Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:56, 21 November 2005

Archives:
30 October 2005 2 November 2005.

Websites

Articles on websites, forums, internet memes and flash animations appear regularly on VfD. It strikes me as odd that we have inclusion guidelines for bands (WP:MUSIC) and people (WP:BIO), among others, but not for websites. It has been established that Misplaced Pages is not a web directory; in other words, the vast majority of websites likely do not deserve a Misplaced Pages entry. On the other hand, sites such as Yahoo and eBay obviously do. So, I'd like to open discussion on what criteria would work for inclusion of websites. Radiant_>|< 12:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Massive refactoring

Previous discussion

This was fifty closely printed pages. A large portion of this discussion was repetive, so I have summarised the debate to date.
brenneman 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to clear discussion that's only a week or two old, and ask that you reinstate at least the last few sections. Phil Sandifer 08:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and certainly won't object if anyone else wants to do so. I did make a link to the unexpurgated discussions at the very top of this page. However, I'm sure that you noticed that things were, well, venemous? A little fresh air couldn't hurt, and if you'll look over what was cleared not much was actually being said. And, by the way, why have you changed you sig? I was thrown until I realised that Snowspinner = Phil Sandifer. - brenneman 08:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Any .com forum with a more-or-less generic name, with a decent webmaster behind it, will be able to get 5,000 unique members easily. It's getting those 5,000 members to participate or post on that forum that is hard. Which is why I think that the 5,000 unique members should be changed to 5,000 unique, active members. x42bn6 Talk 08:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines for Websites

These points have met almost no resistance, however a few questions have been asked.

1. Alexa <= 10,000
   • Does (for arguments' sake) a single day/week/month of ranking lower than this mean the site is "locked in"?
   • Historical data is preserved for how long by Alexa?
2. Major media attention within the last 2 years
3. Forum >= 5,000 members
   • How are these 5K defined? Active, total, etc.

Webcomics

These points have met almost very little resistance, again a few points could use clarification.

1. Alexa <= 100K
   • A compelling argument for why webcomics get a much easier pass needs to be presented.
2. Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community.
   • This is exactly as 2 above.

These points have not been well discussed, but have not proven "thorny" per se.

1. Significant award.
   • How are these to be chosen? I.e. what's "significant"?
   • Will the list be explicit or tacit?
2. Notable author.
   • When to merge, when to split?

These points have proven highly contentious.

1. Membership in a syndicate.
2. Top 20 in a large webcomic hosting service.

These topics are not currently in the proposal, however have been discussed, and are thus reproduced in full here.

1. Having a printed collection listed at Amazon with a sales rank of 100,000 or better.
   • This would be in line with other Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding publication
   • Some questions regarding what constitutes "self published" in this area exist.
2. Coverage within the webcomics community. If a webcomic has significant, detailed coverage in an editorially-written section of a combination of the major sources devoted to webcomics, or has warranted continuing mention in a single source, it should be included. Due to the subjective/popular nature of all these sources, and the relatively small size of the webcomics community, it is recognized that the issue of conflict-of-interest may arise. If articles from said sources that are written about a comic under consideration are seen to be promotional in a "conflict-of-interest" manner, this category for inclusion must be disregarded as a means of viewing a comic as notable (ie. A comic must become notable under its own power, not because of a self-interested comic author/writer).
   Popular webcomic sources currently include:
   • Comixpedia.com (.org is the wiki)
   • The Webcomics Examiner
   • Websnark

Open and/or hot items detailed

Discussion to date has been a trifle unproductive. Could we try to stay on task, assume good faith, be civil, and be concise?
brenneman 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Membership in a syndicate

• Lots of comparison made to WP:MUSIC.
• General feeling was that similar standards should be applied, and that as currently defined this wasn't it.
• No comparison/distinction made between comics with something closer to traditional syndication (e.g. Carol Lay's Story Minute on Salon Magazine) with newer models (e.g. Dayfree press)
• This looks unlikely to pass in it's current form

New discussion on this topic

• To me, the issue boils down to whether admittance into X collective (Keenspot et al) is an acknowledgement of the strip's quality, thereby verifiably elevating it above its peers, to the point of notability. Modern Tales is the odd one out here because, by virtue of not giving away all its strips for free, Alexa rankings aren't as good an indicator of notability, and there's not much else for distinguishing between different MT strips, save the really obvious ones. Nifboy 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The problem I have with this one is small time collectives like Dayfree Press. This is not a commercial venture, but a collective of webcomics dedicated to mutual promotion of one another's wares. We've seen that some on this "syndicate" are quite popular and notable, others on it however, are not. And the only sort of notability offered, is "affiliated with Dayfree". How does one get onto Dayfree? Well, if the editor likes your comic, and he thinks it fills a gap in the portfolio, then you're in. Following those guidelines, would be like saying any band which were ever signed by a minor label would instantly be notable. Or any band that John Peel ever liked, was an instant include. Dayfree Press is made up of some notable comics, and some non notable ones, and they should be looked at individually, not with a blanket include all. - Hahnchen 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• And failed aborted comics which happened to once appear at Graphic Smash, like Big Dick's Ball mentioned in the previous examples. No. I already am against the "every band ever signed" guideline, I am totally totally against "every band ever signed and then disbanded and were kicked out by theire record label" guideline, or "every author who although managed a a book publishing deal, never wrote more than 12 pages of his book" guideline. - Hahnchen 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Top 20 in a large webcomic hosting service

• This met with mild objection in of itself, but suffered from being tied to "Membership in a syndicate" in discussion

New discussion on this topic

Coverage within the webcomics community

• Per above, this looks highly unlikely to move unless serious concessions are made all around.

New discussion on this topic

Notable Achievements

I think being first or being significant in some innovative way should be included. While the first sprite comic (Mario's Forgotten Friends or something like that) would not pass the popularity test, it was notable for being first and Wiki should mention that in the spirit of providing an accurate history (and history is one of the main points of an encyclopedia). I also included being notable for a unique art style or story element, to make this one broad enough to cover whatever various innovations may be hit along the way.

Obviously, logic still applies: just because someone repackaged a magical girl comic doesn't make it innovative. But a comic that uses an art style from a culture that is not common on the web (like Korean manwha or Chinese manhua) definitely counts as notable. Ratings alone does not make art. Essentially the clause ensures that Wiki will have a home for comics that may represent the "Cubist" or "non-Euclidean" movements of their day. Xuanwu 02:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. When I am King is the first example that springs to my mind. The question of course is how we determine what's groundbreaking. To use your "cubist" example, there are a tonne of failed art movements that shouldn't be included, so I'd expect that these would normally be covered by the W3 "media" criterion. My example was mentioned in Salon as groundbreaking. - brenneman 11:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Since we need to rely on verifiable outside sources as to whether a webcomic is groundbreaking, this new guideline is at best redundant with "Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community," and at worst an encouragement of original research and POV. I've tried to improve it, but I think it ought to be scrapped entirely. There are still problems with the guideline as written; "art style that is highly uncommon or of cultural significance" would seem to include every webcomic ever made. Dragonfiend 02:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not ncessarily. The point of this criteria is to ensure that Wiki casts a sufficiently broad net so that its content does not exclude examples that are worth mentioning but may not fall into the other categories for inclusion. When this is applied, the main question to be asked is: "Does the art style/story style/etc. represent something notable enough for Wiki to include?" As I mentioned above, the first comic to use manhwa or manhua style would be an excellent addition to Wiki. But something involving stick figures would not. Coverage is not the same as notable characteristics. Besides, in general, it is best to err on the side of inclusion over exclusion, because inclusion means Wiki is a better source of information. Exclusion is highly contrary to Wiki's purpose. Xuanwu 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Examples of comics sorted by criteria

The full list has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Websites/Example webcomics.

The results were

1. Passes by criteria without serious opposition - 12
2. Passes by criteria with only mild opposition - 8
3. Passes by criteria with no consensus - 5
4. Doesn't pass/ No information - 3

Thus, if we went with only the things that we can all agree on, we'd have captured 20 and missed 8. I'd thus like to propose that we consider moving forward with these "minimum conditions". - brenneman 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Any qualifications that would involve Cat and Girl being deleted is absurd from the perspective of serious coverag of webcomics. And any that would involve Able and Baker - a comic that just passed an AfD - demonstrably does not have the consent of the community. Phil Sandifer 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just bluster. I know that that's a bit uncivil, but go and have a look at that AfD. That comic passed based upon your opinion. Now if you are unable to provide anything of substance to back up that opinion, I am left with no other option but to doubt that your expertice is verifiable. We are not in the business here of taking people's word for things. We require that sources be cited so that others can check your work. Period. - brenneman 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That your belief that I provided no evidence was not borne out by the community consensus does not seem to me to be a good reason to continue to insist that your opinion is correct. The fact of the matter is that the community backed keeping that article. The policy you are proposing is an overturning of community consensus - and recent community consensus at that. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You've already indicated that admins can override community consensus, so that's a double standard. And as has been indicated, it clearly wasn't a consensus. Nathan J. Yoder 17:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)

• "I'm going to believe Snowspinner on this one." Titoxd
• "Keep per Philip Sandifer (User:Snowspinner)'s expert opinion." Tony Sidaway
• "Keep per Snowspinner" - David Gerard
• Etc etc etc

• These people aren't saying that they believe the evidence you've presented, they are saying that they believe you. However, if you cannot do better than you have, which is to generally make claims without providing anything resembling a testable rationale, I think that you will lose that confidence.
• You appear, if I may, to be resisting any attempt at compromise, have not to my recollection conceded a single point, are continue to refer to previous AfDs as if they were set in stone. To that end, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker which chose to delete this article.
• There are probably three main options available
  1. We can continue to hammer it out, tooth and nail on every AfD, soaking up hours of our collective time whenever H... I mean, whenever anyone nominates a webcomic. They do and will get deleted, and I predict unless this passes the rate that they do so will increase.
  2. We can continue to squabble here, with you utterly failing to make any concession until by dirth of numbers a guideline is passed that doesn't have anything that you want in it.
  3. You can set aside your adversarial nature, provide us with something we can work with and hope the we achieve, as was so well put before, "A result that everyone everyone is equally unhappy with".

brenneman 00:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why are you trying to pin this entirely on what I want? The community clearly voted in support of keeping a webcomic, and you're trying to ram through policy that defies that. It's as simple as that. Phil Sandifer 01:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The community also voted to delete that webcomic. I'm trying to be as amenable as possible, but your continued avoidance of any reall accountability is not helping your cause. If we really do want a guideline, and I'm beggining to suspect that you don't, it needs to be based upon quantative measures. That's really, really simple.
  • If we're talking about what I'd like to ram through, I'd say anything that had not been in print with a decent sales run, mentioned in major media, or had an alexa of under 50K should be deleted or merged. But we're not meant to be here talking about our own idiosyncratic view of what's desired, we're meant to be trying to reach some accord.
  • Please, can you point out a single instance of you moving from your initial position? Name even one thing that you're willing to give, so that perhaps we can start to move forward.
    brenneman 01:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please stop trying to make this an ad hominem issue about me. Your proposed guidelines clearly do not have community consensus. That is all there is to it - regardless of your personal distaste for me. Phil Sandifer 01:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • These aren't my proposed guidelines, they are the guidelines that have actually been discussed over more than 100 printed pages. My guidelines are a little bit <up there>, and are a long was from what we're talking about now. Please, don't claim to speak for consensus, go and review the archived discusions, review the AfDs, look at the subpage with the comics and the criterion, and try to be a bit more flexible.
        brenneman 01:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The debate was 21 Keep to 12 delete - one of the more overwhelming keeps AfD has produced. I'm not sure how you want me to be flexible about this - the community consensus is perfectly clear. Phil Sandifer 01:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note that I said "I'm going to believe Snowspinner on this one." As I explained on Aaron's talk page, you have experience on the subject, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but in the future, that is dependent on a guideline getting discussed and passed. Now, stop yelling at each other and work together, ok? Titoxd 17:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I second brenneman's proposal for "moving forward with these 'minimum conditions.'" I'll also second changing the Alexa guideline to 50K. I'll also add that after all the complaints about the AfD process in this discussion, I'm surprised that anyone is championing the perfection of the current AfD process to the point that they believe any article that has previously been kept after an AfD must therefore survive all future AfDs. I also disgree with the notion that a 21-12 vote can be described as "overwhelming," let alone "one of the more overwhelming." The 27-2 over at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_webcomics was overwhelming; 21-12 is just "no consensus" but with more than the ususal votes on either side. See Misplaced Pages:Consensus for more info on how a good guideline is "two-thirds or larger majority support for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion." Dragonfiend 02:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would somewhat oppose changing the Alexa to 50k simply by virtue of the fact that, one, Alexa isn't reliable for as much as it's used and two, I'd rather not have cases where a borderline comic dips below standards long enough for someone to put it up for AfD and get it deleted. Nifboy 08:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Which raises a point that was very briefly discussed earlier (see archives), that whatever the cut-off gets agreed on, it should have some "sticking power". How would you feel about wording like "Alexa under 50K any time in the last two years"? To be honest, I thought we'd already decided on 100K, but I'm trying to find something we can all agree on and that others will agree to. See next sub-section. - brenneman 12:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Why only in the last two years? Surely a webcomic that was popular in 2001-2002 is just as notable as one that achieved a similar level of popularity in 2004-2005. --Zundark 12:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I think what was meant was 2 years from today, so that in a year the value would be 3 years, a year after that the value would be 4 years, leading eventually to revision of the statement to "achieving an Alexa rank over (insert rank) since this parameter began being considered in 2024". A reason to start with a 2 year horizon right now is that it scopes the problem into a manageable size. Courtland 14:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
          • That's actually not what I meant, but I'd not mind something along those line, I'd simply phrase that "Alexa under 50K any time ever". I was thinking that notability does wear off if it's based simply upon "flavour of the month" as opposed to winning an award, for example. The list (over the next tewenty years) could end up being large indeed.
            brenneman 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wider acceptance

I'm pretty torn by this whole thing: I love my webcomics, but am generally pretty keen on "notability". So while I can live with the looser alexa for comics, we still don't have any compelling reason for having two different bars to entry in the same guideline. If we're going to sell this to people who aren't fond of webcomics, we need some explanation other than "otherwise they don't get in". As a side effect, if we think a bit harder about it we might come up with something less arbitrary than the 50/100/200K that we're tossing around. - brenneman 12:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You can judge alexa ratings on a probabilistic scale rather than a black and white notion. And websites and webcomics should have the same criteria for web ratings unless it can be shown there is some notability from outside the web. The only kinds of things which get special interest when it comes to notability (over something like general website criteria) are things of academic interest, which are known mostly just to academics, but webomics are a part of pop-culture, so they get judged in notability in terms of pop-culture. Nathan J. Yoder 17:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As an academic working on webcomics, I will raise an eyebrow at this. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that they aren't studied in academia, practically everything under the sun is studied academically (even The Simpsons are), the point was that it's primarly of non-academic interest. It's an entertainment medium first and foremost. It's not like physics or biology where it is clearly something that is delegated almost exclusively to the interest of scholars, as 99% of of people reading them aren't exactly performing any kind of critical analysis, just as they aren't with The Simpsons. Nathan J. Yoder 17:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A 100K cutoff point might imply that Misplaced Pages should include 100,000 complete articles about individual websites. Not only would this be an unrealistic standard (as websites, and their rankings, change day to day, and the accumulation of such a great amount of well-written content and verified data will take many years), but it would also turn Misplaced Pages into an incomplete web directory/portal. 10k is more realistic, a clarification could be inserted that certain sites that achieve alexa traffing rankings of less than 100k may be included if they are a unique resource or have garnered significant media coverage. As for the forum membership requirements, it would be difficult to determine the total number of users that are active contributors. Because of this, a higher overall cap (of, say, 25-50k total members, regardless of activity level) might be more appropriate. --anetode¹ ² ³ 21:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I think I agree with your ideas on Alexa rankings, but I believe I disagree with your ideas on forum membership. My experience is that most forums don't require membership to read, only to post, so membership can be taken as a sign of some activity (users only become members so that they can post, by making a post they can be considered "active"). Dragonfiend 22:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The whole "active" thing was in response to X42bn6's post (above). Sorry that I've clumped the discussion topics like this. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Raise the website alexa

• If they are both the same, there's no problem
  • Consider the following: Bash.org has an Alexa ranking of around 20,000. Now look at its VfD, which was a unanimous keep vote. That probably makes this the most precedent-oriented option. I will concede, however, that if we started letting in all websites, we'd likely use a more restrictive Alexa rank. Nifboy 19:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Make a tiered system

• That is to say, under X is good enough, under Y also needs some other thing
  • This makes sense to me -- maybe we take the guidelines we can't reach consensus on and combine them. Meeting just guideline A or just guideline B is not an indication of notability, but maybe meeting both guideline A and guideline B is? Clearly there's some sense to not treating a 100,000 Alexa or a review on Comixpedia as if they were the equivalent of being published in Rolling Stone, etc. Dragonfiend 21:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant prose

• As above, some really good reason for having two cut-offs

Websites for inclusion/exclusion from medical articles (discussion reference)

There is a Request For Comment active right now on the matter of what websites to include in Misplaced Pages articles on medical subjects and the criteria for exclusion of certain websites. The persons who have been active in this WikiProject:Websites might be interested in either contributing to or considering the outcome of this discussion. See Talk:Prostate cancer for access to the discussion. Courtland 11:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this page is about websites as the subject of individual articles. It does not really say anything about elegibility for use as external links. JFW | T@lk 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Updated guidelines

I've updated guidelines per general discussion. I'd still like some good excuse reason for the 10K/100K gap between general pages and webcomics. If we can't make that explanation, this will never fly. - brenneman 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Stumbled across this just now (Spoiler: "Because art matters"). How's that for an excuse reason? Nifboy 03:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit I've been wondering myself why webcomics need a seperate guideline from other websites. I understand that syndication can mean that the content can't just be traced back to hits on a certain domain name, but that seems like a technical detail, not a thing requiring an entirely seperate guideline. Friday (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexa

I do have some concerns about the application of 10,000 as a firm Alexa cutoff. As I've already raised in a couple of debates, it creates an unwitting bias in favour of larger countries and against smaller ones — because by definition, larger countries generate more Internet traffic and smaller ones generate less. I can name several very important Canadian websites -- Rabble being the first one that comes to mind -- that rank lower on Alexa than some unencyclopedic American sites. And it's pretty bad math to suggest that one can simply divide a Canadian website's Alexa rank by 10 to approximate an American website's traffic; dividing the rank and multiplying the traffic don't have the same effect on the data.

I'm fully aware that the guidelines here offer alternatives to the Alexa rank...but that's not how I see most people apply it in practice. Most people who cite it in AFD debates cite the Alexa = 10,000 criterion as absolute gospel, and claim that a site which fails to meet it is automatically deletable regardless of the other two criteria. At the very least, could we make it clearer that it's Alexa OR one of the other two criteria, not Alexa AND? Bearcat 21:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! People who treat Alexa as some kind of end all be all have no place on Wiki. The rules should state very clearly that Alexa is a last resort if there's nothing else to possibly justify a website's presence. Xuanwu 02:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Blogs

I've seen mention of amending this proposal to cover blogs. I'm not opposed to this, but I wonder why it would be neccessary. A blog is a type of website. Just because a website happens to have blog-type content doesnt mean this guideline couldn't apply to it, in my opinion. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, unless ablog can meet the existing guidelines, I don't see any need for "special pleadings". If it is notable, it will have made some impact outside blogdom, e.g. mentioned in media, etc. - brenneman 03:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I put this forward in light of the current interest in nominating blogs for AFD. My suggestions are based on the category for webcomics and are:

• 1. Large readership. As measured by verifiable sources such as Alexa where it must have ranking of at least 100,000 or a daily readership of at least 5,000 as measured by the Truthlaidbear ecotraffic measure . 5000 is suggested as a limit consistent with the criteria in WP:BIO for authors.
  2. Coverage or inclusion outside the blogging community. If the blogger has been featured in a significant newspaper, magazine or online publication is a testament to the notability. Appearances on the opinion editorial pages of a significant newspaper, magazine, journal or online media source is another as is a position as a columnist. Generating a story of significant media interest such as the exposure of the forged National Guard memos used on 60 minutes is another.
  3. Being the winner or nominated of a significant blogging Award or web Award. Time, the Guardian and Washington Post amongst others have all held such polls in the past year or so.
  4. High levels of linkage by other bloggers as measured by the Technorati 100 or Truth Laid Bear ecosystem .
  5. Some bloggers may make WP:BIO for activities outside blogging. For example, some members of parliament, journalists and authors blog. Even Moby has a blog see . In these cases, the blogs should be mentioned as part of the overall article.
  6. Group blogs or collectives of blogsare considered to be notable if they have two or more people who meet WP:BIO or are considered to be notable due to meeting other criteria.
  7. Notable achievement or characteristic. Being the first of a notable kind of blog ie the first group blog, the first political blog, the first military blog, the first war blog, the first tech blog etc.
  • These guidelines aim at developing standards of verifiability and notability for blogs. I would welcome feedback from other users.Capitalistroadster 09:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Truth Laid Bear - you're kidding right? According to their FAQ they rank based upon inter-blog linking, which says nothing about actual readership. Oh, and it also says "Illegal immigration is putting a major strain on our government," and while that's really not relevent I couldn't help but mention it.
2. Redundant.
3. Also redundant. Unless we're talking about awards inside the highly incestuous blogging commmunity, and then I'd imagine that that's unlikely to meet wide approval.
4. This is very much like some heavily-tread ground on webcomics, and does not have a hope in hell of getting wider acceptance. If the blog hasn't penetrated past the "blog sphere" then why are we putting it in Misplaced Pages?
5. Agreed, but why are we even mentioning this as it's standard practice? In fact, why are we mentioning it with regards to comics? (Note to self - remove from "comics" section.)
6. As above, notability isn't sexually transmitted in this manner. If Bill Clinton and the Pope decide to put a blog together and no one reads it or mentions it in the media then it shouldn't get an entry.
7. Again, we're not meant to decide what's "notable", that would be WP:NOR. If it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere as being groundbreaking, then we aren't the ones to decide it is.

This has been good, though. I'm going to tune up the comics section a little bit with these thoughts in mind.
brenneman 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to concur with brenneman. Also, I'd add that normal standards of verifiability can tell us what should be included, without needing blog-specific rules. But, we need to realize that blogs are not generally reliable sources, and thus blogs cannot verify each other. Otherwise, pretty much any blog becomes "verifiable" due to the massive amount of linking. Having a blog is like writing about your garage band on your myspace page. If other myspace "bands" link to you, this doesn't make your band verifiable. Whereas, if Entertainment Weekly does a story on your band, now you're onto something. Friday (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Links are significant. The most popular sites are the most heavily linked. I also note that both Google and Yahoo have now got blog search sites. Similarly, the number of Google hits indicates how well read and notable a blog is as it shows how influential that blog is on other blogs. Thirdly, I'm not disputing that outside media mentions are an important source of verifiability. Fourthly, bloggers can be credible sources and it is ignorant to say otherwise. Surely, a law professor writing in a blog about legal matters is more credible than a journalist in a newspaper doing so. Simply because it is online doesn't mean it isn't credible. Capitalistroadster 16:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Friday and Brenneman that the current guidelines for web sites ought to be applied to blogs. They also ought to be applied to podcasts as well, and we still need to do a better job of getting the webcomics guidelines more in line with the web site guidleines, if not merged together completely. Dragonfiend 19:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, one other question -- what about if a blog has been published in book form, such as Riverbend's? I think that helps assert notability, though it can't just be some vanity press that does it. And if that book gets news coverage too, does that help boost notability of the blog, or just the book? Jacqui 19:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Jacqui,

It would tend to act in its favour especially if there were significant sales of the book or coverage as you say. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Podcasts?

It seems that podcasts could mostly be covered by Capitalistroadster's recommendations, but I think notability should be ascertained through downloads of the actual podcasts, not visits to the site. Programs like iPodder will download new podcats automatically without a user having to go there. I would suggest Podcast Alley as being a good source in these cases. Jacqui 19:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Syndicates again

I see that Checkerboard Nightmare has been nominated for deletion, and is roundly being kept on AfD. Since community consensus has repeatedly demonstrated a desire to keep syndicated comics, I am reinserting this criterion into the guidelines, as it is not withint he province of an unpublicized talk page to ram policy through that is demonstrably not accepted on AfD. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Websnark FTW. Nifboy 02:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actions such as this based upon a sockpuppet invasion strain my ability to WP:AGF. This guideline has been shouted from the rooftops on numerous occasions. Syndicates fail WP:V per WP:CITE, they do not have the support of the non-footwear cummunity, and they do not have the support of the other participants on this page. - brenneman 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet syndicated comics persistantly survive AfD. Odd. Phil Sandifer 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Other than Able and Baker, I'm not aware of any examples that fail to meet the other guidelines that have passed AfD. I know that sometimes WP:V is a difficult for you, but can you provide another example of a webcomic that survived AfD that fails all other criteria bar synidication? - brenneman 05:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)