Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (web)/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (web) Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:30, 21 November 2005 editCapitalistroadster (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users47,872 edits →Blogs ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:02, 9 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(700 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{aan}}
	Archives:<br/>
			{{shortcut\|WT:WEB}}

			{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	.
			\|-
	==Websites==
			\|'''This guideline covers several related areas. Please see discussions on website sub-types at:'''
	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 (]) and people (]), among others, but not for websites. It has been established that ] 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 ] and ] obviously do. So, I'd like to open discussion on what criteria would work for inclusion of websites. ]]] 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. <br/> ]]] 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

			== Forums in the Notability Guidelines... ==
	: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. ] 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. - ]]] 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. ] ] 08:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

			Recently engaged in a dispute, this guideline was refferenced to me. I was taken aback from it, and am in heave dispute about it. I wish to state my opinions, and have some things explained to me. These are all in the aspects of forums being notable, not the other aspects of the web-related content.
	===Guidelines for Websites===
			According to the content, for something to be notable on the web, it needs multiple outside articles which mention it, or it needs to have won a well known award. Here are the issues with that:
	<font color="#990000"> These points have met almost no resistance, however a few questions have been asked. </font>
			*There are no awards for Internet Forums which are well known. There is no Oscar for "Best Overall Forum", or an internet award. Thus, Internet Forums have no real chance to qualify here.
	#'''] <= 10,000'''
			*In an internet forum, most affairs remain internal. Members may occassionally leave a forum to spam up another one, but it never makes the news. In January of 2006, when YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world, it was the ugliest raid in history. However, the news did not cover the raid. Only widespread knowledge made the event notable. Thus, with outside events out, copyright and legal disputes are the only things that could get out to the news. The only exceptions are the advice forums, which have appeared multiple times for what they do in the news, which is unfair bias towards other types of forums. ] is an example, as it has been mentioned in the news before.
	#*Does (for arguments' sake) a single day/week/month of ranking lower than this mean the site is "locked in"?
			With these, all internet forums are subject to notability issues.
	#*Historical data is preserved for how long by Alexa?
			Does anyone have any opinion on this? ] 04:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	#'''Major media attention within the last 2 years'''
			:I suppose the proper response would be: How do you write a ], sourced article about a topic that has no sources? That's the essense of the ] (which is basically WP:WEB for everything); For any given topic, sources must exist. For forums, the only sources you have are first-hand accounts of its various members, and those aren't ]. ] 06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	#'''Forum >= 5,000 members'''
			::Nifboy for president! Free sex!! The beer is on the house!!! Err... I mean, I support fully the statement above. <br/> ]] 07:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	#*How are these 5K defined? Active, total, etc.
			::You use primary sources. --] <small>(])</small> 11:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	====Webcomics====
			:::Replied on ]. - ]] 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	<font color="#990000"> These points have met almost very little resistance, again a few points could use clarification. </font>
			::::I have no idea why this was replied to at my talk page, all this refers to is the ability to use primary sources at ]. Why people continually ignore/forget/aren't aware of that, I may never know. --] <small>(])</small> 12:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	#'''Alexa <= 100K'''
			:::You can use primary sources to document what happened, you need an outside source to verify that the happening was of encyclopedic worth. You describe ] as happening with a primary source, but you can't quantify it as anything other than ] happening without a secondary source. So in the above example you can state "members of YTMND and many other forums posted to eBaum's world". you can't quantify it as anything else without another source. Therefore, you can't write an encyclopedic article on the topic. Please see ], ] and ], which should be taken together. ] ] 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	#*A compelling argument for '''''why''''' webcomics get a much easier pass needs to be presented.
			:::I do understand that outside sources are less NPOV, but the issue which I have with the whole notability of forums is that forums do not get much attention in the media to begin with. However, someone may be looking for information on a forum from this encyclopedia, to see if it is a drama place, a spammy place, or a mentorship place. To be notable, someone reading it would have to care about something. Notabiltiy guidelines are set to impose a guideline of what a reader may be looking for.
	# '''Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community.'''
			:::Also, primary sources are important, agreed. However, with multiple primary sources, the page becomes less and less POV, and more the general consensus. I just see that asking for a media article on a forum or an award a forum won to be incredibly limiting to the amount of information that should get out, and also creates prejudice towards mentorship forums. ] 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	#*This is exactly as '''2''' above.
			:::::The current page makes no mention of media in its guidance, to wit: ''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.'' So you seem to be arguing from a flawed position. The argument you need to be having is elsewhere. We also seem to be crossing wires on our definitions of primary sources. But at the end of the day, what is questionable about a group of message board members posting to another message board is the encyclopedic value, not the sources. One must consider if the event is being given undue weight, as per ]. ] ] 11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
	<font color="#990000"> These points have not been well discussed, but have not proven "thorny" ''per se''. </font>
			:::::Alright, I think I am getting a bit confused on this. I didn't comprehend that last message at all. Sorry. Could you please re-explain it?] 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Significant award.'''
			::::::Basically, if you want to post details of youth club members a going to youth club b in its own article, then you're giving the event undue weight. Similarly, if forum members a post to form b, you're giving it undue weight placing it in its own article. Your arguments regarding the media are flawed since no mention of the media is made in the guideline which you question, and what you consider to be a primary source may not be a primary source, but it is hard to tell since you don't cite specific sources. To refer to your original posting, basically, the guidelines are what they are: an article on when ''YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world'' fails the undue weight section of ]; the event has been imbued with too much emphasis by being given an article. These guidelines merely reflect that policy by asking for multiple mentions in third party sources; this ensures no event or topic is given undue weight. Hope that helps. ] ] 09:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
	#*How are these to be chosen? I.e. what's "significant"?
			:::::::Oh, I'm not refferring to something getting it's own article. Just a mention in a related article. Like, YTMND spamming would nto warrent an article, but it would in the ebaum'sworld article, as it is related to it's history. And that is where I have the objection. I mean, if a forum has an outside source mention anything about it, then it certainly is notable. But, using the example, ebaum'sworld is certainly notable, because I believe it has outside mentions in various sources. But the forum inside would not fit the criteria, and this is what I find unfair, that it is therefore not notable to be included inside the article. It is important for one reading to know that there is a forum they could join, and maybe provide a little bit of what had happened to the site. AKA, if someone was looking for it, it is notable to provide major details that don't warrent the need to fit these guidelines. Becuase inevitably, what is notable is what people find important when reading something on a site.] 20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
	#*Will the list be explicit or tacit?
			::::::::In that case the pages you need to read are ], ] and ]. Information which satisfies those three policies can be added to any article. ] ] 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Notable author.'''
			:::::::::Thank you. That is what I was arguing about, and it seems that I was arguing for something already in place. ] 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
	#*When to merge, when to split?
			::Well for my money any forum which has been going more than fifty years and has in excess of seventy million members posting daily is notable. The rest are not... ;-)
	<font color="#990000"> These points have proven highly contentious. </font>
	# '''Membership in a syndicate.'''
	# '''Top 20 in a large webcomic hosting service.'''
	<font color="#990000"> These topics are not currently in the proposal, however have been discussed, and are thus reproduced in full here. </font>
	#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.
	#'''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). <br/>Popular webcomic sources currently include:
	#*Comixpedia.com (.org is the wiki)
	#* The Webcomics Examiner
	#* Websnark

			== Speedy? ==
	==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? <br/> ]]] 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
	===Membership in a syndicate===
	*Lots of comparison made to ].
	*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. ] 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

			* Over at ], most of the articles we are getting through these days are about non-notable websites. Where they are hard and futile to wikify, and where they are seemingly not worth the trouble of AfDing, since the result is ''invariably'' to delete, the most logical progression seems to me to be some kind of speedy deletion criteria for patent non-notability of websites (something akin to {db-bio} or {db-band}, maybe {db-site} or {db-web} i would have thought). are there any plans to introduce a criteria of this type? or does one already exist? Thanks. ] 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
	*The problem I have with this one is small time collectives like ]. 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 ] 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. - ] 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
			:People will resist speedying website articles, and for understandable reasons, I guess. Often website articles can be speedied, but for other reasons. If they consist only of an external link and a short blurb basically restating the title of that link, for example, they fall under A3. But I think it's a better bet to just use ], which is now policy. No need to clutter up AfD, and these things are usually uncontroversial. It's pretty painless. --] 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
			::OK, will do, cheers. ] 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

			===Speedy!===
	*And failed aborted comics which happened to once appear at ], 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. - ] 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
			Nonetheless someone else has had the idea to create {{tl\|Db-web}} halfway bypassing the real content of ] to make a ''speedy'' delete criterion for web content (appended rather inappropriately to ])

			That template is now up for deletetion at ]. I voted for delete, while I think ] doesn't fit all that well in a ''speedy'' deletion scheme, and while the template rather focusses on Alexa as ''notability'' criterion (which is not OK with ] either), etc... (see vote commentaries when following the link above to the vote). --] 21:24, 16 April 2006 (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 ====

			== this guideline isn't really a guideline ==
	===Notable Achievements===

			Most wikipedians don't stick to the current version of this guideline. It's become more and more broad as time has gone by, and has had an increasingly smaller following. The old version, dealing solely with websites (as was intended by the name) has consensus. But not this.
	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.

			Also, it has clearly overstepped its bounds. Its Notability (websites). It's cheesy to take advantage of that guideline tag to make it apply to all web content-- something it was not intended to do, and for which there actually is no consensus.
	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 ] or Chinese ]) 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. ] 02:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
	:I think this is an excellent idea. ] 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 ] as groundbreaking. - ]]] 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. ] 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. ] 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

			Also, notice how the guideline tag was propped up because there wasnt editing for a week(according to the edit summary). Huh? How about informing the community, perhaps asking for a poll to gauge consensus?
	==Examples of comics sorted by criteria==
	The full list has been moved to ].

			This is especially frustrating because I have been working on a notability guideline for memes at ], which actually involves what its title suggests. I completely oppose this policy being considered a guideline for anything except websites, as it currently is respected by the wikipedia community only for its purpose in judging the notability of websites. Not to mention that it severely needs a copyedit.
	The results were
	# Passes by criteria without serious opposition - 12
	# Passes by criteria with only mild opposition - 8
	# Passes by criteria with no consensus - 5
	# Doesn't pass/ No information - 3

			In conclusion, this entire page has changed too greatly and expanded to greatly from the subject of websites to be considered community consensus. It should be once again considered a proposal(since, after all, the community rarely uses it on anything other than websites and webcomics...i've only once or twice seen it used on a meme, out of all those hundreds of opinions in AFD's). I have marked it this way to reflect it. Thanks, --] 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	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". - ]]] 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

			:The old version didn't deal with websites, it dealt with webcomics, and has grown organically and been discussed many times. In three months it hasn't really been overly disputed, and is in use across wikipedia. It was advertised at the pump, on cent and at rfc, I think it's poor form to suggest any underhand motives here, and especially to accuse anyone of not informing the community. ] ] 19:43, 16 April 2006 (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. ] 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
			::It actually has been disputed, as can be seen by this, which was only about 10 edits ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ANotability_%28websites%29&diff=40875093&oldid=40663958.--] 19:47, 16 April 2006 (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'''''. - ]]] 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
			:::Hence my use of the word '''overly'''. So you'll find what I said was true, contrary to your edit summary. ] ] 19:51, 16 April 2006 (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. ] 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
			::::Ok. Well I'm yet to find it being used for anything other than webcomics and websites. I'm unaware of it having consensus for memes, as you said on the notability proposal for memes. So that's why I, and Gerard earlier, removed the tag.--] 19:58, 16 April 2006 (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. ] 17:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
			:::::David didn't make it a proposal, and the tag has been restored since then. And it's got consensus for web content. As to the meme discussion, read the section above, ]. At the moment it's all there is. NBow you want to propose ], and good luck to you. If it is accepted, then no problem. But at the moment it isn't, and I think it's bad form to edit this to fit around your proposal, which is what I think you are doing. My opinion is that we don't need anything more, but if consensus goes against that, that's fine. But the status of ] and discussions there should have no impact on the status of this page. David removed the guideline tag for a whole different issue, and the tag was subsequently restored. And being used for webcomics and websites is a lot more than being used for websites, which was your original assertion. The expansion was to cover both those things and expand to cover the whole of web-content. Whilst you seem to disagree with that, I would ask you to respect the fact that consensus was sought on the issue through advertising the proposal in various high profile pages and that a consensus was reached. ] ] 20:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	:*]
	::*"I'm going to <nowiki></nowiki> 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 ] which chose to '''delete''' this article.
	:*There are probably three main options available
	:*#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.
	:*#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.
	:*#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".
	:]]] 00:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

			::::::The concern that this guideline inadequately addresses memes is perfectly illustrated by the previous discussion of memes on this talk page. Clearly, there is a problem with this guideline's way of addressing memes-- thats why its rarely invoked in AFD discussions of memes. I think its fair to say that while most of this guideline has consensus, the part on memes doesnt, as evidenced by:
	*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. ] 01:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
			#The community wide interest in a better policy on memes.
	**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.
			#The fact that this is never used for meme AFD's, and that meme AFD's continue to be evil exercizes in voting/democracy.
	**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.
			--] 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	**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. <br/> ]]] 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. ] 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''. <br/> ]]] 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. ] 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? ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 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 ] was overwhelming; 21-12 is just "no consensus" but with more than the ususal votes on either side. See ] for more info on how a good guideline is "two-thirds or larger majority support for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion." ] 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. ] 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. - ]]] 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. --] 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 {{year}}". A reason to start with a 2 year horizon right now is that it scopes the problem into a manageable size. ] 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. <br/> ]]] 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. - ]]] 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. ] 17:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
	::As an academic working on webcomics, I will raise an eyebrow at this. ] 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 '']'' 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. ] 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. --]] ] ] 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"). ] 22:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
	***The whole "active" thing was in response to X42bn6's post (]). Sorry that I've clumped the discussion topics like this. --]] ] ] 00:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
	====Raise the website alexa ====
	*If they are both the same, there's no problem
	**Consider the following: ] has an Alexa ranking of around 20,000. Now look at ], 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. ] 19:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

			The guideline template (which was applied to this guideline after proper procedure and sufficient consensus, I can confirm Hiding on that point) says: " please use the discussion page to propose major changes"... downgrading from "guideline" to "proposal" is a major change. Urthogie's one-person proposal in this sense is, as far as I can see, not accepted (aka ''rejected''). --] 21:04, 16 April 2006 (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. ] 21:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

			:Rejecting something means nothing if you don't give a reason. We're discussing merits, not bullying.--] 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	====Brilliant prose====
	*As above, some really good reason for having two cut-offs

			::No, we're discussing consensus. And despite the numerous citations of WP:WEB on AfD, I can count the number of objectors on one hand. That sounds like consensus to me. ] 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	== Websites for inclusion/exclusion from medical articles (discussion reference) ==

			:::I'm simply pointing out that there's a better policy required for memes. Many people have requested this, not just me. Ignoring it isn't just isolating a couple of people-- its bad for the project. Also, please note that consensus is not a static thing.
	There is a ] 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 ] for access to the discussion. ] 11:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

			:::I happen to notice you're involved with webcomics on wikipedia. That's great, and I'm sure this policy has helped very much with that. I'm just trying to establish a better policy on memes-- something which is requested and needed.--] 21:25, 16 April 2006 (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. ] \| ] 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

			::::There isn't yet a better policy for memes, and I'd add that ] has redirected here since the 30th October with no great concern. That's a nod here. There's more consensus invested in this proposal than any other regarding memes at present. ] ] 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	== Updated guidelines ==

			:::::I haven't seen used. Could you perhaps help me make a better one?--] 09:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
	I've updated guidelines per general discussion. I'd ''still'' like some good <s>excuse</s> reason for the 10K/100K gap between general pages and webcomics. If we can't make that explanation, this will never fly. - ]]] 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
	:Stumbled across just now (Spoiler: "Because art matters"). How's that for an <s>excuse</s> reason? ] 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. ] ] 03:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

			Above, Urthogie suggested to talk about ''merits'', not ''bullying'':
	==Alexa==
			#IMHO it's no "merit" to try to discredit an operational guideline, out of some sort of jealousy because it is perceived as "competition" to a new idea (the ''meme'' proposal);
			#Replacing {{tl\|wikipedia subcat guideline}} by {{tl\|proposed}} on an operational, accredited guideline is bullying. So, don't.
			Please see the possible merits of the ''meme'' proposal independent of the merits of the "website" notability guideline. If that is not possible, and if the primary "merit" of the meme proposal would be that it tries to push away the "website" guideline out of some misguided ''competition'' idea, then I suppose it would be better to dunk the meme proposal ASAP. --] 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

			:Sorry, I didn't perceive this as "compteition". In fact, I barely knew about it because of its name, which to most rational people suggests "websites". Thats why it was frustrating when I found some stuff on memes hidden in here, despite never being used on AFD's for memes. And I'll continue to try to get consensus independent of this. If consensus fails so be it. If not, we'll harmonize the two articles. Peace, --] 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
	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 -- '']'' 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.

			::tx. Note that I already adapted {{tl\|Notabilityguide}} (included in several notability-related pages), the link to this Websites notability guideline now reads ], instead of previously ] (so, that might better attract attention to the full content of this guideline)
	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? ] 21:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
			::Also, above I made a link to ] - I still think a CSD template for websites and web content based on the present ] is ''not'' a good idea (while this guideline is not really written in a ''speedy'' aproach). That might be a possible merit of the ''meme'' proposal: a (future) meme notability guideline might be more suitable for being used in a ''CSD'' approach. Might it be a good idea to keep that in mind when developing the ''meme'' notability proposal? (just an invitation) --] 10:40, 17 April 2006 (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. ] 02:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

			:::Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we should move this page to ], though?--] 10:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
	== Blogs ==

			::::Good idea, and have done so. ] <small>]</small> 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	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? ] ] 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. - ]]] 03:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

			== Tentative rule for notability ==
	* 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:

			I've been seeing a few web comics deletion nominations (] or ]) and I think we could use some sort of rule. Here's my humble suggestion:
	*# 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 ] for authors.
			:I think the threshold of notability for web comics that would serve Misplaced Pages best is that the author makes money out of it (other than a few token from online advertising). Otherwise, we run the risk of having a flurry of vanity articles from anybody who draws.
	*# 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.
	*# 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.
	*# High levels of linkage by other bloggers as measured by the Technorati 100 or Truth Laid Bear ecosystem .
	*# Some bloggers may make ] for activities outside blogging. For example, some members of parliament, journalists and authors blog. Even ] has a blog see . In these cases, the blogs should be mentioned as part of the overall article.
	*# Group blogs or collectives of blogsare considered to be notable if they have two or more people who meet ] or are considered to be notable due to meeting other criteria.
	*# 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.] 09:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

			Tell me what you think of this. ] 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
	::# Truth Laid Bear - you're kidding right? According to 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.
	::# Redundant.
	::# 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.
	::# 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?
	::# 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.)
	::# As above, notability isn't <s>sexually</s> 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.
	::# Again, we're not meant to decide what's "notable", that would be ]. If it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere as being groundbreaking, then we aren't the ones to decide it is.

			:Sounds good enough for me- except that it might be difficult to verify who's making money. ] 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
	::This has been good, though. I'm going to tune up the comics section a little bit with these thoughts in mind. <br/> ]]] 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

			::I'm confused, did you just reply to yourself? What happened? ] ] 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I tend to concur with ]. 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. ] ] 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. Is there a perceived shortcoming with the current guidelines? Do you feel there are web sites which don't meet the current guidelines that ought to be included? Or do you feel that there are web sites which meet the current guidelines that ought to be excluded? This sounds like a bad idea to me, not only because of difficulty with verification, but also because notability has little to do with profitability. A completely free web site covered by The New York Times and Washington Post is still notable. -- ] 18:26, 19 April 2006 (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. ] 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. ] 19:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

			Sorry for the confusion. I started the discussion somewhere else and was told that it was not the appropriate page for this so I copied the thing here. No reply to myself yet. I wasn't suggesting this guideline for only websites that display webcomics. I feel the current rules creates too many useless articles that have to be ]. ] 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
	*Oh, one other question -- what about if a blog has been published in book form, such as ]'s? I think that helps assert notability, though it can't just be some ] that does it. And if that book gets news coverage too, does that help boost notability of the blog, or just the book? ]] 19:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
			*Changing the notability guidelines won't stem the tide of articles on non-notable subjects. It's not the case that people are creating these articles because they think they do meet our notability guidelines, but rather they're not even aware the guidelines exist. We don't need to change the guidelines. We need to figure out a way to let the newbies know what they are. –] <sup>'''(]/])'''</sup> 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
			::Actually it's because the guidelines blow, and there is no concensus to apply them except within the rulecruft fandom pages like this one. ] 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::Since this guideline simply restates the three key policies, I'm not sure how it blows. As the three key policies have the consensus of the community, I'm not sure how you state there is no consensus to apply them. ] <small>]</small> 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
			::If it simply restated them then there would be no need for it. It does not - it introduces the concept of "''what I like''". It's bogus, and should be dropped before it does more damage to the principle of a neutral point of view. ] 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::That's a bald bad faith assumption. Perhaps you can show me where it does that. It simply states that articles require third party sources, per ]. ] <small>]</small> 13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			::It's a bad faith assumption to assume that that was a bad faith assumption! Notability goes far beyond verifiability, and introduces the idea that what one person thinks is unimportant should be deleted. ] 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			*Sorry, but I disagree. If that were the standard then notable webcomics like ] and ] would suddenly be invalid. ] 04:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

			== Merge Request ==
	*Jacqui,

			Let's nip it early - the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it. If people here show some interest in actually dealing with memes, it might be worth it further, but past discussions haven't been fruitful. --] <small>(])</small> 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	It would tend to act in its favour especially if there were significant sales of the book or coverage as you say. ] 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
			* Could you go into more detail on how ] "fails to deal with" internet memes? The memes cited as examples throughout the ] proposal and its discussion generally seem to be covered by ], and I don't see much difference between the two guidelines -- WP:WEB's "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms," is extremely similar to WP:MEMES's "The meme has been mentioned in a reliable source outside of Internet culture." --] 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			**The "outside sources" is merely one of many ways to glean notability. The problem with WP:WEB in that it fails to note that internet-only information is less likely to be noted in "mainstream" culture. Thus, things that are overly popular on the internet (Icy Hot Stuntaz, The Juggernaut Bitch), have little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper. WP:MEMES attempts to seek a balance for that, while WP:WEB is there to set a guideline that's got web''sites'' and not memes in mind. --] <small>(])</small> 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			***Does your idea that Icy Hot Stuntaz has little chance of being noted in a newspaper take into account articles like "Are the Icy Hot Stuntaz real, or just a stunt?" from the July 20, 2002, Dallas Morning News? -- ] 05:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			****You'd be the first person to note that it's been there since I've been trotting it out as an example. Even then, one article isn't "multiple, non-trivial works.," unfortunately. --] <small>(])</small> 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			*****Depending on your interpretation of "multiple, non-trivial works," you may be interested that Icy Hot Stuntaz was the Financial Times' "Investrend Website of the day" for October 3, 2005, and is also discussed in the East Bay Express' September 1, 2004, article "Take Off All Your Clothes." It took me less than hour to find three reliable sources for a topic I have no interest in, so I'm not sure what you're getting at when you write that I'm the first person to note these sources. I doubt that my library is that much better than other libraries, so I'm guessing that the reason these or other reliable sources weren't brought up in your previous conversations is that nobody really bothered to look for them. Or was there actually some serious group attempt made to research Icy Hot Stuntaz and nobody found these or any other reliable sources? -- ] 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			******Well, I've been hunting for months, and hadn't seen them, and no one else has noted them. So that's a plus. Bully for them. --] <small>(])</small> 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			*******Has your position on this at all changed? Scrolling up above, I see that back in March we had a similar conversation where you had written that memes on the web such as ] and ] don't have "a shot in hell of ever reaching the absurd standards of the guideline here." I then pointed out sources for them like The Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, and MSNBC's Countdown. Now it's May, and you had written that ] has "little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper," after which I pointed out sources in three newspapers. So, have I managed to change your view that reliable sources for notable internet memes cannot be found? -- ] 09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
			********No, I haven't, because the problem still persists. I want you to look at the AfDs for thesr types of things, the problem is "nn," and WP:WEB is consistently ignored. I've had plenty of time to think about it, and I still think we require a separate listing, especially for ones that are notable but don't recieve coverage. --] <small>(])</small> 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
			*********OK, I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. You haven't managed to convince me that internet memes "that are notable but don't recieve coverage" exist, yet alone in sufficient numbers to warrant their own guideline rather than possibly being a few exceptions to this guideline. And it doesn't appear that I'm going to be able to change your mind with any further amount of finding you reliable sources for articles which you believe it is impossible to find reliable sources for. I am also unconvinced that trying to determine notability without reliable sources isn't going to run afoul of ] and ]. I still believe that this guideline and the ] guideline could be easily merged together by simply adding "memes" to this guideline's paragraph on "Web content includes, but is not limited to." I am not going to make this change right away without some people beside you and I weighing in on this discussion, though it does appear that several people stated their opinions two months ago up above that ] adequately covers internet memes. -- ] 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
			************That's fine, and I don't think one of us could convince the other. I do, however, implore you to read the prior discussions at WP:MEMES as well as in my userspace (]. --] <small>(])</small> 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
			*This is a fundamental issue with the concept of notability. Because what it really means is 'I don't like it', there is no way to codifiy it. Better would be to use verifiability - the memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are verifiable. ] 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			*:Actually, that's just your point of view as to what it means. Your opinion suggests you believe ] should be merged here, since these guidelines aver that any web related content which has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is notable. The memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are notable. ] <small>]</small> 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			::My opinion is that all 'notability' material be deleted as 'not notable'. I reject the concept as institutionalization of POV, which is against current policy. ] 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::The first sentence makes no sense to me. The second is an oxymoron. If current policy did oppose institutionalization of POV, that would represent an institutional point of view. ] <small>]</small> 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			::It's simple. I think all of the rulecruft associated with 'notability' should be deleted. Current policy says that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and which articles get to be written is also a matter of NPOV. The articles on Democrats and Republicans need to be written from a neutral point of view, but you must also not exclude articles based on your pov. You can't not have an article on the democrats just because you don't like them or are not interested in them. Ergo, a guideline that enshrines a small groups POV as inclusion policy is in breach of ]. ] 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			===] failing at afd for memes ===
			I discovered something I wrote in the archives of this talk page which is germane to ]'s assertion that the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it.

			*It is worth remembering these guidelines are just that, and that if consensus at afd doesn't agree with them, that is unimportant, as they are only here as guidelines on whether to start an article or not.
	===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 ] as being a good source in these cases. ]] 19:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

			That these guidelines aren't used at afd is not wholly important. That they exist and people can be pointed to them is. Many afd's are not closed properly by admins, who seem to forget that ], ] and ] are non-negotiable. No consensus at afd can trump the three policies, and, if we take those three policies as they read, any article which cannot be verified in outside sources should be deleted. Whilst that is not happening all the time, it doesn't mean those aren't the goals, it means that admins get it wrong, or that good faith in the project is extended, or that afd is broken. Eventually, all articles that exist now will be of the standard detailed in those three policies, but ], and also, there will just be newer ones that don't. That these guidelines are currently ignored for memes isn't a reason why they don't apply to memes, it just means that they '''should''' be applied to memes. ] <small>]</small> 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Syndicates again===
			:You seem to misunderstand our aims. We don't want to ignore verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. We wan't to add new requirements for notability, not subtract old policies.--] 10:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			::You seem to misunderstand my position, which is that this guideline is enough, and already applies. People should start using this in afd's rather than build more guidelines. If you agree with the three policies then I'm not sure why this guideline fails, since this guideline is based upon the three policies; it states that a meme is notable if it has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. That's the position of the verifiability policy. Perhaps if people could illuminkate me as to how these guidelines fail, I'd change my position, but as yet all I've been told is that these guidelines are too tough. That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what our policies are. ] states that if an article topic cannot be verified in third party, reputable sources it shouldn't exist. A primary source is not enough to write an article from. Now people have attempted to argue that this is a bias against online sources, but I fail to see that since this guidance offers no evaluation of sources. It's a redundant argument, and one that the people espousing it fail to follow through on. When I have asked what they would consider reliable sources, they fail to provide them. There's no sense that anyone is attempting to communicate on the issue at all, rather we sit on two hilltops firing broadsides. ] <small>]</small> 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			:You are right that there will never be agreement on this, since notabilty inherently means 'What I Like'. What you like will always be different to what others like. You may get apparent agreement of the people in the room about 'What Slashdot Editors Like', and be able to get that passed a process, but it does not represent 'What Islamic Historians Like'. It's enshrining a POV. ] 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			::So you say. Actually I think it's a rough and ready guide to whether there is likely to be enough independent interest to ensure that we can verify that the subject is being covered neutrally. Too many people think that notability relates only to ] (indiscriminate). It doesn't. ] 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::No, it's just enshrining one groups' view of what is important. ] 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

			== Suggestion that WP:MEMES be merged into WP:WEB ==
	I see that ] 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. ] 02:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

			I suggest that the proposed guideline being discussed and worked on at ] be merged into this one at ]. I don't think this would actually take much work; simply adding "memes" to the list of things which "Web content includes, but is not limited to," would probably do it. -- ] 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	:. ] 02:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
			:I think this is worth considering, but first we should wait and see the results of the Notability proposal.--] 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

			I agree with Dragonfiend that ] applies. Adding that one sentence would take care of memes. ] 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			:That wouldn't solve the issue, I think. People ignore ] because its too overarching.--] 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

			::Okay. Really, I don't want to see any internet fads in Misplaced Pages. I tolerate a few of them like ] because it's made news, but I find most of them to be juvenile, stupid, far from funny, and a waste of brain space. I'd like to see them barred outright from Misplaced Pages, but I suspect that won't happen. I don't like the current proposal at ] because it's too inclusive and allows secondary-source commentary on a primary source published only on the internet. I also want to make my ideas clear so that when someone quotes policy at me in the future and declares it to be "consensus" I can say that I disagreed when I had the chance. Misplaced Pages isn't ], and shouldn't aspire to be. In fact, it should try '''not''' to be like Encyclopedia Dramatica. There. I'm done, so thanks for reading. ] 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::Which further explains why we need a policy. You're on the far end of exclusionism, I'm on the far end of inclusionism. So what do we do to reach a middle ground that makes sense. I don't know if I've seen you over at WP:MEMES yet to give your two cents. --] <small>(])</small> 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			::::Yeah, I was over there too. I was trying to get across the point that pages on meanspirited internet fads like Brian Peppers should be excluded. Of course, I'm in the minority on that, but perhaps ] actions will take care of some of that. I've publicly shamed people in writing as a newspaper reporter, because I had to do it to get paid. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it for free. ] 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			:The middle ground that makes sense is to dump 'notability' for the problematic POV that it is. Get back to the basics of verifiable, well sourced articles, and these issues disapear. ] 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			::To quote andy warhol, in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. Let's not make it 16.--] 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::Your point?! ] 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			::::I've been mentioned in match reports in the ''South London Press'', my photo has appeared in another local paper, my birth date, marriage date and addresses are matters of public record, my blog is a reliable source for content about myself, the schools I attended can be referenced online, where's my article? ] <small>]</small> 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Well, someone could write an article about you, if there's enough to say to make it more than a phone book entry, and did not consist entirely of local news reports, and if they did, then I don't think there'd be any harm. But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy. Again, no problem, no need for rulecruft! ] 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Great justice, your view has been proven impractical-- you've essentially admitted that, under your system of bare bones verifiability and npov, a janitor mentioned in a local newspaper could have an article. I think I can easily make the following generalization of that view: the community, for the most part, doesn't agree with it.--] 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::No, it hasn't. One: 'The community' agrees with me enough that every time 'notability' has been voted on as proposed policy it has been rejected - obviously, on a page working on more of it, there are more people in favor. Two: my view has not been 'proven' anything. Everytime I show you common sense, you bring out more and more bizarre examples. I show you why you're wrong about you being able to have an article, you bring out a mythical janitor that doesn't have an article. Please. Let's stick to the facts. ] 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

			::I'm not even going to let you off that easy. You say "But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy." Prove it. Cite me the policies. ] <small>]</small> 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::Well, I can't prove a negative - there is no article on you, so I can't speak to particulars. Write one, and we'll see, but I would imagine that there is simply not enough information that is actually verifiable to write more than a phone book entry. But, having said that, I don't know you, there may be a lot of verfiable information, and a great article to be written - if it bothers you - write it and we'll see. One of the problems is that all you are doing is speculating on cases that ''might'' exist at some time in the future ''if'' people acted in ways they never usually do. ] 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			::::Okay, I'll do it for you. It's a speedy deletion criterion, namely article criterion #7, ''An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.'' Notability is already enshrined in policy despite your arguments to the contrary. And I'm not speculating on what might exist, I could cite any number of articles that did exist but were deleted under this criterion. You seem to believe short entires should be deleted. I take it you are aware of the stub concept. ] <small>]</small> 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			:?How do you know if it should be deleted if you havn't written it?! That's just silly. ] 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

			Worth considering, however I think that the guidelines in ] is too easy going, so to speak. I don't think that Misplaced Pages should really be adding things like ] to its pages because although they may be very notable on the internet and in internet culture, is an image that quite a few people visited for a few months about god killing kittens when you masturbate encyclopedia content?
			] 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			::You don't like it, neither do I, but thankfully that will never be criteria for inclusion! ] 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

			==Suggestion that Misplaced Pages:Notability be merged into '''Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense'''==
			I sugest that the proposed guideline be deleted, and that we all get back to the business of editing and writing articles. ] 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			:I, for one, agree - it should go - see ]. ] 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

			== lets make some things clear ==

			Vote support or oppose if you agree with the following:
			:Please note that . ] 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

			*The core wikipedia policies cannot be nullified by any new policies.
			:'''Support.'''] 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			**Of course not - that's why ''notability' has to go. It is blatantly in violation of ].
			*Verifiability alone is not enough. People are written up in verifiable local papers all the time.
			:'''Support.'''] 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			**Comment: ] deals with news reports. Existing policy is enough if people ''read it''. ] 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			*The AFD should treat articles consistenly with regard to policy.
			:'''Support.'''] 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			**AFD decisions should be grounded in policy (not random rulecruft), but should also take into account common sense. ] 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:02, 9 March 2023

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Notability (web). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Shortcut

WT:WEB

This guideline covers several related areas. Please see discussions on website sub-types at:

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Webcomics

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Blogging

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Early Web History

Forums in the Notability Guidelines...

Recently engaged in a dispute, this guideline was refferenced to me. I was taken aback from it, and am in heave dispute about it. I wish to state my opinions, and have some things explained to me. These are all in the aspects of forums being notable, not the other aspects of the web-related content. According to the content, for something to be notable on the web, it needs multiple outside articles which mention it, or it needs to have won a well known award. Here are the issues with that:

There are no awards for Internet Forums which are well known. There is no Oscar for "Best Overall Forum", or an internet award. Thus, Internet Forums have no real chance to qualify here.
In an internet forum, most affairs remain internal. Members may occassionally leave a forum to spam up another one, but it never makes the news. In January of 2006, when YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world, it was the ugliest raid in history. However, the news did not cover the raid. Only widespread knowledge made the event notable. Thus, with outside events out, copyright and legal disputes are the only things that could get out to the news. The only exceptions are the advice forums, which have appeared multiple times for what they do in the news, which is unfair bias towards other types of forums. Teenhelp is an example, as it has been mentioned in the news before.

With these, all internet forums are subject to notability issues. Does anyone have any opinion on this? 68.192.25.106 04:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the proper response would be: How do you write a NPOV, sourced article about a topic that has no sources? That's the essense of the verifiability policy (which is basically WP:WEB for everything); For any given topic, sources must exist. For forums, the only sources you have are first-hand accounts of its various members, and those aren't reliable. Nifboy 06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nifboy for president! Free sex!! The beer is on the house!!! Err... I mean, I support fully the statement above.
brenneman 07:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You use primary sources. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Badlydrawnjeff. - brenneman 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why this was replied to at my talk page, all this refers to is the ability to use primary sources at WP:OR. Why people continually ignore/forget/aren't aware of that, I may never know. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You can use primary sources to document what happened, you need an outside source to verify that the happening was of encyclopedic worth. You describe foo as happening with a primary source, but you can't quantify it as anything other than foo happening without a secondary source. So in the above example you can state "members of YTMND and many other forums posted to eBaum's world". you can't quantify it as anything else without another source. Therefore, you can't write an encyclopedic article on the topic. Please see WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which should be taken together. Hiding talk 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I do understand that outside sources are less NPOV, but the issue which I have with the whole notability of forums is that forums do not get much attention in the media to begin with. However, someone may be looking for information on a forum from this encyclopedia, to see if it is a drama place, a spammy place, or a mentorship place. To be notable, someone reading it would have to care about something. Notabiltiy guidelines are set to impose a guideline of what a reader may be looking for.

Also, primary sources are important, agreed. However, with multiple primary sources, the page becomes less and less POV, and more the general consensus. I just see that asking for a media article on a forum or an award a forum won to be incredibly limiting to the amount of information that should get out, and also creates prejudice towards mentorship forums. 68.192.25.106 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The current page makes no mention of media in its guidance, to wit: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. So you seem to be arguing from a flawed position. The argument you need to be having is elsewhere. We also seem to be crossing wires on our definitions of primary sources. But at the end of the day, what is questionable about a group of message board members posting to another message board is the encyclopedic value, not the sources. One must consider if the event is being given undue weight, as per WP:NPOV. Hiding talk 11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think I am getting a bit confused on this. I didn't comprehend that last message at all. Sorry. Could you please re-explain it?68.192.25.106 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically, if you want to post details of youth club members a going to youth club b in its own article, then you're giving the event undue weight. Similarly, if forum members a post to form b, you're giving it undue weight placing it in its own article. Your arguments regarding the media are flawed since no mention of the media is made in the guideline which you question, and what you consider to be a primary source may not be a primary source, but it is hard to tell since you don't cite specific sources. To refer to your original posting, basically, the guidelines are what they are: an article on when YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world fails the undue weight section of WP:NPOV; the event has been imbued with too much emphasis by being given an article. These guidelines merely reflect that policy by asking for multiple mentions in third party sources; this ensures no event or topic is given undue weight. Hope that helps. Hiding talk 09:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not refferring to something getting it's own article. Just a mention in a related article. Like, YTMND spamming would nto warrent an article, but it would in the ebaum'sworld article, as it is related to it's history. And that is where I have the objection. I mean, if a forum has an outside source mention anything about it, then it certainly is notable. But, using the example, ebaum'sworld is certainly notable, because I believe it has outside mentions in various sources. But the forum inside would not fit the criteria, and this is what I find unfair, that it is therefore not notable to be included inside the article. It is important for one reading to know that there is a forum they could join, and maybe provide a little bit of what had happened to the site. AKA, if someone was looking for it, it is notable to provide major details that don't warrent the need to fit these guidelines. Becuase inevitably, what is notable is what people find important when reading something on a site.68.192.25.106 20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case the pages you need to read are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Information which satisfies those three policies can be added to any article. Hiding talk 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I was arguing about, and it seems that I was arguing for something already in place. 68.192.25.106 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well for my money any forum which has been going more than fifty years and has in excess of seventy million members posting daily is notable. The rest are not... ;-)

Speedy?

Over at WP:DEP, most of the articles we are getting through these days are about non-notable websites. Where they are hard and futile to wikify, and where they are seemingly not worth the trouble of AfDing, since the result is invariably to delete, the most logical progression seems to me to be some kind of speedy deletion criteria for patent non-notability of websites (something akin to {db-bio} or {db-band}, maybe {db-site} or {db-web} i would have thought). are there any plans to introduce a criteria of this type? or does one already exist? Thanks. Jdcooper 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

People will resist speedying website articles, and for understandable reasons, I guess. Often website articles can be speedied, but for other reasons. If they consist only of an external link and a short blurb basically restating the title of that link, for example, they fall under A3. But I think it's a better bet to just use WP:PROD, which is now policy. No need to clutter up AfD, and these things are usually uncontroversial. It's pretty painless. --W.marsh 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do, cheers. Jdcooper 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy!

Nonetheless someone else has had the idea to create {{Db-web}} halfway bypassing the real content of wikipedia:Notability (websites) to make a speedy delete criterion for web content (appended rather inappropriately to WP:CSD#A7)

That template is now up for deletetion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Template:Db-web. I voted for delete, while I think wikipedia:Notability (websites) doesn't fit all that well in a speedy deletion scheme, and while the template rather focusses on Alexa as notability criterion (which is not OK with wikipedia:Notability (websites) either), etc... (see vote commentaries when following the link above to the vote). --Francis Schonken 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

this guideline isn't really a guideline

Most wikipedians don't stick to the current version of this guideline. It's become more and more broad as time has gone by, and has had an increasingly smaller following. The old version, dealing solely with websites (as was intended by the name) has consensus. But not this.

Also, it has clearly overstepped its bounds. Its Notability (websites). It's cheesy to take advantage of that guideline tag to make it apply to all web content-- something it was not intended to do, and for which there actually is no consensus.

Also, notice how the guideline tag was propped up because there wasnt editing for a week(according to the edit summary). Huh? How about informing the community, perhaps asking for a poll to gauge consensus?

This is especially frustrating because I have been working on a notability guideline for memes at Misplaced Pages:Notability (memes), which actually involves what its title suggests. I completely oppose this policy being considered a guideline for anything except websites, as it currently is respected by the wikipedia community only for its purpose in judging the notability of websites. Not to mention that it severely needs a copyedit.

In conclusion, this entire page has changed too greatly and expanded to greatly from the subject of websites to be considered community consensus. It should be once again considered a proposal(since, after all, the community rarely uses it on anything other than websites and webcomics...i've only once or twice seen it used on a meme, out of all those hundreds of opinions in AFD's). I have marked it this way to reflect it. Thanks, --Urthogie 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The old version didn't deal with websites, it dealt with webcomics, and has grown organically and been discussed many times. In three months it hasn't really been overly disputed, and is in use across wikipedia. It was advertised at the pump, on cent and at rfc, I think it's poor form to suggest any underhand motives here, and especially to accuse anyone of not informing the community. Hiding talk 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually has been disputed, as can be seen by this, which was only about 10 edits ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ANotability_%28websites%29&diff=40875093&oldid=40663958.--Urthogie 19:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence my use of the word overly. So you'll find what I said was true, contrary to your edit summary. Hiding talk 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Well I'm yet to find it being used for anything other than webcomics and websites. I'm unaware of it having consensus for memes, as you said on the notability proposal for memes. So that's why I, and Gerard earlier, removed the tag.--Urthogie 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

David didn't make it a proposal, and the tag has been restored since then. And it's got consensus for web content. As to the meme discussion, read the section above, Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (websites)#Guideline for internet memes. At the moment it's all there is. NBow you want to propose WP:MEME, and good luck to you. If it is accepted, then no problem. But at the moment it isn't, and I think it's bad form to edit this to fit around your proposal, which is what I think you are doing. My opinion is that we don't need anything more, but if consensus goes against that, that's fine. But the status of WP:MEME and discussions there should have no impact on the status of this page. David removed the guideline tag for a whole different issue, and the tag was subsequently restored. And being used for webcomics and websites is a lot more than being used for websites, which was your original assertion. The expansion was to cover both those things and expand to cover the whole of web-content. Whilst you seem to disagree with that, I would ask you to respect the fact that consensus was sought on the issue through advertising the proposal in various high profile pages and that a consensus was reached. Hiding talk 20:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The concern that this guideline inadequately addresses memes is perfectly illustrated by the previous discussion of memes on this talk page. Clearly, there is a problem with this guideline's way of addressing memes-- thats why its rarely invoked in AFD discussions of memes. I think its fair to say that while most of this guideline has consensus, the part on memes doesnt, as evidenced by:

The community wide interest in a better policy on memes.
The fact that this is never used for meme AFD's, and that meme AFD's continue to be evil exercizes in voting/democracy.

--Urthogie 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The guideline template (which was applied to this guideline after proper procedure and sufficient consensus, I can confirm Hiding on that point) says: " please use the discussion page to propose major changes"... downgrading from "guideline" to "proposal" is a major change. Urthogie's one-person proposal in this sense is, as far as I can see, not accepted (aka rejected). --Francis Schonken 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rejecting something means nothing if you don't give a reason. We're discussing merits, not bullying.--Urthogie 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, we're discussing consensus. And despite the numerous citations of WP:WEB on AfD, I can count the number of objectors on one hand. That sounds like consensus to me. Nifboy 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that there's a better policy required for memes. Many people have requested this, not just me. Ignoring it isn't just isolating a couple of people-- its bad for the project. Also, please note that consensus is not a static thing.

I happen to notice you're involved with webcomics on wikipedia. That's great, and I'm sure this policy has helped very much with that. I'm just trying to establish a better policy on memes-- something which is requested and needed.--Urthogie 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There isn't yet a better policy for memes, and I'd add that Misplaced Pages:Internet phenomena has redirected here since the 30th October with no great concern. That's a nod here. There's more consensus invested in this proposal than any other regarding memes at present. Hiding talk 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen used. Could you perhaps help me make a better one?--Urthogie 09:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Above, Urthogie suggested to talk about merits, not bullying:

IMHO it's no "merit" to try to discredit an operational guideline, out of some sort of jealousy because it is perceived as "competition" to a new idea (the meme proposal);
Replacing {{wikipedia subcat guideline}} by {{proposed}} on an operational, accredited guideline is *bullying*. So, don't.

Please see the possible merits of the meme proposal independent of the merits of the "website" notability guideline. If that is not possible, and if the primary "merit" of the meme proposal would be that it tries to push away the "website" guideline out of some misguided competition idea, then I suppose it would be better to dunk the meme proposal ASAP. --Francis Schonken 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't perceive this as "compteition". In fact, I barely knew about it because of its name, which to most rational people suggests "websites". Thats why it was frustrating when I found some stuff on memes hidden in here, despite never being used on AFD's for memes. And I'll continue to try to get consensus independent of this. If consensus fails so be it. If not, we'll harmonize the two articles. Peace, --Urthogie 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

tx. Note that I already adapted {{Notabilityguide}} (included in several notability-related pages), the link to this Websites notability guideline now reads Websites and web content, instead of previously Websites (so, that might better attract attention to the full content of this guideline)

Also, above I made a link to Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Template:Db-web - I still think a CSD template for websites and web content based on the present Misplaced Pages:Notability (websites) is not a good idea (while this guideline is not really written in a speedy aproach). That might be a possible merit of the meme proposal: a (future) meme notability guideline might be more suitable for being used in a CSD approach. Might it be a good idea to keep that in mind when developing the meme notability proposal? (just an invitation) --Francis Schonken 10:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we should move this page to Misplaced Pages:Notability (web), though?--Urthogie 10:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, and have done so. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tentative rule for notability

I've been seeing a few web comics deletion nominations (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Professional Thievery (webcomic) or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of webcomics) and I think we could use some sort of rule. Here's my humble suggestion:

I think the threshold of notability for web comics that would serve Misplaced Pages best is that the author makes money out of it (other than a few token from online advertising). Otherwise, we run the risk of having a flurry of vanity articles from anybody who draws.

Tell me what you think of this. Tony 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good enough for me- except that it might be difficult to verify who's making money. Borisblue 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, did you just reply to yourself? What happened? ericg ✈ 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. Is there a perceived shortcoming with the current guidelines? Do you feel there are web sites which don't meet the current guidelines that ought to be included? Or do you feel that there are web sites which meet the current guidelines that ought to be excluded? This sounds like a bad idea to me, not only because of difficulty with verification, but also because notability has little to do with profitability. A completely free web site covered by The New York Times and Washington Post is still notable. -- Dragonfiend 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I started the discussion somewhere else and was told that it was not the appropriate page for this so I copied the thing here. No reply to myself yet. I wasn't suggesting this guideline for only websites that display webcomics. I feel the current rules creates too many useless articles that have to be deleted. Tony 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the notability guidelines won't stem the tide of articles on non-notable subjects. It's not the case that people are creating these articles because they think they do meet our notability guidelines, but rather they're not even aware the guidelines exist. We don't need to change the guidelines. We need to figure out a way to let the newbies know what they are. –Abe Dashiell 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's because the guidelines blow, and there is no concensus to apply them except within the rulecruft fandom pages like this one. 165.254.38.126 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this guideline simply restates the three key policies, I'm not sure how it blows. As the three key policies have the consensus of the community, I'm not sure how you state there is no consensus to apply them. Hiding The wikipedian meme 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If it simply restated them then there would be no need for it. It does not - it introduces the concept of "what I like". It's bogus, and should be dropped before it does more damage to the principle of a neutral point of view. 165.254.38.126 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a bald bad faith assumption. Perhaps you can show me where it does that. It simply states that articles require third party sources, per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad faith assumption to assume that that was a bad faith assumption! Notability goes far beyond verifiability, and introduces the idea that what one person thinks is unimportant should be deleted. For great justice. 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. If that were the standard then notable webcomics like Bob and George and Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi would suddenly be invalid. Pata Hikari 04:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Request

Let's nip it early - the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it. If people here show some interest in actually dealing with memes, it might be worth it further, but past discussions haven't been fruitful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you go into more detail on how WP:WEB "fails to deal with" internet memes? The memes cited as examples throughout the WP:MEMES proposal and its discussion generally seem to be covered by WP:WEB, and I don't see much difference between the two guidelines -- WP:WEB's "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms," is extremely similar to WP:MEMES's "The meme has been mentioned in a reliable source outside of Internet culture." --Dragonfiend 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The "outside sources" is merely one of many ways to glean notability. The problem with WP:WEB in that it fails to note that internet-only information is less likely to be noted in "mainstream" culture. Thus, things that are overly popular on the internet (Icy Hot Stuntaz, The Juggernaut Bitch), have little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper. WP:MEMES attempts to seek a balance for that, while WP:WEB is there to set a guideline that's got websites and not memes in mind. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Does your idea that Icy Hot Stuntaz has little chance of being noted in a newspaper take into account articles like "Are the Icy Hot Stuntaz real, or just a stunt?" from the July 20, 2002, Dallas Morning News? -- Dragonfiend 05:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    - You'd be the first person to note that it's been there since I've been trotting it out as an example. Even then, one article isn't "multiple, non-trivial works.," unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      - Depending on your interpretation of "multiple, non-trivial works," you may be interested that Icy Hot Stuntaz was the Financial Times' "Investrend Website of the day" for October 3, 2005, and is also discussed in the East Bay Express' September 1, 2004, article "Take Off All Your Clothes." It took me less than hour to find three reliable sources for a topic I have no interest in, so I'm not sure what you're getting at when you write that I'm the first person to note these sources. I doubt that my library is that much better than other libraries, so I'm guessing that the reason these or other reliable sources weren't brought up in your previous conversations is that nobody really bothered to look for them. Or was there actually some serious group attempt made to research Icy Hot Stuntaz and nobody found these or any other reliable sources? -- Dragonfiend 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        Well, I've been hunting for months, and hadn't seen them, and no one else has noted them. So that's a plus. Bully for them. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        Has your position on this at all changed? Scrolling up above, I see that back in March we had a similar conversation where you had written that memes on the web such as The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and Badger Badger Badger don't have "a shot in hell of ever reaching the absurd standards of the guideline here." I then pointed out sources for them like The Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, and MSNBC's Countdown. Now it's May, and you had written that Icy Hot Stuntaz has "little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper," after which I pointed out sources in three newspapers. So, have I managed to change your view that reliable sources for notable internet memes cannot be found? -- Dragonfiend 09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        No, I haven't, because the problem still persists. I want you to look at the AfDs for thesr types of things, the problem is "nn," and WP:WEB is consistently ignored. I've had plenty of time to think about it, and I still think we require a separate listing, especially for ones that are notable but don't recieve coverage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        OK, I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. You haven't managed to convince me that internet memes "that are notable but don't recieve coverage" exist, yet alone in sufficient numbers to warrant their own guideline rather than possibly being a few exceptions to this guideline. And it doesn't appear that I'm going to be able to change your mind with any further amount of finding you reliable sources for articles which you believe it is impossible to find reliable sources for. I am also unconvinced that trying to determine notability without reliable sources isn't going to run afoul of WP:V and WP:NOR. I still believe that this guideline and the WP:MEMES guideline could be easily merged together by simply adding "memes" to this guideline's paragraph on "Web content includes, but is not limited to." I am not going to make this change right away without some people beside you and I weighing in on this discussion, though it does appear that several people stated their opinions two months ago up above that WP:WEB adequately covers internet memes. -- Dragonfiend 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        That's fine, and I don't think one of us could convince the other. I do, however, implore you to read the prior discussions at WP:MEMES as well as in my userspace (User:Badlydrawnjeff/Meme. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a fundamental issue with the concept of notability. Because what it really means is 'I don't like it', there is no way to codifiy it. Better would be to use verifiability - the memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are verifiable. For great justice. 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's just your point of view as to what it means. Your opinion suggests you believe WP:MEMES should be merged here, since these guidelines aver that any web related content which has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is notable. The memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are notable. Hiding Talk 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that all 'notability' material be deleted as 'not notable'. I reject the concept as institutionalization of POV, which is against current policy. For great justice. 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence makes no sense to me. The second is an oxymoron. If current policy did oppose institutionalization of POV, that would represent an institutional point of view. Hiding Talk 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. I think all of the rulecruft associated with 'notability' should be deleted. Current policy says that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and which articles get to be written is also a matter of NPOV. The articles on Democrats and Republicans need to be written from a neutral point of view, but you must also not exclude articles based on your pov. You can't not have an article on the democrats just because you don't like them or are not interested in them. Ergo, a guideline that enshrines a small groups POV as inclusion policy is in breach of WP:NPOV. For great justice. 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB failing at afd for memes

I discovered something I wrote in the archives of this talk page which is germane to badlydrawnjeff's assertion that the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it.

It is worth remembering these guidelines are just that, and that if consensus at afd doesn't agree with them, that is unimportant, as they are only here as guidelines on whether to start an article or not.

That these guidelines aren't used at afd is not wholly important. That they exist and people can be pointed to them is. Many afd's are not closed properly by admins, who seem to forget that WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are non-negotiable. No consensus at afd can trump the three policies, and, if we take those three policies as they read, any article which cannot be verified in outside sources should be deleted. Whilst that is not happening all the time, it doesn't mean those aren't the goals, it means that admins get it wrong, or that good faith in the project is extended, or that afd is broken. Eventually, all articles that exist now will be of the standard detailed in those three policies, but Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, and also, there will just be newer ones that don't. That these guidelines are currently ignored for memes isn't a reason why they don't apply to memes, it just means that they should be applied to memes. Hiding Talk 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand our aims. We don't want to ignore verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. We wan't to add new requirements for notability, not subtract old policies.--Urthogie 10:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand my position, which is that this guideline is enough, and already applies. People should start using this in afd's rather than build more guidelines. If you agree with the three policies then I'm not sure why this guideline fails, since this guideline is based upon the three policies; it states that a meme is notable if it has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. That's the position of the verifiability policy. Perhaps if people could illuminkate me as to how these guidelines fail, I'd change my position, but as yet all I've been told is that these guidelines are too tough. That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what our policies are. WP:V states that if an article topic cannot be verified in third party, reputable sources it shouldn't exist. A primary source is not enough to write an article from. Now people have attempted to argue that this is a bias against online sources, but I fail to see that since this guidance offers no evaluation of sources. It's a redundant argument, and one that the people espousing it fail to follow through on. When I have asked what they would consider reliable sources, they fail to provide them. There's no sense that anyone is attempting to communicate on the issue at all, rather we sit on two hilltops firing broadsides. Hiding Talk 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right that there will never be agreement on this, since notabilty inherently means 'What I Like'. What you like will always be different to what others like. You may get apparent agreement of the people in the room about 'What Slashdot Editors Like', and be able to get that passed a process, but it does not represent 'What Islamic Historians Like'. It's enshrining a POV. For great justice. 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So you say. Actually I think it's a rough and ready guide to whether there is likely to be enough independent interest to ensure that we can verify that the subject is being covered neutrally. Too many people think that notability relates only to WP:NOT (indiscriminate). It doesn't. Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just enshrining one groups' view of what is important. For great justice. 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion that WP:MEMES be merged into WP:WEB

I suggest that the proposed guideline being discussed and worked on at WP:MEMES be merged into this one at WP:WEB. I don't think this would actually take much work; simply adding "memes" to the list of things which "Web content includes, but is not limited to," would probably do it. -- Dragonfiend 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is worth considering, but first we should wait and see the results of the Notability proposal.--Urthogie 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dragonfiend that WP:WEB applies. Adding that one sentence would take care of memes. Brian G. Crawford 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't solve the issue, I think. People ignore WP:WEB because its too overarching.--Urthogie 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Really, I don't want to see any internet fads in Misplaced Pages. I tolerate a few of them like AYB because it's made news, but I find most of them to be juvenile, stupid, far from funny, and a waste of brain space. I'd like to see them barred outright from Misplaced Pages, but I suspect that won't happen. I don't like the current proposal at WP:MEMES because it's too inclusive and allows secondary-source commentary on a primary source published only on the internet. I also want to make my ideas clear so that when someone quotes policy at me in the future and declares it to be "consensus" I can say that I disagreed when I had the chance. Misplaced Pages isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica, and shouldn't aspire to be. In fact, it should try not to be like Encyclopedia Dramatica. There. I'm done, so thanks for reading. Brian G. Crawford 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which further explains why we need a policy. You're on the far end of exclusionism, I'm on the far end of inclusionism. So what do we do to reach a middle ground that makes sense. I don't know if I've seen you over at WP:MEMES yet to give your two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was over there too. I was trying to get across the point that pages on meanspirited internet fads like Brian Peppers should be excluded. Of course, I'm in the minority on that, but perhaps WP:OFFICE actions will take care of some of that. I've publicly shamed people in writing as a newspaper reporter, because I had to do it to get paid. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it for free. Brian G. Crawford 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The middle ground that makes sense is to dump 'notability' for the problematic POV that it is. Get back to the basics of verifiable, well sourced articles, and these issues disapear. For great justice. 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote andy warhol, in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. Let's not make it 16.--Urthogie 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point?! For great justice. 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been mentioned in match reports in the South London Press, my photo has appeared in another local paper, my birth date, marriage date and addresses are matters of public record, my blog is a reliable source for content about myself, the schools I attended can be referenced online, where's my article? Hiding Talk 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone could write an article about you, if there's enough to say to make it more than a phone book entry, and did not consist entirely of local news reports, and if they did, then I don't think there'd be any harm. But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy. Again, no problem, no need for rulecruft! For great justice. 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Great justice, your view has been proven impractical-- you've essentially admitted that, under your system of bare bones verifiability and npov, a janitor mentioned in a local newspaper could have an article. I think I can easily make the following generalization of that view: the community, for the most part, doesn't agree with it.--Urthogie 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. One: 'The community' agrees with me enough that every time 'notability' has been voted on as proposed policy it has been rejected - obviously, on a page working on more of it, there are more people in favor. Two: my view has not been 'proven' anything. Everytime I show you common sense, you bring out more and more bizarre examples. I show you why you're wrong about you being able to have an article, you bring out a mythical janitor that doesn't have an article. Please. Let's stick to the facts. For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to let you off that easy. You say "But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy." Prove it. Cite me the policies. Hiding Talk 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't prove a negative - there is no article on you, so I can't speak to particulars. Write one, and we'll see, but I would imagine that there is simply not enough information that is actually verifiable to write more than a phone book entry. But, having said that, I don't know you, there may be a lot of verfiable information, and a great article to be written - if it bothers you - write it and we'll see. One of the problems is that all you are doing is speculating on cases that might exist at some time in the future if people acted in ways they never usually do. For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it for you. It's a speedy deletion criterion, namely article criterion #7, An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Notability is already enshrined in policy despite your arguments to the contrary. And I'm not speculating on what might exist, I could cite any number of articles that did exist but were deleted under this criterion. You seem to believe short entires should be deleted. I take it you are aware of the stub concept. Hiding Talk 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

?How do you know if it should be deleted if you havn't written it?! That's just silly. For great justice. 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Worth considering, however I think that the guidelines in WP:MEMES is too easy going, so to speak. I don't think that Misplaced Pages should really be adding things like Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten to its pages because although they may be very notable on the internet and in internet culture, is an image that quite a few people visited for a few months about god killing kittens when you masturbate encyclopedia content? Beno1000 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't like it, neither do I, but thankfully that will never be criteria for inclusion! For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion that Misplaced Pages:Notability be merged into Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

I sugest that the proposed guideline be deleted, and that we all get back to the business of editing and writing articles. 165.254.38.126 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, agree - it should go - see Misplaced Pages:Notability#Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability. For great justice. 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

lets make some things clear

Vote support or oppose if you agree with the following:

Please note that . For great justice. 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The core wikipedia policies cannot be nullified by any new policies.

Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

- Of course not - that's why notability' has to go. It is blatantly in violation of WP:NPOV.
Verifiability alone is not enough. People are written up in verifiable local papers all the time.

Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: WP:NOT deals with news reports. Existing policy is enough if people read it. For great justice. 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The AFD should treat articles consistenly with regard to policy.

Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

- AFD decisions should be grounded in policy (not random rulecruft), but should also take into account common sense. For great justice. 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)