because we say it is." There should be no special pleadings here. Rather than complaining or asking for a moratorium, read the archives and come up with new suggestions. The proposed merge page, for example, displays (forgive me) that the originator has not looked over what's gone before.
 * brenneman 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. This says "some." Draw your own conclusions, or just ask.
 * Add some reliable sources to webcomics articles and they'll be safe. It's not that hard to protect an article that deserves to be here from being deleted on notability grounds. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the guidelines are not as clear as people seem to think. You see, one of the requirements is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published sources. Now, the guidelines for being non-trivial coverage is clear, but there seems to be a lot of confusion over what is a reliable published source. Wikipedia's article on publishing says that blogs do fall under "published" works, which means we need some clear guidelines on what kind of blogs are considered reliable published ones. I've seen many blog articles completely ignored in AfD discussions, as the lack of a clear guideline on blogs has caused most people to dismiss all blogs as trivial, unless they are online mirrors of print publications. This is a problem for web content because print media ignores the vast majority of popular web content. So if we can get clear guidelines on what is a reliable published blog, I think we'll soon find the AfDs only showing up on truly non-notable articles. Because let's face it, since these articles being deleted is causing such an uproar, the most logical conclusion is that these are notable subject, it's just that the guidelines are so irrelevant that people can't give sufficient proof of notability. - Zaron 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See Reliable sources: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. ... Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." -- Dragonfiend 08:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except I don't think you are, in all cases, dealing with quite the type "Self Publishing" that the quote had in mind. In a number of cases this "Self Publishing" raises enough money to support the artist and, in at least a few cases, a family and/or a small number of additional staff. So you could be construed as arguing that the act of the artist owning the publisher banishes them into obscurity or being published by a publishing house that also has, or opens, a "Vanity" arm also makes them "Non Noteable" yet being published by a misguided firm that doesn'e cover its costs on the books is vaid evidence for "Noteability". --BoatThing 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, BoatThing. I'm not talking about your typical blog by some random person on the internet. I'm saying well known blogs with editors checking facts are being looked down upon. These are not "Self Published" works, they are published and need guidelines stating so. Not all blogs are "the equivalent of reading a flyer on a lamppost." Zaron 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, some people are misusing the term special pleading - what you apparently really mean is there should be no asking for a special case. Second - I don't think there should be a special case for webcomics. I think that WP:WEB has a problem in general with things that are primarily of interest to online communities and that don't get much coverage in print media. As it is, Kuro5hin fails it. Slashdot is saved only by a single paper published about its eponymous effect. The article on EFnet doesn't even attempt to cite references, but i'd bet its subject would fail it too, as would most other IRC networks. I'm sorely tempted to nominate one of these; No-one on Wikipedia seems to care about webcomics, but I suspect it'd be different if Slashdot got the axe. --Random832(tc) 07:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, you could start with the 35 Washington Post articles on Slashdot and/or the 76 New York Times articles on Slashdot, etc. and to try to write a better encylopedia article? -- Dragonfiend 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, the article does not appear to be properly sourced and thus fails WP:WEB. So maybe we should nominate it for AfD in order to get the sources included? After all, that appears to be the reasoning for why the webcomics never got tagged with the Sources template and immediately went to AfD... ;)
 * But seriously, I think the point still stands. Are (for example) the major IRC networks (including freenode) non-notable? Judging by the current guidelines and articles (I checked four or so randomly), they are. Should we delete all articles about IRC networks? I don't think so. (It can be argued if networks fall under WP:WEB in the first place, but I think it would also fail the more general notability rules... not sure though, what's your take?) --Sid 3050 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but does anyone else find it plain-out stupid and unthought that rather then putting source and reference tags up, people just go around and AfD everything?
 * The real problem is that there _is_ no guideline for when/whether to tag it or AFD it, so the difference in practice is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Random832(tc) 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest problems is that the current WEB guidelines are outdated, considering offline media higher then online media. That might have been the case a few years ago, but that does not hold ground anymore now. JackSparrow Ninja 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a problem across the board, actually, not just here. We're woefully behind on what's really a "reliable source." --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree. What guidance would allow us to use as reliable sources is quite broad.  It's the interpretation of what the guidance means that is troublesome.  As they say, the devil is in the detail. Hiding Talk 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with badlydrawnjeff: The problem is that the whole world can not yet decide what's a reliable online source, not just wikipedia. Ask anyone who's in a research industy - the battles that rage over if what's on Joe Blog's Blog on Blogs can be used as a source for Mia Petra's Publication on Publications leave blood on the floor.  We do not "lead the way" in these sorts of things, we're a tertiary source. -  brenneman  00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But here's the link I use when deciding: Michael Engle, "Evaluating Web Sites: Criteria and Tools," Cornell University Last accessed 12 February 2007.
 * That's a good link, but it's a little unhelpful. A lot of what we source from the web in these instances are reviews.  So what we've got to evaluate in that context is the value of the reviewer's opinions.  How highly regarded is the reviewer?  How critical is the reviewer?  Authorship isn't generally an issue, nor is accuracy, reviews are after all opinion.  What we have to determine is how important the opinion is.  The best methods to do that are to use the opinions of people who have been published elsewhere, or of websites which have been reviewed in print, or websites which are regarded by experts.  That's how I do it, at any rate. Hiding Talk 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Are you suggesting that if something (I'd prefer not to create over-specific guidelines, so I'm going not to say "a webcomic") gets reviewed by a reputablee on-line reviwer that's a "non-trivial reliable source?" - brenneman  00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say out of the air. You'd never get a guideline on it, but luckily we have a policy which covers it. It's a know it when I see it.  I mean, it couldn't be a three word review, obviously, but a considered, critical evaluation, yes.  That's what it means at WP:V when it states: Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.  You've got to balance the information in the Wikipedia article and work out what you're being told, and why, and where it is from.  You should be saying, well so what if T Campbell says this webcomic is notable because it uses this page transition?  And then you should be discovering that T Campbell is the author of the history of webcomics, and so you should think, oh, okay, I can see he's an expert, and his opinion has weight, so yes, there's a nugget here we can show to people.  If on the other hand they cite Joe Bloggs stating this webcomic rooolz, then yeah, so what, remove and goodbye.  I'm not looking to keep articles which use only the webcomic's site itself as a source of information, but where other sources are presented, then I think we should evaluate what we're being told and if it is of worth.  Those are the distinctions I tend to use.  But like I say, I inhabit article space now, so my opinion probably counts for less. Hiding Talk 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've personally given the axe to several Slashdot articles. The site itself is covered in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, and interviews from reputable online media. Kuro5hin gets 3 million google hits, which makes it a pain in the butt to dig for sources, but I found a forbes piece and an article from The Register in five minutes of searching.  Web articles are particularly prone to original research and poor sourcing, but we need to avoid both.  If you can't avoid it, as with many webcomics, we just shouldn't have the article. Most webcomics didn't even have a single source besides the strip itself.  That's not enough. It's that simple. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * More articles: Other Magazine PC Magazine Even more: Online Journalism Review from USC Annenberg,  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Where have we "failed"
Rather than hand-waving from both sides, perhaps we could discuss some concrete examples: Webcomics that have been deleted that shouldn't have been, with (here's the importnat bit) suggestions for criterion that would allow us to objectivelt determine that they wouldn't have been. I'll start with the one that I got e-mail calling me a "pompous pimple-pricked fart-stain" for deleting. The point here is not to re-run the deletions, or to get our knicker further in a twist, ok? It's to try and move forward. - brenneman  00:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Able and Baker

 * Deletion discussions: Nominations 1 2 3 4 Review 1 Final nomination: 5 A&B in guideline creation discussions: 1 2 2a 3 Arbitration resulting from previous deletion discussions: 1 Syndication discussion: 1 2 3 4 5 6
 * Deletion discussions: Nominations 1 2 3 4 Review 1 Final nomination: 5 A&B in guideline creation discussions: 1 2 2a 3 Arbitration resulting from previous deletion discussions: 1 Syndication discussion: 1 2 3 4 5 6

I wouldn't call that failed, I'd call it a failure to recognize the basic priniciple that sources are necessary and secondary criteria are no substitute for actual verifiable information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Starslip Crisis
Article (talk) AfD DRV
 * Straub sockpuppets: blog ANI CU

Well - we didn't "fail" as such (and I suppose technically it's ongoing, as it's highly likely it will be nominated again seriously based on the discussion in the DRV), but, there was one key failure I noticed. Not one of Straub's socks were flagged as spas within the AFD. People are all too ready to jump on anyone who votes keep, but apparently deletes are immune to scrutiny. --Random832(tc) 02:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comixpedia/Websnark as a reliable source?
Some consensus on this would avoid things like Girly being deleted/undeleted/nominated for re-deletion if I grow some stones. Is Eric Burns et alia a reliable source? - brenneman  00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Later Addition - I also find that lack of invitations to conventions was suggested (prior to my posts) as a factor in support of the AfD for Starslip Crisis so obviously it is important to somebody on Wikipedia.--BoatThing 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Comixpedia and Websnark get brought up fairly often because they have unreasonable expectations about Wikipedia's content standards and then they publicly complain about Wikipedia when it doesn't meet those expectations. Otherwise, I'm not sure why we'd single out these two over Sequential Tart, The Beat, Journalista, Newsarama, The Comics Reporter, Talk About Comics, Fleen, Time.comix, and any number of the zillions of other comics blogs (including comics creators blogs) that discuss webcomics. Sure, such blogs are all reliable sources that they blogged about whatever they blogged about, but not everything they ever blogged about is Wikipedia notable, nor is everything they ever blogged about going to help us write from a NPOV. For example, both Comixpedia and Websnark have written fairly exensively about their least favorite wikipedia editors; this does not make wikipedia editing a notable activity. That the Comixpedia/Websnark blogs are very interested in using Wikipedia to promote webcomics doesn't mean we need to give them undue weight. We should really only use such a blog in an article about that blog. -- Dragonfiend 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Probably in the field of web-comics, Burns' opinion is of note. He was editor of Modern Tales for a while, which makes him an ex-industry insider, he's written about the subject a long time.  Tom Spurgeon, a reliable source for comics, as former TCJ editor and author of several books on the medium has stated of Burns: "Burns has been really valuable to me as a daily voice with a consistent point of view on a subject about which I know very little (webcomics)".  For me that probably means his opinion is of value.  That's not to say the article in question could stand some work though. Hiding Talk 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I should point out that from Dragonfiend's kist we typically use Sequential Tart, The Beat, Journalista, Newsarama, The Comics Reporter and Time.comix as reliable sources on comics articles. The Beat, Journalista, Newsarama and The Comics Reporter have all been critically appraised by The Comics Journal and all are run by respected voices within the industry, as is Time.comix, which also happens to be published online by Time magazine. I don't think it's worth comparing Comixpedia coverage of webcomics with Comixpedia's coverage of Wikipedians.  There field of expertise is not Wikipedians. Hiding Talk 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also baffled by the assertion that "the Comixpedia/Websnark blogs are very interested in using Wikipedia to promote webcomics". That's not my impression.  I also don't think we are giving them undue weight in using their reviews as sources.  They are respected voices within the field. Hiding Talk 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ere's the issue - on webcomics, without a doubt. Much like Stereogum is a reliable source for music news, that dontlinkthis can be for some web memes, etc.  The problem is the mode we're stuck in at the reliable sourcing guideline.  Perhaps it's time to push the issue more... --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We should really only use such a blog in an article about that blog. Whilst not included in "we" I respectfully disagree. The Blog (or other online source) may provide indirect confirmation of "Noteability". For example, if the Blog was to mention that X had appeared as the Keynote Speaker at a large Comics Fair that would not be direct evidence, as in "I think X is very influential" but would nevertheless provide evidence that X is influential. Given that the only place that sort of information is likely to appear in other than rapidly deleted publicity info the Blog may provide the only reasonably durable source for that information, which is, since other people presumably heard X speak, unlikely to be in error, whateever the qulity of other information on the site or blog.--BoatThing 02:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." -- Dragonfiend 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So what you and/or the Guidelines (and lets not forget that that is what they are) are saying is that if you have, say, four Web Cartoonists plus Mr Burns who attended the same convention and they all mention enjoying the panel discussion at which X was the main speaker and X, because they publish no more than their comic, does not mention this, then we have to discount the evidence of X's presence? After all we cannot use the evidence of each blog to back up X's presence and to draw the conclusion that X was there from the fact that all five accounts match would, presumably, be Original Research?--BoatThing 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia. Why would we care if someone went to a convention? If it's only reported on personal blogs, then it's not all that important. Maybe this will help: What if four self-published bloggers wrote that they went to a convention and one of the speakers gave an idiotic presentation. Should we write an encyclopedia article on what an idiot the person is? -- Dragonfiend 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's only reported on personal blogs, then it's not all that important. So a personal blog like Websnark that has become a key news source for individuals with an interest in a particular area and retained that status over time and provides the opportunity to 'call' the source on incorrect information through comments has established no credibility and is assumed to be unimportant or incorrect. Even if it is backed up by a number of other sources. BTW, my point about speaking was that key information in establishing the importance of a person in an area is automatically excluded by the current guidelines and the way they are applied - it would not be the attendance or what was said but the fact that they were invited to take an influential role that was the importance information. And this particular case wouldn't, I agree, make it into an encyclopedia article, being of much more use in making a case for 'Notability', unless they said something that was particularly influential. Unfortunately under the current guidelines even if they made an industry changing observation it wouldn't appear in Wikipedia unless a corporately funded source picked it up.--BoatThing 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comixpedia certainly falls under the category of a self published blog, as anyone with an account can put news on the front page. Websnark falls a bit less under the category, but I think being that it only has two people writing it, and its Alexa rank seems to indicate get an incredible amount of traffic, it wouldn't count as a reliable published source. I do think, however, that the blog looks high enough quality to make an extremely good link in addition to reliable published sources, to give more basis of a defense for notability. I just think the reliablity of the blog is too easily challenged to base an article off of. -- Zaron 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My own opinion is that Websnark sometimes makes a decent data point to include in a series regarding a subject (Megatokyo, of which Burns's essay is Websnark's magnum blogus), but becomes less useful in a vacuum of sources. Comixpedia is... I'm not sure what, exactly, it is, but it doesn't seem to be useful for anything except an interview aggregator. Nifboy 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Experts in their field
Can we not forget the exceptions to blogs which applies here. I think I quoted it above, but I'll restate it here: Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

So let's examine the issue of whether Eric Burns is an expert in the field. Tom Spurgeon, whom would be considered an expert in the field of comics, defers to him on web-comics. Modern Tales hired him as an editor. This gives him some credence within the field, and means that yes, his blog can be used as a source with caution. I can't see this would be an issue in any other field. The opinions of an archaeologist who had worked on a dig would be useful in an article on that dig, that's what a primary source is. And let's not forget that WP:RS is a guideline, and WP:V is a policy. Our policy states that: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Note the word largely. It allows extenuating circumstances. Now I'm not advocating we have an article on each and every webcomic Eric Burns has ever mentioned, but I would take issue with the fact that Eric Burns stated opinions are not allowed to be used in articles on webcomics. This point, and several similar to it have been discussed again and again at the talk pages of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:ATT, and time and again the consensus is that we have to evaluate in context. Blanket assumptions or generalisations do not apply.

Let's also not forget only half of Comixpedia is a wiki, the site also operates a published magazine. I believe articles are submitted to an editor and considered for publication, and therefore half the site does not fall under the rubicon of self-publishing. Hiding Talk 15:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that this doesn't solve the issue of "notability," which has traditionally contradicted itself with WP:V in requiring "third-party" sources, which self-published materials generally are not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's easily solved. Policy trumps guideline.  The notability guideline is offered as a guideline to new readers as to what topics they should consider when thinking of creating articles, and helping explain why some get listed for or ultimately are deleted.  It's not a tool for deleting articles, it describes existing practise.  the trouble is we write these guidelines to describe the way we do things, and then they start to inform the way we do things, which isn't always the intended effect.  We should always take heed of Policies and guidelines, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."  Common sense dictates that verifiability is more important than notability, and that notability is subjective.  In all the discussions on writing this page and at WP:N, I always made clear my stance that these pages were not deletion tools, and that each individual article existed in extremis; it's worth should be judged at an afd in which a full and frank dicussion was entered into in oreder to determine the notability.  It does appear that the meaning of multiple independent sources line is somewhat disputed, and as someone who has had a hand in propogating it across Wikipedia, I sometimes wish the genie could go back in the bottle.  I think what we sometimes miss, though, is that Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Our goal here should be to work out what is best for the encyclopedia and collective collaboration on that encyclopedia, not push our own opinions to the fore.  WIkipedia is a broad church, and we should seek to build strong walls to support the roof, but also to make sure the space is filled. Hiding Talk 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a step back to consider what, exactly, we would use Websnark for (I say Websnark specifically because it is the blog and blog alone): We use it when we want Eric Burns's opinion. To that end we do not need editorial oversight or fact checkers or, for that matter, NPOV because we want his POV because he is an established and reasonably qualified critic. This is different from the case wherein an established and qualified editor bestows his/her blessing upon a much-less-qualified writer, for the purpose that we can take said writer seriously.

Therefore, the extent to which we should be using Websnark (and to a lesser extent Comixpedia) is the extent to which we want opinions. For anything beyond that we want more reliables sources. Nifboy 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want blogger opinions in articles. Since we're talking webcontent, we're almost always dealing with WP:BLP issues as well. I also don't think we should give undue weight to the opinions of certain bloggers. I also don't think we should use "blogger blogged about" as an indicator of "notability," which is I think what we're talking about. -- Dragonfiend 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See, this is where I disagree. Blogs and "self-published" webpages are undoubtedly the best sources for this type of content in terms of comprehensiveness and judging "notability."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken completely out of context, I agree with you, but I think your statement does not apply in this specific instance. Eric Burns > Joe Blogger, for reasons which I thought were discussed in detail above. Nifboy 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it in this meandering conversation. Can you repeat yourself? -- Dragonfiend 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoth sir Block, at the beginning of this subsection: "So let's examine the issue of whether Eric Burns is an expert in the field. Tom Spurgeon, whom would be considered an expert in the field of comics, defers to him on web-comics. Modern Tales hired him as an editor. This gives him some credence within the field, and means that yes, his blog can be used as a source with caution." My point is that "With caution" means we cite Burns's opinions, but not (for example) idle speculation or posts made while drunk. Nifboy 17:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering who else meets this "expert in the field" concept. It seems like it would extend to the artists of practically every webcomic I read, since they pretty much all have blogs, have had some success in the webcomics field, and people have said nice things about them. I really don't think we should be including webcomic blogger opinions in articles on other webcomics. For example, I recall Modern Tales publisher Joey Manley blogging about webcomics biggest drama queens or some such, and including Eric Burns. Should "Modern Tales publisher Joey Manley said this person is a drama queen" be in an article on that person? I don't think so, but I also don't think "we'll only include the nice things people say" is at all NPOV. -- Dragonfiend 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The extent of your generalization is overwhelming. Sure, if "people" meant "the editor of The Comics Journal" and "nice things" meant [that person] "has been really valuable to me as a daily voice with a consistent point of view on a subject about which I know very little (webcomics)", then yes, I would cite that person's opinions where appropriate. Nifboy 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not generalizing as much as you might think, I just find it unwieldy to type: "People similar to Tom Spurgeon who have wrtitten similar things about somebody similar to Eric Burns as Tom Spurgeon has written about Eric Burns." For example, we can use the same formula to arrive at any number of other comics bloggers, but we still shouldn't be including their opinions in articles except about themselves. If someone who fits this formula writes negative things about a comic or its artist, do you think we should include that opinion in Wikipedia articles? Again, should "Modern Tales publisher Joey Manley said this person is a drama queen" be in an article on that person? I don't think so, but I also don't think "we'll only include the nice things people say" is at all NPOV. -- Dragonfiend 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Manley's opinion of Burns or whomever enough to meet WP:BLP? Is there "a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."  In Burns' case I'd say yes, if Manley's quote can be sourced, (is this it?) although it needs to be contextualised within the article.  Was it before Burns worked for Manley or after? Whose opinions should we respect in webcomics is certainly something we need to work out.  Does it extend to the artists of every webcomic you read?  I doubt that.  But I think people's opinions should be evaluated case by case.  And is the question whether we should consider using the opinions of some people who other people we already view as experts themselves view as experts?  If a number of scholars cite a work, should we ourselves use that work as a source? Let's examine other people.  Tim O'Neill, who writes for the Comics Journal on webcomics.  I'd make the case that that makes his blog a reliable source for his opinion.   I can't comment on webcomic cartoonist saying "boo to a goose", but give me a concrete example and I'll gladly chip in with my thoughts. And let's also not forget Burns credentials are twofold, the Spurgeon quote and the Modern Tales employment.   Hiding Talk 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Current opinion is that we can't (eg we can't cite Neil Gaiman's blog, certainly a respected commentator in the field of comics, except as a primary source for Neil Gaiman). The only other example is Bruce Schneier's Crypto-gram newsletter but that's a newsletter, not a blog and it's not being used as a "source" (it's in the EL section).  ColourBurst 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't as detailed right at the start of this section. I'll restate it once again here:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
 * Hope that helps. This has been discussed many times at the talk pages of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:ATT.  Depending upon what Gaiman comments, it depends if you can use it in an article other than Gaiman's own. Hiding Talk 21:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Except that we already cite blogs in Featured Articles (in this case Websnark and Penny Arcade). Nifboy 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people are missing that not all blogs are self-published. Joystiq and Kotaku have been cited in articles before, and those blogs have editors, and the people blogging there are doing that for a living. It's hardly some random Joe with a website, yet it is usually treated as such. -- Zaron 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So I'm "wildly out of touch"?
diff I hope you were referring to the tag in the abstract, rather than intending to insult the person who added it - but, anyway, why did you remove disputedtag? The dispute is quite clearly ongoing. --Random832(tc) 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagreement over the wording of a guideline does not invalidate the fact that it's a guideline. Its "status" is not in dispute, its wording is. The tag says the former, and therefore it's inappropriate.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording is the very heart of it. The page that has the guideline tag now is not the same page that got consensus to be a guideline way back when, so unless we're going to revert many months of changes, the tag's appropriate. This version of the page does NOT have consensus to be a guideline. --Random832(tc) 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag?
What is still disputed to warrant such tag? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed since the initial brouhaha before. There's no consensus for the December change per the discussion above, yet it's still there.  I'm fine with removing the tag if we revert back to the December version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to open the discussion again then. It is unacceptable to have a disputed tag for such a long time. Please describe your objections to the wording so that it can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that Badlydrawnjeff, is the only dissenting voice for what seems a change that brings this guideline to par with other notability guidelines. If there are others, I would like to hear them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Me. Hiding Talk 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above on this. I asked this morning whether we could put it to bed, I've been trying to resurrect the discussion numerous times, and no one has demonstrated consensus for the change.  Your removal of the tag appears to be unwarranted, but it may be moot if we can simply go back to the December edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, the problem is you only appear to be content to put it to bed if it you get to hog the sheets. This dispute is utterly pointless.  I suggest that you go immediately to grass and remove the word "green", since if we can't say as much here, we clearly can't say so in mainspace.  Chris cheese whine 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced there is a consensus for the entire guideline at all, as evidenced by this whole webcomics discussion. People are just beginning to realize the consequences of excluding web-based sources for notability. The silent removal of the WCCA from the list of acceptable awards for notability is, in particular, a change that was made without gathering consensus outside of three people and a closing admin in a single AfD. --Random832(tc) 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, are we excluding web-based sources? Last I checked we excluded sources with no credibility, and it is merely a function of the web that 99% of the web has no credibility. Nifboy 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that, for sources that only exist on the web [i.e., everything but mirrors of print media], there are no guidelines to determine what is or is not an acceptable source, and the practice on the part of some people has been to err on the side of deletion. --Random832(tc) 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the guidance conflicts with policy. Verifiability doesn't demand that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."  So this criterion shouldn't have supremacy over other methods which are also verifiably demonstrable. There is no superior criterion. Hiding Talk 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such conflict, Hiding. Verifiability ask for reliable sources for content used as sources. A website which has no credibility besides itself, is not reliable, and this guideline is for notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * I don't follow you at all. Verifiability asks that information in articles be verifiable. That's all we need. Notability is guidance, and no one criterion should have superiority. I don't see how your move brings this into line with policy. Hiding Talk 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There needs to be no guidance, and placing something in is instruction creep. Online sources get judged the same way as offline sources do - think of someone's personal blog as a person distributing a self-published newsletter. Gamespot would be something similar to Electronic Gaming Monthly. WP:RS has all of the criteria for non-scholarly sources already. This has nothing to do with whether the source is online or not. ColourBurst 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is with pop culture articles such as webcomics, it would be better to simply add an exception for such cases. After all, pop culture articles may need a different treatment as it pertains to notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan on resurrecting the discussion at WP:RS soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an "exception", it's a separate class of information, also known as opinions (which are entirely separate from facts, which are what current overall policy aims at). Nifboy 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?
A major revision of notability guidelines for web content is needed. As of now, it does not allow for testimony from reliable sources which happen to be people. Take the recent deletion of the page on GU Comics, a major webcomic, as an example. The entire article was deleted because it does not reliably assert notability according to these guidelines. Stuff like this is exactly why a lot of people don't take Wikipedia seriously. If you were to call executives at Sony Online Entertainment, or Blizzard, they would testify to the notability of GU Comics--a webcomic focused on MMORPGs, and one that has been acknowledged by these industry leaders, and is even reported to have weighed in on their decisions regarding their games, acting as a voice for players. Now, I don't have time right now to provide evidence of that, but consider that under current rules, the page about a webcomic widely known to be notable can be deleted for not being notable. We need to change these rules quickly to reflect different forms of notability.--TelevisedRevolution 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of 'being acknowledged' or 'testifying to the notability', it's about having nontrivial published sources that actually discuss the subject and its impact, so others can check them. A person, whose ideas have not been published, is not a source anyone can go and check. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's this handy little gadget you in fact can use to check a person's ideas. You will probably even find it in your own home. It's called a telephone. Might want to check one of those out sometime.--TelevisedRevolution 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you can't verify after the fact in any reliable way that that person said that, unless it is recordered in a reliable source. Sure, we can call up Matt Johnson and ask him if Darken is the most popular webcomic in the Cornstalker Comic Collective, but what good would it do if you have to take my word for it that he said that?  Word of mouth and directly from individuals is inherently unverifiable that such an interview took place, which is why we rely on other independent sources.  --Daedalus 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are of a mind to check, why not call them yourself and ask them if they said that? By your logic, any information gleaned from conversation with a real person is unreliable--but as soon as I write it down and get it published, it's somehow solid gold? No, I know you don't mean that. But to say that word of mouth directly from individuals does not count as a reliable source makes no sense.--TelevisedRevolution 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he could be hit by a bus tomorrow and we would be eternally fucked: Flame wars would eternally erupt over whether he actually said what he said or whether the user was just making it up. Nifboy 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think an even more important point TelevisedRevolution brings about is that an article on an extremely notable subject was deleted, when all it needed was better sources. People seem to deny that there is a vendetta against webcomics, but if there was no such vendetta, articles like these would usually receive a source tag, instead of being deleted outright. Balancer has posted some suggestions that I think would make very good official policy, and would result in more quality articles with verifiable sources, and less needless deletion of articles that simply need a little work. - Zaron 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of articles on all sorts of topics are considered for deletion every day. There is no more a "vendetta against webcomics" by someone who suggests deleting an article with no sources or importance than there is a "vendetta against sourcing and encyclopedia standards" by people who write such articles. If someone suggests deleting an article that "simply needs a little work," than simply do a little work on the article. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it. --Dragonfiend 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You forget that the rate of deletion of webcomics is currently rapid, far beyond the ability of wikipedians with the knowledge of webcomics, as a collective group and individually, needed to improve the articles to improve them and that when they do make improvements the articles are being deleted underneath them. That does nothing to encourage improvement of articles and everything to discourage those from the webcomics world, alerted by the threats of deletion, who might wish to make improvements.


 * You will note that not every webcomic up for deletion has been fanatically defended, only those regarded as significant. However providing evidence of that significance in a form that Wikipedia will accept is proving very difficult due to the relative newness of the medium and its essentially online form. The key problem is that the current guidelines, without practical exception, equate Print on Demand and/or ownership of the publication company by the artist or author as automatically signaling 'vanity' rather than 'profitable' or 'worthwhile' publishing. They also equate use of blog software or the diary form with 'trivial', almost without regard for the identity of the person or persons behind the online publication, any established reputation of the source, editorial procedures in place and the ease with which incorrect information can be, and is, challenged.--BoatThing 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes five minutes on google to find sources for most things, like articles and such about it. Are the reliable sources that must be out there so obscure that they can't be found in the five day AFD period? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That assumes you are supposed to take an article without sources to afd. That's not the case, per our deletion policies: "Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AFD" and "Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Hiding Talk 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Night Gyr's comment also ignores my second paragraph, which refers to the key problem and the subject of this section. Wikipedia has a policy that not only keeps out 'cruft' but makes it difficult to include significant areas of online or rapidly emerging subject matter. These are areas that people expect an online encyclopedia to be good at covering an area where Wikipedia has significant advantage over traditional media. The current policy makes it extremely difficult to find sources that Wikipedia will accept on a variety of subjects. How best to square that circle is what this section should be discussing, yet all I see is repeated restatement of the current gudielines from established Wikipedians and no engagment with the new arrivals to discuss how to deal with the issue without causing more problems than the solution is trying to solve.--BoatThing 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution
Suggested interim solution Wiki Projects where problems of verifiability or notability should be encouraged to hold a list on their pages a guide to sources, preferably online, that have been judged as verifiable or as providing evidence for notability (note that the two are not synonymous). Projects should also list sources that are regarded as non-verifiable or not suitable establishing notability, especially if these are likely places for those familiar with the area to go looking. If possible projects that cover an area that could be prone to cruft should have a guide to items for inclusion and exclusion tailored to their subject area.

Suggested solution, Part 1 The guidelines should be changed to reflect the fact that some sources may be suitable as an indicator of notability but not as a source of information in an article.

Suggested solution, Part 2 The guidelines should be amended to emphasise that the basis for exclusion is Vanity Publishing and that self-publishing is included as a potential, not definitive, indicator of vanity publishing. Specifically, the use of print-on-demand as a tool to avoid up-front costs, the cost of holding inventory and to ensure constant availability should not indicate vanity publication, nor should publication where publisher and content creator are one and the same where this is part of a clear commercial enterprise, especially where the content forms the principle means of financial support for the creator.

'''Suggested solution. Part 3''' The guidelines should be amended to emphasise that blogs and personal websites are an indicator of a source that publishes personal views without challenge or control, which are the features to be avoided. The use of blog software or the diary style does not automatically indicate these things. Where there is clear evidence of the source being receptive to comments and correcting itself on the basis of these or some other editorial mechanism then the use of blog software, the blog form or a 'personal website' should not form a basis for its exclusion.--BoatThing 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support all --Random832(tc) 03:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop that, we don't just leap to voting... to dissect this and discuss it:
 * Part 1 is obviously madness: how can something that's not reliable enough to be used as a source be, well, used as a source, which is what this proposes.
 * Parts 2 and 3 are a bloody massive change and there is no way that consensus on that can be reached on this page alone, or anytime soon. Try verification, external links, biography, and reliable sources before we slap it on here.
 * This appears to be an unabashed attempt to throw out a whole heap of well-established guidelines with far-reaching implications, based upon a response to an imagined assault that isn't actually occuring. - brenneman  03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Discuss is what I hoped for. At least that would be better than what is going on so far. Can I say that this wasn't an attempt to throw out anything, at least not in a hurry. It is a series of suggestions for moving forward, since nobody else had made any serious attempt at it. They reflect my understanding of what the guidelines were attempting to avoid - the use of unreliable sources, whilst widening the net of allowable sources to include a relatively small subset of traditionally disallowed resources. I suggested a number of ways in which reliable examples of traditionally unreliable resources could be distinguished. I regard them as not overturning, rather widening and clarifying the current guidelines.
 * As to the madness of Part 1. Consider a respected site that hosts reviews of examples of X. It provides no content suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. Consider several such sites, that reviewers A, B, C etc... consider X good is not suitable for inclusion in the articles list of sources, they may be collectively mentioned as 'has received good reviews' but add nothing else. Yet the presence of these good reviews supports notability. So should these reviews be included in the this of sources - of course not, otherwise we would have articles with huge long trails of 'sources' that a reader would gain little or nothing from. Should they be noted some, probably on the Talk page, to prevent deletions for 'non-notability'? Possibly yes. Here you have your difference between a source for content and a source for notability.
 * Parts 2 and 3 try to express the circumstances that self-publishing and blogs etc. might be considered as reliable rather than WP being in the situation of, for example, discounting a print version of a comic that sells sufficiently well to support a business with several employees simply because the person who owns that business has kept publication in-house rather than an external firm. It is the fact that it sells well enough to support the business that establishes notability, not the ownership of the publication firm.
 * Similarly the guidelines, as currently written and implemented, could lead to the exclusion of a source purely on the basis of the software used to place the information on the Web. What makes a blog unreliable is who is writing it and how it is written. For example, does WP want to exclude, as a sources for the internal workings of a UK Ambulance Service, a blog written by a Paramedic who has made several national media appearances, whose blog receives extensive comments, some of which have led to clarifications and corrections being made and is watched over by his employers? Up until the point that his book was published last year it would.
 * Can I take it from your comment, AB, that the interim bit is uncontroversial?
 * Since my motivation has been called into question I will say this. I came back to Wikipedia after having seen that several well regarded (read: Notable) webcomics, the majority of which I do not enjoy had been, or were, up for deletion. I chose to deal with what I see as the root cause of the 'problem', such that it is, not just because if affects webcomics but because it affects the area that Wikipedia should be good at dealing with, new and/or net-based phenomena and activity. You will note that I have made only one comment on the actual comic AfD pages, it is the underlying issue that I am most concerned with. I understand the problems WP has with Verifiability but I also see the problem created by the guidelines as they are currently applied. Its a sticky problem but one that the habit of a number of Wikipedians of merely restating the guidelines as if handed down from upon high without considering the intent behind them does not help deal with. Its also a problem that will get worse as more and more of culture and commerce moves online.
 * My apologies for such a long reply.--BoatThing 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies for editing with my cranky pants on. Slapping self with trout for pointless nastyness. -  brenneman  04:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflicts are wheeee) There is a glimmer of truth to, at least, the first proposal:
 * "non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." =/= "Reliable sources". One is a subset of the other: If it's used for notability it should sure as hell be used in the article itself. But the reverse is not true: take a look at Megatokyo's references and tell me just how many of those meet the exact wording WP:N provides. It certainly isn't a majority.
 * Near as I can tell, the publishing rule has been in place (or at least been justified in staying) was because works published by a non-vanity publisher tend to attract reviews aka sources, which honest-to-goddess are our ultimate goal here. I realize self-publishing is a major milestone in webcomickry, but "a clear commercial enterprise" can mean anything from selling ten to a million books, so long as it's at a profit.
 * Proposal three seems to be a clumsily stated means of trying to get Comixpedia to be a reliable source (much like the current "distributor" criteria was set back when we simply assumed Keenspot comics were in). While I do disapprove of such wikilobbying on principle, I have cited a Slashdot article before.
 * -- Nifboy 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally can't see anything wrong with this solution. Having numerous good reviews from major blogs and other comics artists may not be usable in an article, but certainly shows notability, and this should be noted. One of the main reasons there's such an uproar is because it's very hard to show notability (about equal to popularity, in this case) of something published on the web using only print sources and news outlets, unless it has a major marketing force behind it. This guideline would help solve that, while admitting that the information there probably isn't to be used without large grains o' salt. Adam Cuerden talk 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please now stop with the hyperbole about "purges" thank you?
The goosefucker says: Enough nonsense. While this data is probably incomplete (what no comics got deleted in December?) it's from the deletion category pages, the main webcomics project page, and the webcomics deletion archive. Either provide better data showing that there is actually some sort of purge going on or stop saying it. - brenneman  02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that deletions continue happening _at all_ while the status of, at least, the WCCA is in flux (and at least some of these deletions hinge on WCCA not being a well-known award). Even if there's not yet a flood, the floodgates have been opened. I would support a moratorium if there were any mechanism by which to declare one. --Random832(tc) 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to see the point of this data. I mean, a decrease in deletion doesn't really mean much, especially when just a few months ago deletion was extremely high. One could even conclude from this data that the deletions decreased because pretty much all the minor articles had already been swallowed up in the massive amount of deletions that preceded the slump, which even sounds plausible as most of the recent deletions have gained so much attention lately. I mean seriously, there have been some outright stupid AfD nominations lately. - Zaron 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A decrease in total deletions says nothing about trends in a small subset of articles. Adam Cuerden talk 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're both sticking to the claim that there is an upsurge in nominations despite them being lower than they have in over a year? - brenneman  04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You really don't understand the difference between "total nominations encyclopedia wide, covering a diverse range of subjects" vs. "within a small subset of articles", and why one does not necessarily affect the other? Adam Cuerden talk 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Arr, wait, I see there's a title to that graph. It's a fair point, but one of the major problems is that almost all the non-notable ones have been deleted already, so a lot of stupidity has started. Adam Cuerden talk 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Multiple references to the stupidity of other editors is probably not the best way to try to carry on a WP:CIVIL discussion. -- Dragonfiend 05:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do note that the ratio of kept to deleted is much higher than in the last quarter of last year, which may lend some validity to that argument.
 * However, as someone who actually follows webcomics nominations while almost constantly trying to get some standards agreed upon, I have no sense that the number or idiocy of deletins has incrased.
 * Without causing offense, or suggesting that wikiage = wisdom, I do note a lot of new names rolling arouns in a fairly old debate.
 * There's only a problem with this is if the "noobz" fail to come with some sense of what's come before
 * For example, some recent suggestions (such as "lengthy existance = keep") have been soundly trounced before.
 * We've been deleting forty or so webcomics a month for pushing eighteen months.
 * If a climate of hysteria is created based upon not knowing that, it makes it hard to have sensible discussions. i'd really like the accusations of jihad, purge, goosefucking, whatever, be put aside.  There is not at this stage any evidence to support them.
 * brenneman 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your argument neglects the "quality" (in this case: how well-known and established it is, not by Wiki policies, but by the webcomic community) of the comics in question.
 * Taking two current examples: Starslip Crisis versus Squirms. One has an archive that has 500-600 comics (roughly estimating and assuming that it ran daily since May '05), won an award that is well respected by other major comics and was created by the guy who did another well-known comic. The other one has four pages. By your graph, both comics have exactly the same weight, and deleting two comics like Squirms is twice as "bad" as deleting one like Starslip Crisis. (I should maybe say that I have nothing against Squirms and that I don't even read Starslip Crisis myself. I just picked two extremes from the current AfDs.)
 * The current "uproar" is not about quantity alone. It's about quantity among comics that are well-known. What month would be worse? The month in which we delete all 170+ disused railway station in the UK or the month in which we delete History of the United States or Mahatma Gandhi? Ignoring (a) that this is an "apples vs oranges" case and (b) that I picked very extreme examples, it shows that numbers alone don't tell the whole story.
 * We all know that there are most likely thousands of webcomics out there. And I think most people agree that Wikipedia is not the right place for comics that died half a decade ago because of too little interest or for comics that just started. So very few people will argue against those comic entries being deleted. It's just that the recent weeks have had quite a few cases that did not fall into these categories.
 * I fully admit that I did not follow all webcomic deletions in 2006. I do not know exactly what got deleted. All I know is that a bunch of quite well-known comics got deleted within the past two months, and the combined weight of these comics is what's causing the bad mood, not the raw number alone.
 * This is at least my approach to this entire thing, and I'm not saying that I represent "the community" or anything. But it's based on what I read in the blogs that got quoted up and down recently, and it may explain the current mood a bit.
 * Do I think that there is a Comic Jihad going on? Do I think that "you guys" are out to get "us guys"? No, I honestly don't think so. I may not agree with what happened, but I don't think that there is a secret society of Evil Anti-Comic Guys. But there have been quite a few "high-profile" (by community standards) cases recently, and it's not terribly easy to assume that all those nominations were made in the same time frame by coincidence alone.
 * (The fact that both the WCCA and the Ursa Major Award were nominated and deleted "fairly recently" doesn't exactly help, considering that quite a few comics rely/relied on them for notability.) --Sid 3050 13:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of "awards", webcomics should pass the primary notability criterion. Most of them don't, most of them are non-notable, industry-insider "awards" aside. (There are, of course, exceptions, but the vast majority of webcomics are not notable, are not covered in reliable secondary sources, and are not suitable for inclusion as pretty much anything that can be written would be done by reading the comics themselves.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I guess you're sorta trigger-happy with the webcomic-related "WP:N! WP:N!" arguments right now (can't really blame you in the face of the current discussions), but I'm not here to discuss webcomic notability or awards. Please re-read what I wrote and what I replied to. I tried to offer an explanation for why people spoke up recently despite what the pretty numbers say.
 * I only added the last 1-2 lines of my lengthy post because the WCCA and Ursa Major are quite well-known in webcomic circles. Those two deletions weighed a lot more than some "five strips in six years" comics only two people ever heard of. Additionally, before the current change to WP:WEB, at least one comic was deleted with the basic reasoning being "WCCA is non-notable, so this comic does not fulfill WP:WEB, so it's non-notable", making it implicitly appear as if the award restoration might do something for the comic's notability (Whether or not this was what he meant doesn't really matter to me; I'm quite willing to assume that the admin didn't mean it that way and that I just misinterpreted it). As you will surely agree, that is not really how it's going to be.
 * Is this change to WP:WEB going to soothe the waves? Not at all. On the contrary, I guess. Just look at the current AfDs where the Keep votes say "Notable because of WCCA". All those comments are now completely and officially wrong. Will that make those people happy? I don't think so. But am I driving around in my little "Webcomic Warrior" (There should totally be a "This user is a Webcomic Warrior" user template thingy) chariot, waving banners in protest against the policy or for webcomic notability? No. I'm quite aware that most webcomics will fail WP:N. I'm not happy and I don't agree with the outcome, but I don't argue against it. I merely stated some educated guesses about why "the webcomic community" started to focus on Wikipedia these weeks and not earlier, based on a few observations. There was really no need to emphasize again how most webcomics are non-notable, but I still appreciate the attention ;) --Sid 3050 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Webby Awards
Receiving a Webby Award is an acceptable criterion for inclusion.... why? Of all the possible criteria we could use for notability, we use this? An award which is awarded to a small subset of websites which pay a large fee to even be eligible for the award? I'd rather us have a "100 Wikipedians like it" criterion than have this. --- RockMFR 04:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, so comics awards are not sources of notability, but paying for an award is? Adam Cuerden talk 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was introduced to the text way way waaaay back when we decided "100 comics" wasn't being taken seriously as a criteria. I certainly have no opposition to removing it. Nifboy 05:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to removing it -- if a website or podcast winning an award isn't noted by muliple non-trivial reputable sources, than the award isn't much of an indicator of notability. Not sure what "pay a large fee to even be eligible for the award" has to do with it -- as I recall, quite a few major awards have entrance fees. -- Dragonfiend 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So now instead of winning an extremely well known award being enough, we've removed that because of the (admittedly ridiculous) fee, and instead say that any of the 214 listed in Category:Awards or Zog knows how many in its 23 subcategories makes web content notable by association. This guideline is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive.  Can anyone point to an AFD in which one of these mostly subtrivial awards many any difference whatsoever?  Even one? &mdash;Cryptic 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, you do raise an interesting point. That criterion for "award winning" has been there for awhile but as a whole does not appear to get used much.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested tweak:
Current: ...web-specific content[3] are deemed notable, if they meet any one of the following criteria.

Suggested: ...web-specific content[3] are deemed notable, if they meet any one of the following criteria, or others, of similar merit, which should be explained at the top of the talk page.

Reasoning: While this could be dangerous, it does seem that in a few cases there may be sites notable for reasons that don't easily fit into the categories suggested below. For example, Mystery House (obviously not a website, but a thing that comes to mind) was the first graphical computer game, and is notable for that, but is otherwise non-notable. Clearly, we should have an article on it, but it'd be hard to write guidelines that would include it. As such, we oughtn't be too dogmatic about our guidelines. Adam Cuerden talk 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually, the lead section of the article itself is used for establishing notability (for example, "Neglected Mario Characters is... arguably the originator of the "sprite comic" style,[1]"). See: WP:LEAD. Nifboy 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And if I were trying to improve the Mystery House article I'd cite sources in that lead paragraph like Computer Gaming World: "... when Roberta Williams released Mystery House in 1981, she created a new evolutionary branch of computer gaming. Prior to this, many of the early mainframe computer games of the 1960s and 1970s were strictly text driven. Mystery House was the first computer game to pair black-and-white images with these adventures." -- Dragonfiend 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability (web): multiple or two or more
Some of the webcomic warriors have taken to modifying the guideline by changing the phrase "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." to "The content itself has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I would like to see a discussion to form a broad consensus before such a change is made to any of the notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Wiktionary says that multiple means "Having more than one element, part, component or function" (emphasis mine), so "two or more" sounds pretty much like a short and exact definition of "multiple" to me, especially since it prevents people from raising the bar just because X>1 is not "multiple enough" in their eyes or something like that.
 * So this isn't really a modification of the guideline, even though it will quite certainly modify some people's interpretation of it. But I do agree that changes should be discussed, even though a clarification like this should be welcome.
 * As a side note: The change apparently was introduced by User:Fagles, who has made (from what I see) exactly ONE webcomic-related edit in this year, and that was a comment on the Evil Inc. DRV. That hardly appears to be a "webcomic warrior". --Sid 3050 14:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If it makes a difference, we tend to read "multiple" in this context to mean "at least n", where n is some number decided by each individual editor themselves based on the situation at hand. There is no need to start explicitly defining n for all people and all situations.  WP:NOT a bureaucracy.  Chris cheese whine 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that strike you as extremely wrong fuzzy? "The word has a dictionary definition, but we let every editor come up with his/her own definition" sounds deeply flawed to me. Maybe the word you are looking for is the horribly fuzzy "many" ("An indefinite large number of." per Wiktionary). But like I said above, fuzzy terms only invite people with a bad day to raise the bar to whatever level they please, so the MoS link Fagles gave sounded like a good approach.
 * I'm fairly new here, so I have to go with what the pages say. And when I see "multiple" and have doubts about the meaning of the word, I usually ask a dictionary and not a sample of x "established editors".
 * If I understand your reasoning correctly, the sentence should maybe be rephrased to "The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself in a quantity that is appropriate for the subject and the article length" (VERY hasty phrasing). It would still be fairly fuzzy, but it would at least give a hint about the interpreation issue you mentioned, and it would admit that it's fuzzy without hiding behind a word that actually has a quite clear definition. Right now, what you mean is not what the guideline says, and that appears to be what caused this discussion. --Sid 3050 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fuzzy, because we're rarely consistent. Each situation is different, and each source is different.  The inherent flaw with saying that "multiple" has a clear meaning is that the "clear" meaning that any one person will come up with might not match another.  We don't say "many", as for some that has a connotation of n being far greater than it need be.  It's entirely down to what the sources are, and what they're being used to support.  It may be slightly broken, but breaking it even further does nobody any good.  Chris cheese whine 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But two other editors who are heavily involved in the wikicomic disputes were inserting it back in. But I have to agree with Chris, "multiple" should be weighted against the significances of the coverage by the articles in question. An article with a brief, but nontrivial mention of the subject should be weighted less then an article that is dedicated entirely to the subject. Thus, when you have two articles dedicated entirely to the subject, that would normally count as "multiple", however, if it is only one or two paragraphs in a much larger article, then you will need more articles to demonstrate its notability. --Farix (Talk) 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry fellows, but let's not define policy on the basis of webcomic articles, shall we? Multiple sources means just that: a large enough number of sources to attest to notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Web comic warriors"? Um, do we not want to tone it down a little bit. How about we edit this guideline to bring it in line with WP:V?  Where does it demand multiple sources there? What's happened to us, that we are here already placing caveat on caveat?  Oh, not only does it have to be multiple sources, but they have to be twelve page treatises.  This is a guideline.  It's guidance, it's not the damn bible and it certainly isn't a damn policy.  Stop treating it with such reverence. The one thing I was clear upon when I helped write this was that it shouldn't be a deletionist tool.  Ah well. Hiding Talk 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! :) --Kizor 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And god help us when changing multiple to two or more became controversial. Hiding Talk 20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding policy, my thinking goes something like this: WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." WP:NOT: "articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" Is it an "exceptional claim" to say a website has had impact or historical significance? Yes. Do exceptional claims require strong sources? Yes. Do "strong sources" equal multiple non-trivial sources? Yes. Is this how our WP:NOTE content guideline recommends we should act on our WP:V and WP:NOT content policies? Yes. --Dragonfiend 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disgree, but remember, I am a webcomic warrior so I must cleave your head in two with my broadsword. Or, to put it another way, let's unpick it just a little. Are we here to determine what has had an historical significance or impact?  Are we here to judge that?  Are we here to determine what is an exceptional claim, and what is a reliable source?  Do we have the right?  God I sound like a cliched character from a comic book.  No, web comic.  I'm a webcomic warrior.  What I'm looking at is this:  Are we here to inform readers?  Do we only include that which has had historical impact bar way up high, or historical impact bar in the middle, or historical impact bar down the bottom?  Is it the same across the board?  Is a local councillor fair game?  How do we scale this stuff to specific fields of interest? The big stuff is easy, your sports people have got to be professional, your actors have go to be in TV or on stage, that sort of thing.  But we're in the mud here, down and dirty.  It's webcomics.  They don't even print the strips are they going to print a magazine about them?  We need to level the playing field a little. Science, huge swathes of printed articles, that's their medium.  Likewise books.  But web stuff?  They use the web.  So how do we do it? Articles "should" rely on.  Should.  Don't have to.  Sometimes can't.  That policy is written, let's be honest, to cover every damn filed of interest going.  We allow web sources for science and before you know it every tinpot inventor in the land will have an article.  So we can't change that policy. But we need to work out what is best for webcomics. What sources are we going to let through?  How do we determine who does fact checking?  I mean, okay everyone says this, but which newspaper was it that had the journalist making things up?  I mean, who would you trust to be reliable on webcomics?  The NYT or Comixpedia?  I don't want to give a blank cheque to every damn webcomic in the world to have an article, but by the same token there's a grey area.  There's that spot which in other fields they can muddle through on, those lesser lights that shine enough to see but not enough to dazzle.  The fourth division footballers, the people who did the voices in Touche Turtle, the band whose two albums both reached 40. How do we sort that out for webcomics?  That's all I'm thinking about.  We can't keep moving the goalposts.  Multiple sources can't mean two today and three tomorrow, that a webcomic was the first strip on Keen whatever shouldn't be an exceptional claim today if a fourth division footballer is fair game.  Where is the consistency? Hiding Talk 21:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "multiple" gives us some wiggle room to adapt the guidelines to the situation. I'm also afraid that people are going to wikilawyer the "two or more" to death, at least far more then it already is. It is also a sign of instruction creep. Do we really need to specificity define "multiple"? Do we also need to specificity define "non-trivial", which would be the next step in "eliminating ambiguity". --Farix (Talk) 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, here's the problem. Wiggle room. Adaptable.  Whoever wrote this damn guideline should be shot.  It's the wiggle room that causes the issues when it wiggles against you.  I used to say we should never write anything down, because it only causes problems, and I wish now I'd listened to it. Hiding Talk 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding "multiple vs. two or more," I don't see enough of a difference between the two to care either way. However, this language is in multiple (yes, two or more) other notability guidelines, so any change made ought to be made to all. I'm also wondering if there's a better way to centralize these discussions that effect multiple guidelines, as they seem to be out of step with each other. Any ideas? Merge them all together? -- Dragonfiend 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had posted a notice about this discussion at Village pump (policy). Perhaps taking it there since it is going to affect the other notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Would an easier fix be to dump "multiple, non-trivial" and substitute it with something I've proposed at WP:N - "Web content is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether there are sufficient reliable sources to write a proper article should be left to WP:V. --Farix (Talk) 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So what about establishing "notability?" Shouldn't sufficiency be the most important part? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We'd only shift to arguing over what constitutes sufficient, independent works that are reliable. And in response to Farix, if that should be left to WP:V, why shouldn't determining if there are multiple, non-trivial sources be left to WP:V? Hiding Talk 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Replacing "non-trivial" with "sufficient" doesn't seem to change anything; replacing "multiple" with "two or more" or any plural noun like "works" doesn't either. If there is a problem with interpreting how many is enough, or how trivial is non-trivial, then let's just work that out to whatever extend we can in a guideline. Probably over on WP:N --Dragonfiend 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How do dictionaries define the word "multiple"?

 * Some dictionaries define "multiple" as meaning "two or more." Others define it differently
 * Wiktionary says that multiple means "Having more than one element, part, component or function"
 * Meriam Webster defines "multiple" as "consisting of, including, or involving more than one"
 * Cambridge Dictionary online defines it as "very many of the same type, or of different types"
 * --Fagles 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the wording of the guideline be changed from "multiple" to something else?

 * * Yes, the wording must be changed. The discussion above makes clear that editors have widely different interpretations of the word "multiple," some of which differ wildly from the dictionary definition.  If editors are using different definitions of a key word in the relevant guideline, that will pose an unneccessary barrier to efforts to reach cconsensus as to whether the guideline is met.  Therefore, I think that "multiple" should be replaced something less ambiguous - or, if you want ambiguity, with words that are transparently ambiguous, such as "sufficient."  As Hiding observed, "Multiple sources can't mean two today and three tomorrow."  In sum if you don't want the guideline to say "two or more," don't use the word "multiple," because that's how some dictionaries define it.  --Fagles 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If the wording of the guideline should be changed, what should it be changed to?

 * Here are some possibilities for rephrasing the guideline:
 * 1) "two or more" -- I originally suggested this because I did not know what "multiple" means and looked it up in my dictionary. My desk dictionary defined "multiple" as "two or more."
 * 2) "at least n sources, where n is some number decided by each individual editor." -  suggestion by Chris
 * 3) "The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself in a quantity that is appropriate for the subject and the article length" - suggested by Sid 3050
 * 4) two articles dedicated entirely to the subject; however if it is only one or two paragraphs in a much larger article, then more articles are needed to demonstrate its notability. suggested by Farix
 * 5) a large enough number of sources to attest to notability. suggested by ≈ jossi ≈
 * 6) "Web content is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article?" --badlydrawnjeff
 * 7) A topic is notable if it has been a central subject of a sufficient number of reputable and independent encyclopedic sources. - mentioned by GRBerry at the Village pump, referencing User:Trialsanderrors/On notability

If the wording of the guideline is changed, should that change be harmonized with other guidelines that use "multiple"?

 * Regarding "multiple vs. two or more," I don't see enough of a difference between the two to care either way. However, this language is in multiple (yes, two or more) other notability guidelines, so any change made ought to be made to all. I'm also wondering if there's a better way to centralize these discussions that effect multiple guidelines, as they seem to be out of step with each other. Any ideas? Merge them all together? -- Dragonfiend, copied here by by --Fagles 02:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion on this question. --Fagles 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Consensus must be reached at the various places for it to best fit the individual subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say something? (notability vs. verifiability)
Notability has nothing to do with verifiability. WP:V (and the new WP:ATT) doesn't speak to inclusion (in a whole-article sense) at all, except in the sense that something that cannot be verified should not be included (i.e. if enough to write an article, or even a stub, can be verified with only a single independent source, or with appropriate use of primary sources for non-controversial claims, it passes WP:V). --Random832(tc) 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See above, "Regarding policy, my thinking ..." Basically, WP:N is where WP:NOT meets WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Centrality of WT:N
As edit-warring is still taking place over this issue, please discuss it here so that hopefully consensus can finally be established. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Websites of similar reliability to published works"
While I think there needs to be some clear indication that reliable websites which are watched over by editors do indeed fall under published works, and therefore can be used as proof of notability, I think the phrase could use a better choice of words. As it is, it seems to imply that such websites are NOT published works, when in fact, the entire reason they should be included is because they are. Anyone have some better suggestions on how we can word this? - Zaron 07:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I felt the need to specify because I had yet to hear anyone use the word "publish" in conjunction with, exclusively, fact-checked/edited websites. I've always heard it used in the "self-publishing" sense. Nifboy 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "reliable websites with moderated content", or is that too likely to end up with someone claiming a wiki or a forum? Adam Cuerden talk 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Websites with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V, with a footnote along the lins of "self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" per WP:RS. -- Dragonfiend 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. But some of this is going to be of a literary nature: how do you check the accuracy of, say, a comic review site? Remember, part of this is just going to be to check notability, not so much facts, which for literary endeavours can at least in part be done with one source: The literary endeavour itself. (at least as far as a B-class article, anyway) Adam Cuerden talk 09:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * However, we shouldn't ever write an article solely based on primary sources, that's an invitation to original research. Basically, the vast majority of webcomics are not notable. In a couple years, that may well be different, but right now, there's just not enough reliable sourcing out there. We shouldn't be the first source to report on something, if anything, we should be the last. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But the simple fact is we regularly do. For instance, from a no primary source perspective, all the articles on individual Pokémon fail, many of the ones on TV shows, a great number of the ones on books... If we'd allow a book article that's a plot summary with a little bio of the author from the about the author section, and an assertation of nobility - which we regularly do - we probably should put the same rules on comics and such. Is there a Notability (literature) section we can crib from? Adam Cuerden talk 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability (books) Yep. Winning a major literary award is enough. I suppose the question comes down to whether Webcomics awards count as major enough, because we ought to be consistant. Adam Cuerden talk 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "from a no primary source perspective, all the articles on individual Pokémon fail" What makes you say this? I quick search at my libray shows over 500 newspapaper and magazine articles that discuss Charmander. Why would you expect there to be no secondary sources for these characters? WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You do know that Pokémon is a huge worldwide craze of toys, books, movies, games, etc., right? --Dragonfiend 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the whole Pokemon argument is probably best dropped, as there are overstatements on both sides. Not ALL individual Pokemon articles fail to abide by the "no secondary sources" standard, but on the other hand few Pokemon are covered as thoroughly as Charmander, being one of the most common Pokemon in the game. However, I think Adam does make a good point when he says there are very many articles which get much of their information from their primary source. Whether this is a statement that primary sources should be considered valid or that the other articles are poor, is of course debatable. - Zaron 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing, I think I should clarify that I don't in any way mean to say that primary sources should be used for establishing notability. - Zaron 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, my point was simply that a lot of articles are, by connection with a large trend, or for other reasons, are going to be based on primary sources, and I don't think that that alone should be a reason for deletion, if there's reasons to think it notable. For a less controversial instance, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is clearly a notable article - it's one of the most quoted essays on evolution, written by the person who set off the modern synthesis. However, beyond the very brief background section on "the phrase", I would be very surprised to learn anything else wasn't from the original source, and far more surprised to learn that it could be. Adam Cuerden talk 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

groupthink
Semi-random brain dump: The ongoing debate shows that there are things that are (currently) not a good fit to the existing Wikipedia groupthink with regards to sourcing, notability, and verification. The reliable sources page (which is where most of the above debate should be taking place) has been demonstrated as virtually bulletproof. So... Soft redirects have been mentioned before as one example, but I'd like to see some broader discussion here. Why exactly is it that we keep having these (extremely passionate) discussions? brenneman 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome of the WACCA awards deletion discussion, lots of articles exist that are only satisfying one criterion,
 * Regardless of the satisfaction of any criterion, lots of web articles have only primary sources that allow them to be expanded beyond a micro-stub.
 * What purpuse so other (more permissive) web-content wikis serve as compared to Wikipedia,
 * What is is that any particular web content article gets out of a wikipedia entry, and
 * Surely we should be trying to build on the the strengths of the various sites?
 * RS is not bullet-proof in a good way, there's as much dispute over that guidance as this, and it's slowly being deprecated for WP:ATT at any rate. But putting that aside, the problem is being caused by the differences of opinion over what Wikipedia is.  It lies in the different values of encyclopedic we all seem to have, and the different solutions to problems we all seem to have.  What causes the problem, if you ask me, is that people are to quick to nominate something for deletion, with no forethought for an articles history or anything.  Deletion nomination is seen to easily as the solution to "I don't like that".  I'm saddened by that, seriously.  Me, I sort of shrug my shoulder's, try and improve the article to my standard of what it should look like, and assume someone else might find it useful and move on.  Or I might merge the info.  What we do by deleting, or even nominating for deletion, is we label the information in the article as having no value.  That's simply not true in most instances, because if it was true it would meet our speedy deletion criteria.  There is usually some information of worth, no matter how small, and that usually tells us the answer as to what to do with the article.  Take Starslip Crisis.  The real solution to this article is either a stub or a merge and redirect.  Not a deleted page template, that helps no-one.  Maybe we need to loosen slightly the criteria at List of webcomics.  Maybe we could redirect the articles of webcomics which have won a WCCA but don't meet other criteria there, and add them to the list.  It still won't overly swamp the list.  But we have to stop declaring this information is of absolutely no value whatsoever.   Information should be respected.  Yes, it is relatively easy to become a webcartoonist, and yes, it is an arena with little academic, scholarly or press coverage, so we need to tread careful.  But we need to at least agree that there is a grey area, and that constantly fighting and drawing clear lines of engagement and insulting each other and simply reciting a per WP:N and labelling people webcomic warriors and declaring all webcomics worthy is no good.  We have to work together,. and there has to be give and take by all of us.  We have to reason.  There's a world out there watching us.  It would be nice not to behave like chimps at a tea party.  I'm not going to start insisting my opinion of what we should include is the right one, because I can't know that.  I can't know what other people want to read.  But I want to trust the processes we use to get there.  But that means we each have a responsibility to listen and engage with each other, not put on our blinkers, set our feet and battle our own opinion. It's quite possible that using the fact that a webcomic has won a WCCA as a source of notability by itself is not sustainable, but we've got to work out why.  We've got to build a consensus one way or the other.  And we don't build that by insisting we're right and waiting for the other side to cave. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 12:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I take exception on your use of the term "Wikipedia groupthink". Our policies are not groupthink: these reflect the community's consensus. And if you do not find that consensus acceptable, there are always other wikis that you can contribute to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is what they reflect. Sometimes it seems to me they reflect the views of the people watching the specific policy page in question, rather than community consensus. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, should I use next time? As someone who spends a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to get consensus on stable, sensible guidlines I'd have thought... well, anyway.  And suggesting I "fork off" is pretty rude, jossi. -  brenneman  05:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"What we do by deleting, or even nominating for deletion, is we label the information in the article as having no value."
I think this is the root of the problem, this statement. To me it's utterly false, incorrect to it's core. Directions to my house don't belong here, but they have value. It's quite possible for things to be "valuable" but still not go here. What would be wrong with severe "pure" stubs (probably grouped in some way into larger articles) with soft redirects to comixpedia? - brenneman  05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, when someone starts a deletion debate like that then bravo, I'm happy, but come on, you've got to be kidding me if you think there isn't even the germ of truth in the above statement. Maybe you can't see it, but are you suggesting that's not how other people see it? Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm talking about is the lazy nominations, the nominations where people don't even take the time to research what they are nominating. I mean Galaxion was a print comic that was nominated for violating WP:WEB.  There was that comic book publisher also nominated for violating WP:WEB.  That's what makes me think people are simply labeling the info as having no value.  Because if they thought it had a value, they would try and find it.  They'd research it, and maybe they'd learn something and work out where the information is supposed to be.  We shouldn't be listing stuff that can be just as easily merged and redirected.  I admit I don't follow afd anymore, but the reason I left it was because it was filled with deletion statements with no thought to alternative.  It was like an army of cybermen.  I take Wikipedia seriously, I try to consider everything.  I'm not always right, possibly hardly ever right, but I feel I have the right to demand the same from every other contributor.  Deletion is saying this is of no value.  Because if it wasn't, we would not be deleting it.  Your point about directions to your house is specious, because we're sitting here discussing an encyclopedia.  I think I posted a few more words than just this one statement, and I think the argument I made contextualised the points I wanted to get across, but either I failed again or my arguments are reduced once again to meaningless soundbites.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Can't we at least agree on that? Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh, I'm clearly not expressing myself very well. I was attempting to convey that I mostly agree with you regarding stubs, merging, and the ilk.  But even if we re-phrase it as "by deleting we label the information in the article as having no encyclopedic value" it's a deeply deceptive statement.  By deleting (or nominating) we should be saying simply "this is not a good fit for Wikipedia."  Part of the knee-jerk/lazy/whatever deletion nomination cycle is an over-reaction to articles (and classes of articles) that fail to conform to the bedrock standards of verifiability and freedom from bias.  If we could agree on some containment strategy as a better solution than deletion I'd be happy. -  brenneman  07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag?
This has come up on the village pump, etc, before, and this talk page has mentioned. I get the sense that anyone in the community who cares one way or the other knows where to find the discussion. The one audience that I think we're missing are the people who cite the page and are generally satisfied with the contents, or who get it cited to them and feel resigned to it since, hey, it's a guideline. That's why I wanted the disputed tag up - to indicate "This guideline is under substantial debate, and may change in the near future, see talk page" - maybe we need a new tag for that. Something to "pull" in casual readers to get more community participation. --Random832(tc) 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Eh, if it's disputed, it's disputed, even if the main issue is phrasing and lack of guidance. A few people saying they dispute it proves it's disputed, in my opinion. However, I agree that, even if it is disputed, that particular tag isn't particularly useful. How about a new tag, saying that the guideline is under discussion, and to see the talk page? Adam Cuerden talk 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a disputed tag seems appropriate, as this guideline certainly is "under substantial debate." - Zaron 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really... the simple fact is that this guideline gets used day in, day out, almost without controversy, in tens to hundreds of debates. The shattering silence in non webcomic deletion discussions (I'll provide a long list upon request) shows that this guideline has wide-ranging community support.  There's a strong selection bias on the current talk page contributors, as well as positive feedback loop, but this guideline is not actually disputed. -  brenneman  05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see a value in the disputed tag. They just cause even more disputes, you ask me. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see a value neither. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the value, but not as full-blown. It appears that there is a massive pushback on this guideline concerning webcomics that needs to be addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Aaron nailed it dead on-this guideline is not really disputed. Basically, the guideline tag at the top says there are some exceptions to it. Some people think webcomics should be one of those exceptions. I personally don't, many others don't. What we certainly do not need to do, though, is start allowing unreliable sources to establish notability. The whole point of notability is to make sure that sufficient secondary sources exist to write more than a stub from. Those do us no good if we can write nothing from them due to unreliability! Anyone can post anything on a blog or self-publish at a vanity press. Anyone can write anything on Comixpedia. Comixpedia is a great place for in-depth, complete coverage of everything conceivable in the webcomics world. Wikipedia is not, because most webcomics aren't notable, and a lot of loud yowling and abusive AfD's from webcomic authors on blogs about how unfair that is aside, they're not. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between seeking exceptions and noting that the guideline doesn't work for webcomics anymore. They used to be separate, then they were combined, perhaps the combination wasn't the best idea given the higher profile the genre's been enjoying as of late both on and off-wiki.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think they work for webcomics, I just dispute applicational issues. I'd be happy if maybe we could look at adding a note on merging to the guidance. If the webcomic genre really was enjoying a higher profile we'd have better sources, wouldn't we?  I don't think they used to be separate, either, in the sense that a combining happened.  The webcomic guidance was just expanded and rewritten to cover all web content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiding (talk • contribs). 18:34, 20 February 2007) (edit) (undo)
 * I've added a note about merging, the language is swiped pretty much from WP:N. --Dragonfiend 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even see why that is required... guidelins are under discussion all the time. What is a tag meant to be doing, what would be the purpose? -  brenneman  07:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainly to encourge participation, and help hold off any bad-publicity major deletions. Adam Cuerden talk 08:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The "bad publicity" is wildly over-stated. A couple of guys on a couple of blogs in the webcomics zone have kicked a stink, but that's hardly new.  Really, all kidding aside, this is a fairly stable guideline. -  brenneman  23:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards portion of the guideline
I'm sure this will get me labled the spawn of bob, accused of bad faith, having hitler's love child, or worse, but it's an obvious question: Should winning (or being multiple nominated for) an award that barely squeaks by our baseline requirements for having an article be enough to include another article? "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization."

If we limit ourselves to what comes from a reliable source and 'fail to rely almost entirely on the primary source, that means articles of this type would be stubs of the nature of "Foo is written by bar and won award foobar in 2007." To me this seems a sub-optimal solution.

I've proposed at leat one other solution above, soft redirects to comixpedia. Another option would be grouping things by the "syndicate" that published them. I'd like to hear more porductive suggestions.

brenneman 07:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Many articles are, in fact, based, or based in part, on the primary source. For instance, every single "Synopsis" section of a book, play, movie, or opera can almost be guaranteed to be primary source. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. As well, I'd actually be inclined to say winners of awards could well be more notable than the awards themselves, as few people pay much attention to awards, but they're a useful indication of strong interest in a subject awarded one, hence notability. Having a short article setting out the basic plotline and characters of notable comics is quite sufficient to encyclopedic coverage. Indeed, most encyclopedias have quite a number of short articles on less important, but still notable things. Why should Wikipedia be different, and why should we judge every article by its potential to reach FA, when B class or GA may be sufficient information? Adam Cuerden talk 07:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT: "Wikipedia 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. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." So, no, short articles setting out the basic plotline and characters is not what we are after. As far as soft-redirects go, I'm open to the idea, as long as there is some standard for them -- since Comixpedia.org has no content policies that I can tell, I don't think it woudl be a good idea to soft redirect readers from Wikipedia to hoaxes and attack pages over on Comixpedia. As fars as the question of whether a website winning an award that at best barely meets our notability standards automatically confers notability to every website it gives a nomination or award to -- no. -- Dragonfiend 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems contentious and opposed to actual practice. I think I'll put up a query on that talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Having talked on the relevant talk page, it's become fairly clear that this is simply a statement that articles need to have context. This is somewhat harder for web-based content, however, if we allow notable blogs and independent (though web-based) reviews from the many internet "news and reviews" sites made by groups with editors, (without requiring particular notability, merely reliability from them), context should be quite possible. Adam Cuerden talk 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's gone before...
Ok, I've just spent the last two and a half hours reading the archives of this talk page. I'd highly recomend that anyone who wants to contribute meaningfully to ongoing discussions do the same thing. The upshot is this: The overwhelming majority of discussion on these pages has related to webcomics.
 * Webcomic's fans (notable excluding two at least) have objected to this guideline almost from the first day, and
 * Long and thoughtful discussion has pretty much failed to create any real alternatives.

I've attempted on more occasions that I'd like to count to get consensus on several items that are "webcomic specific." These are, almost without exception, caveats that allow "wiggle room" with regards to multiple independant sources. More specifically and more recently,
 * Winning an award, or
 * Being distributed by a "syndicate."

As far as I am able to determine, these are only ever applied to webcomics. I've not seen a good argument for the special consideration given to webcomics in this regard.

brenneman 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When I read that particular portion, I don't see them as "caveats." It's part of a clear list. IMO, the reason why you only see these applied to webcomics is only webcomics will be put up for deletion in spite of being distributed by an independent publisher (which is the primary common feature of print comics with articles on Wikipedia, by the way) or winning awards. Take a look at the more obscure print comics articles, the blog articles, and a number of the website articles; in most of the web cases, they assert notability through independent publication, being ranked on the top of their field, etc. In most cases of the more obscure print comics, the articles focus on what various independent publishers have carried the comics.


 * This is not a problem of "walled gardens" and Pokemon-like cruft; this is a problem where the vast majority of editors have similar opinions regarding what makes web content notable, and a select few are finding the question of whether or not those same standards should apply to webcomics irksome.


 * What is particularly irksome about this to me is that it would seem that while WP:WEB's guidelines are fairly clear as to what would make a webcomic notable - unsurprisingly given the amount of input from advocates and detractors of webcomics on this article - the WP:WEB guideline is clearly not being followed in webcomics deletions, even if it is followed elsewhere.


 * For example, every Keenspot comic logically qualifies under the independent publisher clause, and every WCCA winner under the awards clause. A select number of editors and administrators involved in deleting webcomics related articles feel otherwise, but have been unable to generate a consensus to change the WP:WEB guidelines, creating a distinct conflict between guideline and practice.


 * If you feel that almost everybody, with two notable exceptions, are "webcomics" factionalists who have been involved in editing and discussing this policy, then you need to wake up and smell the consensus. "Everybody but me and him!" means that you two, in this case, are some of the few dissenters lying outside of the consensus the rest of us have reached together. Balancer 12:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a quick look at Sluggy Freelance's link page circa 1999, particularly the 20(!) awards at the bottom. The reason most websites with so-called "awards" are uncontroversial is because the non-notability of the award is not in dispute; Additionally, the tendency for a single award or syndicate to propagate amongst dozens of articles which are individually AfD'd only seems to apply to webcomics, since there's effectively one webcomic award (the WCCAs) and a handful of "syndicates". Webcomics = small pond. Keenspot, WCCA = big fish in small pond. Nifboy 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's remarkable that the WCCAs are being disputed. It's a very big fish of an award by internet standards in general and webcomics in particular - it's better known than the Squiddies by now. Balancer 05:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The squiddies would be a fish egg in a puddle, let's be honest here. If you think the WCCA are an award which confers notability through winning them, you are going to have to make an incredibly  strong case.  Points that go against it:
 * Little media coverage.
 * Little online coverage from online reliable sources.
 * Large number of categories.
 * Allowing the voting body to set the limit on the number of categories.
 * We have enough to write an article on the awards, but that by itself is not enough to determine notability. Look at the mainstream coverage the bloggies develop,, , I think you'll see the WCCA's have a long way to go before they're of that standard.  Eisner's and Shuster's are awards I would consider conferring notability, given their greater profiles. Hiding Talk 08:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Winning awards and being distributed don't only apply to webcomics. It includes blogs which are hosted on newspaper websites, for example The New York Times blogs, most but not all of which are written by staff members, this would confer notability on the authors of those blogs.  The same again applies to awards and blogs, the bloggie awards are a good tool to determine notability within the field.  The reason we always seem to discuss webcomics with regards these criteria is because it appears that is where stuff becomes contentious. Nobody seems to mind articles on bloggers or podcaters who meet those two criteria, it only seems to get muddy when it comes to webcomics.  I'm not sure why.  I think everyone involved in the discussion agrees that not all webcomics should be featured in Wikipedia, but it seems when it comes to webcomics the lines get muddy.  I'm not entirely sure why it is such a divisive issue, what webcomics Wikipedia covers.  The guidance was intended as a middle ground, it tried to land a beach of grey within an ocean of black and white, an attempt at compromise on both sides, but it appears that fragile truce has ruptured.  I really think that serious work has to be put into getting another compromise, but I believe that will require movement from both sides.  I'm not at all sure why we can't simply say that strips on Modern Tales and Keen Space or whatever it is this week are ones we will cover, whilst self published ones are ones we will not.  I'm not sure why we can't say that winning the WCCA probably isn't of enough worth, but an Eisner or a Shuster is.  But I think realistically people are going to have to invest time and effort and work out some sort of list of strips which probably merit inclusion.  Because Wikipedia is not a battleground.  And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  We should cover what we can source, and work out from where we can source it.  We should work out how to avoid being a marketing tool, but also work out how to avoid paranoia.  All we ask for is independent sourcing.  There are online magazines which are published, have editors, and cover this field.  Why are we ignoring their opinions?  They meet our policies on sourcing. Depending upon which day you check WP:RS, they can meet that too.  I think the reason this whole issue is so divisive is because people have become emotionally invested in it.  I think that emotion needs to be discharged, and that we need to look at this as we would any other field. That's my opinion, anyway. Hiding Talk 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't necessarily say "nobody" objects. What is a "bloggie"? What's it matter? Most webcomics are non-notable, as are the vast majority of bloggers. (Probably even many who have won a "bloggie", probably some who blog on the NYT site, though those are at least more likely to have secondary source coverage.) But that brings us back to the central issue-are there enough secondary sources to write an article, or are there not? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 13:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, let's just have the argument all over again. Thanks, but no thanks.  The central issue is not "are there enough secondary sources to write an article, or are there not", since our policies only require one secondary source to build an article. The central issue is what can we all live with. Hiding Talk 14:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing about nothing being set in stone, every argument is a repeat for a long enough time value. :) That being said, though, there is a significant amount of debate going on as to whether WP:N is a central guideline, and a lot of support (though not a definite consensus) in favor of the position that "Yes, it is, all others are suggestions as to when it might be passed." Our policies don't even require a single secondary source. It's perfectly verifiable, for example, that I exist. I could easily write a short, NPOV, totally verifiable article about myself from public records and other such sources without a bit of original research. Here, though, is the policy that covers it: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. If people who are unaffiliated with a subject care enough to write comprehensively about it, so do we. If they don't, we don't. We shouldn't be deciding what belongs here, they should. Of course, those sources must work with other policies-they must be neutral, they must be verifiable (which would exclude blogs, sources that aren't editorially controlled/fact-checked/peer-reviewed, etc.), and we should paraphrase but never interpret. That's mainly the problem with primary-source-only problems. We can say something exists. But unless we've got a reliable secondary source, we can't speculate on a character's motivations, we can't say anything happened that isn't absolutely explicitly depicted (and even then, we can only say it was depicted that way, and must be cautious not to read anything in), we basically can't offer anything but a rough directory of characters in a comic. We are not a directory. It's being discriminating that keeps it that way, and that means that sometimes, something you want to write on will turn out to be inappropriate and lack sources. That doesn't mean it's time to update WP:N. It means it's time to find a different subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sentence I was referring to which required third party sourcing has been re-written at WP:ATT. Everything else you say I'm not wholly in dispute with, and I resent the implication that I am attempting to update WP:N simply because I disagree with it. I'm getting weary of people attempting to colour my position in any manner.  I'd much rather people debated my actual words rather than attempt to spin me. The one thing I would dispute is the notion that we can't update WP:N.  Since as you say, nothing is set in stone, we can.  But I'd simply state we don't have to, because WP:N is not a tool for deletion.  I'm well aware of how Wikipedia works, and as I keep attempting to state, the central issue is "What can we live with".  This debate hinges upon a couple of fault lines, both of which involve editorial judgement. Determining notability within the field of webcomics, and determining who is a reliable source.  Policies and guidance would dictate the magazine side of Comixpedia, which publishes reviews of webcomics, is a reliable secondary source, it being published, having editorial input and summarising primary source, the webcomic itself.  Guidance here allows that "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."  This guidance states that the common criteria doe not hold primacy, since the aim is to make sure our coverage is complete if reliable sources miss something.  We guide that there may be times when an article can exist built from primary source only, if that topic meets our notability guidance. So we already have our guidance and policies, what is in dispute is how people seem to be interpreting them.  Nobody is looking to update or rewrite stuff, but rather ask that the policies and guidance are respected.  I would respectfully suggest the people claiming primacy are the ones attempting to rewrite WP:N. Hiding Talk 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if we want to quote from WP:NOT, let us not forget that Wikipedia is not paper:
 * "detailed subtopics and sub-subtopics enrich Wikipedia with information. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy."
 * However, let's also remember that Jimbo Wales has stated his desire that Wikipedia should not become yet another discussion forum, and let's try and solve this issue in a timely manner. Hiding Talk 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'm not at all sure why we can't simply say that strips on Modern Tales and Keen Space or whatever it is this week are ones we will cover," One part of the problem is that people on both sides are confusing and conflating keenspot and keenspace. keenspace has the "geocities problem" - anyone can get on it with no quality control, etc. it's more like a vanity publisher than an independent publisher. And, since the names are similar (even though keenspace isn't called that anymore), whenever anyone _does_ try to say keenspot counts, people on the deletionist side bring out arguments that really only apply to keenspace. --Random832 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comixpedia is a questionable source (regular reading shows it clearly has little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking process) and it should not be used as a source for anything on Wikipedia. It is written from a very limited perspective, 90% of what I read there sends up red flags as being uninformed opinion or self-promotional, and the articles themselves are often trashed by their subjects as being innacurate and unresearched. We should, obviously, avoid such things. --Dragonfiend 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate some pointers to where the articles themselves have been trashed by their subjects, and how this compares with the number of features in newspapers which have been similarly trashed by their subjects. Hiding Talk 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Take Comixpedia's latest "magazine article." My red flags go up around unsourced statements like "Keenspot, Webcomics Nation, and DrunkDuck. ... either charge you or take a cut of what you earn. Most likely a large cut." Those italics are not mine -- what basis is there for the idea that Keenspot is most likely taking away a "large cut" of artists earnings? What basis is there for suggesting that free webhost DrunkDuck "either charge[s] you or take[s] a cut of what you earn"? We need to keep this type of thing as far away from Wikipedia articles as possible. The article also reads, "I'm pretty sure both Dumbrella and Blank Label Comics have some sort of shared hosting thing going on." Dumbrella member Jonathan Rosenberg responds, "did you do any research for this article?" The article says that "Collectives are independent creators banding together, but retaining their independence ... not working for someone else [as creators do with] Keenspot, Webcomics Nation, and DrunkDuck ..." Webcomics Nation creator Joey Manley responds "I don't consider that cartoonists who use WCN work 'for' me any more than cartoonists who use Kinko's work 'for' Kinko's ... It's the opposite, actually. In a very real way, I work for them." Keenspot artist "ubersoft" writes 'I do not work for Keenspot. I am not an EMPLOYEE of Keenspot and never have been. Keenspot has absolutely no, zero, zilch, nada control over the product I put out, they can't make any artistic demands on me," etc. --Dragonfiend 21:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion column. It's not a researched article, and is comparable to an opinion column in your daily newspaper.  I don't think we tend to use opinion columns as reliable sources for much beyond the opinion of the writer there either, do we? Hiding Talk 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I know that's an opinion column, as are all webcomic reviews. You wrote above that "Policies and guidance would dictate the magazine side of Comixpedia, which publishes reviews of webcomics, is a reliable secondary source ..." I am disagreeing with that idea, saying that "the magazine side of Comixpedia, which publishes reviews of webcomics" is not a reliable source, but rather full of ill-informed, unresearched, un-fact-checked opinion that has no place on Wikipedia, as per our policies like WP:ATT: "A questionable source is one with ... a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are ... promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." --Dragonfiend 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I'll go tell them we can't use the New York Times either on the basis of one journalist. I don't follow that one opinion piece means that the magazine side is "full of ill-informed, unresearched, un-fact-checked opinion". At a guess I'd assume we don't use our own notions of the source in question's reputation either. Hiding Talk 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd note that WP:ATT states that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." I'd think then that is worth putting into context how authoritative Comixpedia is likely to be on webcomics, and whether it is credible. Are reviews going to be authoritative and credible? Hiding Talk 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You lost me somewhere in there. I'm not sure where you're being sarcastic or serious. I do gather that you don't believe I've made my point very well. I thought I gave a clear example of what you were asking for, but I guess not. Is there something else you'd like? --Dragonfiend 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for a pointer to some articles, you provided a link to an opinion piece. That's not really a clear cut example, isn't a number of examples, and it doesn't support the assertion you made that the site is "full of ill-informed, unresearched, un-fact-checked opinion".  I would hope you would see that one opinion piece does not fill the site, therefore you have not proved the site is full of.  And the issue here is not what I'd like, it's proving the assertion. Are there any other articles which would help to substantiate the assertion? Hiding Talk 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's turn the tables. Is there anything to indicate that Comixpedia is a reliable, fact-checked source? If you can show this, we can and should use them! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that T Campbell's colums on the history of webcomics was picked up as a book for starters. But let's focus on proving the case that the site isn't a reliable source, please.  People have to build a case that winning a WCCA confers notability, I think it is only fair and balanced that there be an equal debate for those asserting that the site is not a reliable source.  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Rather than snipe at each other and play games over burden of proof, can we just have a discussion.  It's far too easy to ride in halfway through a conversation and change the goalposts.  If you think it isn't a reliable source, explain your reasons and help build a consensus.  If you are only making tendentious comments, that's not helpful in building a consensus, and such comments can be freely ignored.  This issue is central to the whole debate.  People are becoming disillusioned with this whole process regarding webcomics because people make glib statements or stark assertions and don't take the time to make their case.  Make the case so we can point to it every time this discussion rears its head, or be doomed to repeat it forever. Please be part of the solution. Wikipedia is not a battleground, so don't seek to make sides or even assume I have a side in this particular issue.  Hiding Talk 08:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you asked for pointers to some "articles," so I went over to Comixpedia and clicked on the first thing listed under "Magazine Articles" and found it to be a perfect example of the type of ill-informed personal opinion Comixpedia has a reputation for. Now you seem to be drawing a distinction where this is not an "article" but an "opinion piece." Well, of course it is; that was my point, that Comixpedia publishes almost exclusively personal opinions, and ill-informed ones at that. Now, rather than me point you to more personal opinion pieces that you can discount as being personal opinion pieces, can you point me to a recent "article" or two that is the type of independent reporting you are suggesting we use as a reliable secondary source for determining notability so we have some idea what you are talking about? --Dragonfiend 08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if we could either substantiate the claim that Comixpedia has a bad reputation or stop throwing it about as fact for the minute whilst we discuss that point. Now can you show me where I have to point you to something which qualifies as independent reporting? I think here is the nub of the issue.  You seem to be reading the guidance as requiring "reporting", whereas a lot of other people are reading the guidance as requiring "coverage". Comixpedia reviews are cited by scholars,, I suggest it might disprove the claim Comixpedia has a bad reputation if it is being cited by scholars. Essays by Neil Cohn have appeared in the magazine, who is also being cited by scholars and has self-published within the field., . Here's an opinion piece which has been well received by the comments given, , that should balance the one you found. Now I see the point has drifted from you defending "Comixpedia is a questionable source (regular reading shows it clearly has little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking process) and it should not be used as a source for anything on Wikipedia", to asking what "we use (from Comixpedia) as a reliable secondary source for determining notability". I'd suggest that we look at review coverage, I see no good reason at present why a review in Comixpedia is not an independent source, and is not trivial. We don't get into discussing notability as a subjective issue, I think, since we've determined notability is not subjective.  We simply look for some independent sources with non-trivial coverage and we build our article. That's all our notability guidance asks for, stating that the "content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Hiding Talk 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now can you show me where I have to point you to something which qualifies as independent reporting? Sure, Notability (web) (we're on its talk page, so I assume this is what we're talking about?) criteria #1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I'd suggest we look at a month or several worth of "articles" if we want to take a look at whether Comixpedia is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy or a questionable source with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, with a poor reputation for fact-checking, and relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions. We can also look for their staff box and see how many fact checkers and copy editors they employ, etc. --Dragonfiend 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Now can you show me where I have to point you to something which qualifies as independent reporting?" Sure, Notability (web) (we're on its talk page, so I assume this is what we're talking about?) criteria #1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
 * Can you show me the word reporting? Perhaps you missed it, but I asked you to "show me where I have to point you to something which qualifies as independent reporting". Maybe you missed my whole point above on this: "You seem to be reading the guidance as requiring "reporting", whereas a lot of other people are reading the guidance as requiring "coverage". Comixpedia reviews are cited by scholars, ".  Let's tackle this part first, yeah? Hiding Talk 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, now I'm really confused. I gave you an example of what Comixpedia refers to as their latest "magazine article." You, Hiding, wrote "That's an opinion column. It's not a researched article" Which led me to believe you were drawing attention to the distinction between opinion columns vs. more fact-based, researched reporting. If you're not drawing a distinction between opinion columns and more fact-based, researched reporting, then, yes, you've totally lost me and this conversation probably makes no sense from any end of it. --Dragonfiend 21:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There was never going to be an opportune moment to squeeze into such an established debate, but since Hiding's example resurfaced again above, please forgive the "outsider interjection". Here's hoping fresh blood is appreciated. The above research_prop_14.04.05.pdf, does illustrate one scholar's use of Comixpedia, but that source can no longer be traced. I at least got nowhere with the link. I'm stuck with the distinction between Comixpedia as a potential source of valid material, and being a dependably valid source in itself, which I feel Comixpedia simply isn't. Scholars may cite it or publish in it, but it is also essentially a Drupal forum, and as such shouldn't be defined a reliable secondary source. For inherent reasons and the horrific precedent it would set. As dynamic and interesting to field key figures as that community may be, the valid sources will be available elsewhere too.  M URGH   disc.  23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the article yesterday, it's at . I entirely disagree over people's readings of what a reliable source is. A source needs to be reliable enough to substantiate that which is sourced from it.  Here we are talking about reviews.  Are people seriously telling me that Comixpedia is not a reliable source for Comixpedia reviews?  Hiding Talk 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that it is. My point just concerned the danger of placing a "seal of source approval" on the type of site on which I could myself place some contention on, and then exploit as a superficially verified source on WP. M URGH   disc.  15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing against placing the seal of source disapproval on a source for no good reason.  We don't do that.  We allow that the encyclopedia is first and foremost.  We allow that we attribute and we avoid bias, writing articles which are sourced and represent sources fairly and balance sources appropriately.  Where we dispute content we discuss and build a consensus.  We don't act unilaterally.  We work case by case. Now I'm happy to concede that Comixpedia isn't the New York Times, hell I'm happy to concede it ain't the Comics Journal, but I'm also happy to declare it's a rung up from my blog, from USENET, from forum posts and from Joe Blow's fansite. I don't disagree that we should not offer a blanket ticket to use Comixpedia left and right across Wikipedia.  All I'm asking is that we follow our policy, and remember that Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another.  let's keep it in context here.  No-one's arguing that we cite Comixpedia for the Quenn en of England's sex life.  Heck, we want to pull sources apart, I'll list you half a dozen books on comics by reputable authors and point the errors out.  I don't think we'd strike those off our reliable list we all mentally keep.  I'd say every academic source ever published contains errors, do we strike them?  I don't mind evaluating a source in the context of an article, but I don't agree with blanket statements. Ever. Hiding Talk 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we understand that Comixpedia and certain Wikipedia editors have it in for each other. Frankly, I'm more concerned that no secondary source within the field seems "reliable enough" to Dragonfiend. E.g., I brought up reviews from Silver Bullet Comics and Sequential Tart in the Pirate Cove (webcomic) AFD and Dragonfiend did not seem to feel that an eight year old webzine specializing in women in the comic book industry or a british zine on small press print comics that's gotten a prominent non-web based award for its work were suitable sources to establish notability under WP:N. Both are subject to editorial review just as any print magazine would be, and seem to be roughly as reliable. Some people found it convincing, but those who have been always voting to delete webcomics articles did not; one even voted "speedy delete" right after I posted that fresh evidence of notability through detailed reviews in secondary sources. Balancer 09:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we using "reliable source" here as a synonym for "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? Obviously, a source could be reliable for somethings yet be trivial and/or non-independent. The Comics Journal, for example, is a "secondary source within the field that seems 'reliable enough' to Dragonfiend" for most purposes. --Dragonfiend 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your point relates to the issue here. The Silver Bullets and Sequential Tart reviews are substantial and are published in independent sources.  What's the problem with them? Hiding Talk 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is non-trivial in either the depth of its coverage vs/ being a brief summary of the nature of the content, or in its distribution on a webzine. --Dragonfiend 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Distribution in an online magazine matters little. We ask that our sources be published.  Are you suggesting this does not meet that definition, because that's what we used as a yardstick when writing WP:ATT.  A brief summary is three to four lines, I think this is a little more substantive than brief.   Hiding Talk 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiding, we do, in the very guideline we are discussing (WP:WEB), use "non-trivial" and "trivial" to draw distinctions between different types of distribution. Online distribution being more trivial, generally, than offline. --Dragonfiend 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did this guideline suddenly start covering sourcing as well as notability? because the only reference I can find to distribution is in a footnote relating to establishing notability, not relating to sourcing. Last tiume I checked, this was a guideline covering notability and WP:ATT was a policy which covered sourcing, so forgive me if I use WP:ATT to determine my sourcing issues, and WP:WEB to guide me on notability concerns. Hiding Talk 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does this article describe online publications as "trivial", nor does it refer to sources themselves being trivial. In fact, it explicitly includes "websites" as a possible example of a published source independent of the user mentioning this in a non-trivial way. It's perfectly clear that "trivial" is a question of content of the discussion - not as to the method of publication. Balancer 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Hiding, I've got to say, you've made a pretty good argument for using Comixpedia as a source. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Comixpedia "magazine articles"
There appears to be the opinion held by some that the webzine Comixpedia is a reliable source. Per WP:ATT, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. ... In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Others hold the opinion that the webzine Comixpedia is a questionable source. Per WP:ATT, "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." So, let's look at a couple of months worth of Comixpedia articles and see what we find. Let's start by looking at their "magazine articles" from the most recent complete month, January 2007, as well as six months ago, June 2006. --Dragonfiend 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

January 2007


 * Biggie Panda: Old Skool Webcomics
 * Print On Demand? Do It Yourself!
 * What Readers Know....
 * Ice Ice Baby
 * Full Story Highlights: Beginnings
 * Everyone Should Read This Interview With Mike Lacroix
 * My Plea For Hand-Lettering (Part 1)
 * Tonight's Guest On 24 Hour Pixel People: King Arthur

June 2006
 * A Pint of Gaming Goodness: An Interview With Walker and Law of Press Start To Play
 * Webcomic! The Movie... Starring Chex As Himself!
 * Comic Theory 101: Seeing Rhymes
 * Gonzo Gaming: An Interview with Scott Ramsoomair of VG Cats
 * Press Start To Play by Adam Law and Darryl Walker
 * The Antecedent #6: James Monroe vs. The Axis of Regal
 * Diversifiwebcomication: Maximize Your Business Potential
 * The Code to Opening Up God Mode: An Interview with Ryan Kerns

How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another
You missed an important line out of your quotation of WP:ATT above, namely How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. I find it an odd omission, it's the only line omitted and is relevant to the debate. Dragonfiend, you are trying to declare Comixpedia an unreliable source period. That's not how we work on Wikipedia, nothing is ever an unreliable source period. I'm not interested in having such a debate, since it starts from a flawed premise. Comixpedia will at times be a reliable source. Examples would be Campbell's column on the history of webcomics, the review of Get Your War On by David Rees by Whitney which has been cited by another source and so on and so forth. Yes, we can go through that list and work out which are reliable and which aren't, and when they would be reliable and when they wouldn't, but it is a futile and circular argument. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. I'm sorry, but I can't see any value to this. It's quite clear you aren't prepared to concede ground, I won't spend another three days arguing over where and how articles from your selection above may and may not be reliable sources. You've made your position clear. You will not ever accept Comixpedia as a source. How on earth are we supposed to debate the point from that starting position? Hiding Talk 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The persistent controversy shows that the notability criteria violate common sense
"Common sense", literally: the perception held by most people. If the deletion of an article sparks an uproar, that means it's notable. People are writing notes about it! :P

Why do we have notability criteria in the first place? The purpose of notability rules is to stop Wikipedia being cluttered up with pages that nobody wants to read. Notability rules are not there to stop articles from breaking notability rules.

Next time you have to explain to the 847th Wiki-n00b what WP:N is and why the site he visits every day doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, remember that clueless though they are, they are still an audience. They're only "webcomic warriors" because they're webcomic readers, and the fact that they are annoying you proves that they're out there; so there should be no need for an external validation.

THAT should be the definition of notability: "does any significant number of people want to read this?" If the current guidelines cause a page to be denied to a significant potential audience, those guidelines are therefore faulty and should be changed or relaxed.

Admins seem to get caught up in the structure of the place and forget: Wikipedia exists to assist people, not vice versa.59.167.80.170 13:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It isn't a website about everything popular.  There are tons of websites that have a foeew hundred members that easily could bring them here and start an "uproar", same with all those schoolyard games people make up; but, that does not make them encyclopedic. --Simonkoldyk 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when a guideline is failing to recognize the encyclopedic and notable items that are out there, there's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "But Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia." Not really. It's not a traditional encyclopedia, and it loses its great advantage if it tries to imitate one. Traditional encyclopedias were forced to maintain high standards of notability because of serious limits on available space, production costs and human effort. Wikipedia faces no such challenges - indeed, deleting a page can take up more of both server space and human effort if it generates this level of arguments and attempts to recreate the article. Also, in the cases of the main webcomics that are causing such controversy, we're not talking about "a few hundred members" but an audience of many thousands. (I go to work, I meet webcomic fans. I go shopping, I see webcomic t-shirts. I go to university, I meet more webcomic fans. I row a boat, and the boat rowing past me has people singing a webcomic theme song. I go on an internet forum for a TV show, people make webcomic references. I surf the blog networks, every second person has a webcomic icon. They're everywhere.) The notability rules say "wait until other people write about it first", but why should Wikipedia wait for others to start the ball rolling in a case so obviously noteworthy as this? I'd say the web notability guidelines are being enforced as law in many cases that should be textbook examples for WP:IAR - see Use_common_sense. 59.167.80.170 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed
As per the discussion on the Notability discussion page, the notability guideline suffers from a lack of consensus. Until that is cleared up, this page should be marked as disputed. -Xiroth 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. This page is not based upon WP:N but in fact predates it by a year and a half. Since pages stand on their own, a dispute related to that page is pretty much irrelevant to this page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability inquiry
I have a user asking me about section 3 of WP:WEB (content distribution). Does this eBook on tradeBit satisfy that notability clause? Thanks for your time. --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the question? Is it whether tradebit "is both well known and independent of the creators" and not "Trivial distribution"? That looks like a "no," as "Tradebit offers an easy and fast digital goods eShop service for anyone selling intangible goods online." --Dragonfiend 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Fiend. Much appreciated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for a game? Or advertisement catalogue instead of encyclopedia
As discussed above (# "Reliable Sources?"), there is a problem to prove the reliability for a MMOG game. Currently, the administrators check the reliability of a game by Google hits like in case of Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination). In fact it is VERY UNFAIR, because a game that is for FREE has naturally less hits than a game that you must buy - all the Amazons, eBays, Online shops etc. pomp the Google hits up (like for Anarchy Online). It is obvious that the games you must buy will have more reviews in the "independent sources" than the games you get for free. In this situation, a freeware game will always lose any Google hit check by administrators and all the freeware game articles are doomed just because nobody paid for the advertisement for them. The rules of checking the "Reliability" of the game MUST be changed, otherwise you will turn Wikipedia to the online shop catalogue! Merewyn 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipeida bias against Free qua Gratis --- especially if the product uses a licence that is militantly gratis. There is also a Wikipedia bias against that which is outside of mainstream culture. Combine those two biases, and webcomics, "free" games, and the like will eventually be removed from Wikipedia on the grounds that they fail WP:N. My solution would be for every AfD submitted by an individual, 1000 [one thousand] articles need to cleaned up by that individual, with full citations added. If you don't have the knowledge to clean up 1,000 articles then you don't have the knowledge to determine whether or not an article really fails WP:N, and should be a candidate for deletion.67.136.147.116 08:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. WP:N is very simple - we need reliable, independent sources that focus on the subject. To suggest that this is a difficult judgement is ridiculous. We wouldn't have to delete so many articles if people read the bolded text saying "Wikipedia is not an advertising service" and "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted". --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Commercial games are made by paid teams of professionals. Therefore they are generally (not always) of higher quality, they are longer, have better support, etc. Therefore they are of more interest to a magazine's readers. Therefore the magazine will print reviews about them in order to attract readers. Gaming magazines still review plenty of freeware games that they judge to be of sufficient interest, and the most notable receive in-depth coverage on a par with that given to commercial games. Dwarf Fortress had a two-page spread in PC Gamer a few months ago, the more forgettable commercial games only get a single column. If BattleMaster has not received such reviews, it's not because there is a conspiracy, it's because it isn't notable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that BattleMaster does have such sources! Be honest, Reliable, independent sources that focus on the subject means the publications out of Wikipedia, isn't-it that right? Hence such external sources like are good independent sources and, with them included, the whole article should be accepted. But it became deleted because someone decided that such sources are not good enough!! So, here's my question: '''Who decide which sources are good or not and accordingly to what criteria? Is there any list of reliable, independent sources good enough to be mentionned in Wikipedia?''' (sort of Philadelfia list for scientific journals). I don't see any of such list, I see only the requirement of independent source, so every independent source I have does fit this criterium. Merewyn 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Review at gameogre.com
 * Featured Online GAME OF THE WEEK at gameogre.com

Does WIKIPEDIA conform with its own criteria?
Does Wikipedia itself conform with its own policy on attribution to reliable sources. Especially, when we keep in mind that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability ? Actually, when you try to find any independent source writing of Wikipedia, the Google returns only the Main Page in all the languages of the world. Additionally, the content of articles happens to be questionned, false or even a hoax. So, how do you proove the WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N for the Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia? Merewyn 10:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Our article on ourselves cites numerous reliable secondary sources from print and web media. Finding such sources is easier with a service like Factiva or LexisNexis than Google. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... but when you try to cite Wikipedia as a source in your scientific article you will be laughed out loud and your article rejected from any serious journal. Hence, Wikipedia as a source of knowledge, is it a reliable source actually? Even when looking at Wikipedia own criteria, does Wikipedia conform with those own criteria honestly? Or we should agree with the oponents that Wikipedia is only a CATALOGUE of reliable sources (listing reliable secondary sources is a main criterium for article existance, otherwise it will be deleted) rather than a reliable source by its own..... Merewyn 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No encyclopedia is a proper source for "serious" work. They only give you an overview, and point you to other, better sources.  Friday (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it meet its own criteria? Yes.  It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works from reliable sources.  A good example is Nature's comparison of Wikipedia to Britannica.  Nature is reliable, the comparison was non-trivial, and Britannica even published a rebuttal.  Plenty more in the article itself.  Chris cheese whine 19:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

General notability guideline (pnc) template
Since the general notability guideline is central to most sub-pages, someone came up with the idea of creating a centralized template which will be consistent among the permutations from WP:N. Please see whether we can make this work here. The text is meant to be fairly generic, but it may make sense to add text following the template for fine tuning, or help us to make the template more applicable if it is not reflecting the consensus for notability. I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, but I'm very happy to see the compromises that make this a fairly representive of the attitude of the project. --Kevin Murray 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea of elevating one standard over another has been rejected here a few months ago, and we have an attempt to force a pnc tag to the article to elevate the issue yet again. do people want this here, or are we fine with what's here for the time being. I'm starting the discussion because the proponents have yet to be bothered. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than opposing a template which brings continuity to the various sections of the notability infrastructure, why not help to develop language at the template which more clearly relfects the consensus. How can we make the template better? --Kevin Murray 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The centralized template looks good. --Dragonfiend 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote from edit including the PNC template by Minderbinder "Seems like just one editor unhappy with this." Copied here by --Kevin Murray 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point we have three editors in support of adding this here and more general consensus at WP:N talk and the othr sub-guideline pages. It seems appropriate to incluse the template for now pending further opposition. Seeing it in place will be a better demonstration of the issue. Please not the modified text as a result of a broader discussion. Please feel free to contribute to the pnc template. --Kevin Murray 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The version including pnc is, on the face of it, inferior to the prior version. It loses the (crucial) idea that the sources must be about the web content itself, which is a perennial problem when dealing with Internet-related articles.  Footnote 5 (concerning a redirect from yahoo.com to Yahoo! and a stand-alone article for Drugstore.com) appears unacceptably late.  Worst of all, the word ordering implies that it is not the PNC, but the two alternate criteria - having won an award or been distributed by an alternate medium - that are the benchmarks that must be met. &mdash;Cryptic 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the quote from PNC is patently false - it has nothing to do with "one editor," and instead has to do with protecting consensus. WP:WEB is poor enough without a poorly thought out template clogging things further.  Keep this as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbering
Was the nubmering in the criteria section changed deliberately? The way it was done previously (1, 2, 3, with bullet points) made more sense to me than this 1, 2, 1, 2 thing that's going on right now.Chunky Rice 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The current text has two lists (1) shows examples of acceptable sources, and (2) discusses what should be demonstrated by the sources. --Kevin Murray 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That can't be right, because the first list is about sources that are used for the primary noatability critereon and is not related to the criteria in the second list. It just seems to me like it's written in a confusing manner.  For organization purposes, I think that all of the criteria should be at the same outline level.Chunky Rice 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is the addition of the PNC. It shouldn't have been added without discussion first, and no consensus exists for the addition.  How it slipped back in without my noticing, I'm not sure, so I'm going back to the status quo until such consensus is demonstrated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see we're still forcing the issue. Perhaps the proponents can point the consensus here for the tag for us? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that the tag has been deleted, I'm going to move back to where the article sat before the tag was added. Please talk here first before attempting a reorganization. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Page has now been fully protected due to edit warring, per request on WP:RPP. - Alison ☺ 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus


We have an editor who is ignoring the Three-revert rule (see, , and ) as well as Consensus. To the right is a handy flowchart of the Wikipedia consensus process. As I hope everyone can see, there is no need to build a new consensus before making an edit; the process for building a new consensus is started by making an edit. So, the half-dozen reverts for "Please seek consensus before making such changes" and "pnc has no consensus here" and "the problem isn't the template, it's the lack of consensus here" are out of process. In order to justify removing a template a single time (let alone over a a half-dozen times) one would indeed need to have a problem with the contents of the template, not just a misunderstanding of the consensus-building process or belief that Wikipedia is a burecracy where a subcommitte must discuss every edit on the talk page for a week or a month before a change can be made. So, I have re-added the template and cleaned-up the section based on the addition of the template (removing redundant links to WP:RS, etc). This does not, as far as I can tell, in any way change the status quo of the actual concepts of this guidline. --Dragonfiend 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) This is just unreal. You guys are revert-warring over the size of the included chart above??? - Alison ☺ 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And I see the edit warrior couldn't wait more than three minutes after my last edit to this page for me to finish posting to the talk page before violating Three-revert rule once again. See, , and . The latest 3RR violation was accompanied by the edit summary of "rv, no sonesnus for a tag or the reorganization." Is there an actual disagreement over the "reorganization," or just a misguided notion that every editor (but one, apparently) needs to change consensus before making an edit? --Dragonfiend 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the edit was reverted, and there's no consensus for the inclusion as the edit has been protested, it shouldn't be added. Furthermore, consensus at this page as it stands is that no criterion is above any other one, which is contrary to your alleged "cleanup."  Also, care to discuss your misleading edit summary when you reincluded the template?  Please read the flowchart you're including, please don't accuse your fellow editors of ignoring any specific policies (3RR requires 4 reverts in a given time period, if you could bother to read it), and please read the talk page before attempting to make determinations on consensus.  Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, this editor reverted because he thinks "Cases for the notability of web-specific content can also be made based on ... a well-known and independent award ... distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" somehow implies those cases are on a different level than ones based on the "non-trivial coverage by two or more published works"? I don't see that. There's nothing in "Cases for the notability of web-specific content can also be made based on ..." which suggest those criteria are somehow above or below the "non-trivial coverage" criterion. --Dragonfiend 15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "This editor" is me. You can refer to me by name, it's not a problem.  I reverted because the wording that exists now ("can also be made") implies that one criterion is more important than another, something that has little support here.  Whether you don't see it is an entirely separate issue - the fact remains that you don't have consensus for your change and you were reverted because of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem the consensus at Consensus is for readability of the Wikipedia consensus process flowchart image, but I'll happily resize it down to 3 pixels if someone can explain how "Cases for the notability of web-specific content can also be made based on ..." is somehow "contrary" to the idea that "no criterion is above any other one." Is there something in the word "also" that somehow elevates or devalues the criteria that follow it? --Dragonfiend 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "No criterion is above any other one" is exactly why your change lacks merit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a problem with the way it is right now. At least it's coherent.  It was a mess when I first inquired about the nubmering, though.  And I still think that all 3 criteria should be numbered, 1-3.  It doesn't make sense to me to separate them out like they are right now.Chunky Rice 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chunky, I'm glad you find the clean-up job I did to be more coherent. --Dragonfiend 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, while I don't have a problem with your version, as I said, I was comparing it to Kevin Murray's version, not badlydrawnjeff's, when I said it was more coherent. I don't really have an opinion on whether or not the pnc tag should be included here.  I haven't really read strong arguments either way.  I just want this page to be clear.Chunky Rice 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like Dragonfield's version better than mine. Chunky, you might want to join the broader discussion at the talk pages for WP:N and template:pnc.  A fresh perspective would be very welcome.  I don't want to be rigid, but I think that some steps toward continuity are merited and inevitable. --Kevin Murray 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

att no longer policy
editprotected

ATT is no longer policy.

As such the see also section should read as follows:


 * Verifiability
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research

See change made for ATT: feb 28, 2007

Thanks Miss Mondegreen | Talk  10:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * the protection on this page has expired. CMummert · talk 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)