Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 16 April 2017 (Substing templates: {{spa}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete

Considerations:
  • Per the MONGO/ED arbitration, we probably cannot link to the site any longer as it now hosts attacks on Wikipedia editors. This does not affect the outcome.
  • Nmaster64 is blocked for gross incivility and attacks, both on and off Wikipedia, continuing long after the time when he had been told it was unacceptable to behave in this way. This does not affect the outcome.
  • Offsite solicitation took place, and several brand new users came along to venture an opinion. This does not, in and of itself, affect the outcome, but most of this input was (unsurprisingly) not founded on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Welcome, please do spend some time reading the five pillars of Wikipedia and turn your thinking round from "This is great, it must get an article", to "These are the standards, what subjects meet those standards". That works in a way that vote-staking a process-which-is-not-a-vote does not.
Arguments for deletion:
  • Several editors argued that the comic fails the primary notability criterion, being multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This is discussed in a subject-specific context at WP:WEB. This was not credibly rebutted.
  • It was argued that the comic achieves a low rating on the "Google test" ([1]), under 80 unique hits. This is supporting information only, in that this list of hits does not appear to contain reliable sources and the small number of unique references indicates that such sources will probably be hard to find. Low unique Google hits is not a good sign for a web-based medium, but this is not in and of itself an argument for deletion.
  • Low Alexa rank (~ 250,000). Alexa ranks are open to manipulation, although a very low rank may, like a poor Google result, be an indicator that sources will be hard to come by.
  • Lack of verifiability from independent non-trivial sources: Noted by several editors, a compelling point not rebutted by any Keep advocates. Although there is legitimate debate about what precisely would constitute a reliable sources for a webcomic, there were really no sources to weigh up, either in the article or in the debate.
  • Original research: Noted by some editors. The entire contents is indeed sourced solely from the comic and its associated forums. This speaks to the content more than the subject.
Arguments for retention
  • Google searches are not in themselves reliable. Valid argument, but does not replace the Google test with anything that does indicate notability or importance.
  • Growing in popularity, receives thousands of hits. Interesting but not relevant, even if reliable independent sources existed. Thousands is a small number anyway, and "growing" is subjective and meaningless without a base figure.
  • Featured on (e.g.) Destructoid, Joystiq, Dueling Analogs. These are potential sources of neutral critical commentary, but no such commentary was in evidence. Simply being there is probably not enough; definition of featured is also open to interpretation.
  • List of "less notable" comics: Irrelevant, ignored.
  • Eloquent testimony of impassioned fans: Irrelevant, sorry, also ignored.
  • No reasoning given: Ignored, obviously.
  • Accusations of malice: Ignored.
  • Joystiq Weekly webcomic award. Not actually an award, a weekly online poll. Slightly under 2,000 votes cast, and having seen the way the fanbase can be mobilised this may be due to astroturfing. The award itself does not appear to be particularly important, even if the site is, so this does not override lack of sources.
  • "WP:WEB does not allow webcomics" - an interesting argument, one which probably needs to be addressed somehow, but doesn't help us with sourcing.
  • "Per Nmaster64" might have been persuasive if Nmaster64's reasoning was stronger. Sadly it wasn't.

Summary: On the weight of argument from policy and guidelines (which represent community consensus in a way a poll of a few editors does not), I must call this as Delete. It is not unlikely that at some time in the future we may have sufficient independent reliable sources for an article on this subject to be written. It is unlikely to be in the near future, though. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F@NB0Y$

F@NB0Y$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Non-notable webcomic - more than one comic called Fanboys - Google search on "F@NB0Y$ Dewitt" narrows field to 10 unique out of 57 total. Search on "Fanboys Krudman" returns only 16 unique on 6,580. Delete MikeWazowski 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google searches to determine notability, in this case specifically, are not viable. The use of non-alphanumeric characters and the general reference to the comic as "fanboys", a term not easily searchable given it's common usage, especially within circles where it's popular, makes it completely unfair to judge in this manner. There is simply no good manner to search for this and return an accurate count which is usable to judge anything.

The comic has recently been featured on extremely popular gaming sites such as Destructoid, Joystiq, Dueling Analogs, and more. The comic is continuously growing in popularity, and receives thousands of hits a day. Certainly it has achieved a popularity higher than many of the comics on the wiki's list of webcomics.

The article itself is well-made and appears to meet all Wikipedia standards. Given it's growing popularity, it's winnings and features in Joystiq's weekly webcomic poll (Joystiq sits w/ an Alexa rating around 2000), and it's mention on numerous other gaming and comic sites around the net, I think F@NB0Y$ has certainly earned itself a small wikipedia article. I'd also like a viable explanation as to who the hell it's hurting by existing. This seems counter-intuitive to the concept of the Wikipedia, when good information is censored based on a few people who don't feel the work "popular enough". --Nmaster64 11:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Wiki-approved Webcomics with lower traffic rankings than F@NB0Y$---

Note: the list above marks every webcomic existing on the Wikipedia's List of webcomics that has a lower Alexa traffic rankings for it's domain than Fanboys-Online.com. This does not include any comics who's sites do not have data available, nor comics who's rankings are increased due to co-existing on a domain with other content or comics. Thus, it is likely the list is in reality longer.

Based on the above information, the basis that the webcomic F@NB0Y$ is non-notable is at best ridiculous, at worst an example of horrible bias. It's clear F@NB0Y$ is even at current a relatively popular webcomic, and with it's continued growth, especially as it begins to see more and more exposure, merits the existence of a Wiki article. --Nmaster64 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above list looks like a ready-made batch AfD nomination. We don't have to keep non-notable things just because there are even less notable things which haven't been deleted yet. But that does not mean that the less notable things automatically get a pass when it comes to WP:N WP:V and WP:RS, such as the hundreds of Pokemon characters with their own articles and zero independent cites for notability. Edison 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic ranking has nothing to do with notability. We don't keep articles just because they have a traffic rank or another. Please see: WP:WEB and WP:RS. The criteria require that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". bogdan 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Wikipedia guidelines cannot understand the concept of userbase, then they have failed. The point I'm trying to push forward is that F@NB0Y$ enjoys a much larger number of readers and traffic than a LARGE number of the "notable" webcomics, and therefore it is a given there are going to be more people interested in the Wiki entry than for some relatively unread webcomic who happens to have the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criteria met. Also, it is my opinion the comic HAS in addition met with WP:WEB, as Autodmc explained so well. I understand the need for notability guidelines, but if they've sunk to this point, then the Wikipedia is being limited and censored on a level that completely goes against the original principles of the project. --Nmaster64 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, we get the point. Waaaay too many links... -Ryanbomber 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per Nmaster64, both times, and bogdan. F@NBOY$ is WP:WEB, it has won awards that can be independently verified.
A webpoll? That's your award? Hah. I don't think it passes WP:WEB. bogdan 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my last Google search of "fanboys," fanboys-online.com ranked 4th from the top.
The article is in the style of Penny Arcade (webcomic), Ctrl+Alt+Del, 8-bit Theatre, and Press Start To Play. PSTP links to F@NBOY$ from their website.
This article is not an advertisement, it's written from a Neutral Point of View, all claims are verifiable, it doesn't contain original research, and it doesn't have any copyright issues. It's simply an informational webcomic stub article containing information about a webcomic that is gaining in popularity and notice. I see no reason to limit Wikipedia's informational vault in this case. Autodmc 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense alone should garner the growing popularity given it's increase feature in the Joystiq polls, and it's recent features on numerous other webcomic sites and Destructoid. Alexa also shows a solid growth in traffic over time, especially recently. This is all coupled with direct speak from the author of the comic. I will see if I can't get any more specific information out of him regarding this. --Nmaster64 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It got a whole 911 votes at Joystiq. An informal, low turnout net poll is scrapping the barrel for notability. The creator isn't a reliable source for the popularity of the strip due to the conflict of interest.--Nydas(Talk) 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vote turnout is not as relevant as the site traffic. Joystiq marks probably the biggest gaming blog on the internet. That is hardly scrapping the barrel. Besides, I don't see why it's necessary a webcomic need some award or plaque to say their notable.
Website stats are conflict of interest? Wow, now I know the Wikipedia has failed. Opinion has overruled fact in an attempt to remain "neutral". That's both the funniest and most pitiful thing I've heard all week. --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of all that, I'm going to post some anyway. I checked the tracker myself, independent of the creator, and found the comic averages almost 3,000 uniques a day, and over 17,000 a week. The comic nabbed over 74,000 in December, and almost 70,000 in the first half of January. This shows it's growing, and from what I've heard (even though I know it's "conflict of interest" due to source), this has been consistent with previous months. Also, I've found links to F@NB0Y$ featured everywhere from RPG-TV and Hockey Zombie to the Bungie blog. It's also somewhat notable also in my own opinion that this is all with practically no advertising or marketing, almost all word of mouth. I believe it was just yesterday Scott commented he was getting into advertising, so that should further grow the comic. --Nmaster64 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you contributed on a more even basis to Wikipedia, rather than just pushing one article, you would understand why we have to have strict rules on notability. You're obviously angry that this is threatened by deletion, but you can place your article on Comixpedia, the wiki for webcomics, so it won't be wasted.--Nydas(Talk) 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can take your Wiki-Elitist attitude elsewhere, I fully comprehend the need for notability rules regardless of my contributions. I'm simply stating that if they contend with a webcomic with this level of traffic that has a well-made stub, then they have gotten TOO strict, and quite so. There is no harm in this article's existence, period. And the Comixpedia Wiki is simply a failure, although a F@NB0Y$ article is up there. Ironic to note, F@NB0Y$ has about twice the traffic ranking of that entire wiki. --Nmaster64 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is stated below, this is not the place to overturn guidelines and policies. If you want to do that, try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics and Wikipedia talk:Notability (web).--Nydas(Talk) 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to "the Google Test", I think it's important to point out, as Autodmc noted, the comic does return 4th when searching simply for "fanboys". That's an extremely common word, and is actually technically not the correct name of the comic, so for it to be featured so highly on that search, as far as I'm concerned the test is passed. --Nmaster64 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Which is one of the reasons I pointed it out. Like so. -Ryanbomber 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem. -Ryanbomber 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But true, nevertheless. TheRealFennShysa 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Albert Einstein went up for AFD and a bunch of meatpuppets voted "Keep," would that be a valid reason to delete? -Ryanbomber 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I think you have to admit there are a lot of new or inactive users who vote keep. ;-) bogdan 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I flagged a SPA myself. That doesn't undermine the fact that there's no real argument against the article except "as per" votes and two search engine tests. -Ryanbomber 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote was based on the original nomination - I noticed the suspicious pattern and looked into it *after* I made my choice. TheRealFennShysa 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just sayin'. -Ryanbomber 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request the "Delete per nom" people evaluate themselves, as the nomination argument has been pretty much invalidated. The ONLY arguable part remaining is the first 2 words... --Nmaster64 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invalidated to your specifications, no doubt, but I remain unconvinced. It's obvious you're a fan - you're quite vocal about this on that forum. However, you're letting that blind you to the stark realities - outside your circle of fans, there doesn't seem to be much to back up the notability of the comic. Also, by trying to bring all those other webcomics into the argument, you're going for what's been called "The Pokemon Test" - they aren't under discussion here, though. If you feel they're not worthy, take it to those pages and initiate AfDs there, if you have valid reasons to do so and solid evidence as to why they're not notable. But the simple fact that they exist isn't reason enough to keep this one.
Yes, I'm an avid fan of F@NB0Y$. Regardless, I've always been an avid fan of the Wikipedia and it's founding principles, however this insanity completely shatters that in my own opinion. The need for some notability standards is obvious, but when you approach this level, there's no viable argument as to what it's hurting by having this article exist. If I hadn't spent a good 6 to 8 hours of my life writing it, it might not bother me so much...
I'm using a variation of the Pokemon Test, I admit. Well, I'm a supporter of the Pokemon test. If X is more notable than Y, but X is "not notable enough", than Y should not exist. Thus, go get Y deleted then come back and you have an argument to delete X. That's my thoughts on the Pokemon test. --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since I was a bit bored at the moment, I did a little searching on my own. According to this page, Fanboys is currently ranked 2475 out of 8163 webcomics. Let's look at some of the first few on your list - Achewood is #202, Alecto: Songbook is #3545, Alice! is #2133, Angels2200 is #89, AntiHero for Hire is #61... I'm not going to go through the entire list, though. However, a quick glance at those comics Wikipedia pages shows that Achewood has apparently seen some actual print publication, Alecto: Songbook has been physically published, as has Alice! - all solid bases for notability. Also, check the discussion page for WP:WEB - Alexa rankings (none of which your provided, just the claim that Fanboys is higher) is no longer considered a valid source due to some reporting problems it has with some platforms. TheRealFennShysa 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that entry is for a different comic. Check the web address, it's missing a dash...If you don't believe my Alexa rankings, check 'em yourself, I gave the URLs. Many of them sit in the millions, nowhere remotely close to F@NB0Y$. Any way you look at it, F@NB0Y$ seems to certainly have enough readers it should merit a frikkin' Wikipedia article. When it comes to something like a webcomic, magazine, newspaper, websites in general, anything that's got a "subscription" type release schedule like that, should be judged more on it's reach and reader base than links from other sites. I'm a game journalist, and used to run my own news site. I could probably link to a hundred sites that sourced me for stuff, hell even the Wikipedia entry for Wii once linked back to me. Does that give my site notability to where I could create an article for my site? I never thought so, because despite my success in marketing, I had a very low consistent reader base. By the standards your pushing forth however, my site deserved a Wiki article more than a site with a thousand times my traffic but without the links from Slashdot and everyone else. That just doesn't make sense, that's not how things should be judged. Then your playing into marketing, which is supposed to be what the Wiki tries to avoid... --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious, what would be considered the "High Water Mark" for a webcomic to be allowed a page on Wikipedia? A certain number of readers? [Self-]Publishing a book? Does that book have to be in major book stores? Does the comic have to have a set number of characters, a set number of hits-per-day (as reported by the ISP), a set number of fans who notice the article and the mark for deletion? A set level of quality? Inclusion in an archive/collective/syndicate? Mention on CNN or in the New York Times? I think that's what the real issue behind this discussion is: *What is the criteria for inclusion of a webcomic in Wikipedia?* (This is a sincere question, not meant as, for example, a defense or prop or sarcastic reply to the above mentioned "Pokemon Test") Autodmc 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the relevant guidelines in my post above. But for clarity's sake, take a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for web-based content. TheRealFennShysa 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does need to be addressed, seriously. That link? Yeah, that's the problem... --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to dispute policies or guidelines. Seriously. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because wikigeeks DON'T like something does not give it NO notability. --Nmaster64 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly remove a couple of the links and replace them with outside references if that would make some people happy... --Nmaster64 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's this bullshit? I've never sockpuppeted before, and I take full offense at that accusation. Now your just flaming in bad taste to discredit me. I'm completely aware of Wikipedia's policies, heaven-forbid I claim a few of them are full of crap. I don't know why I tolerate that warning at the top either, unless linking and critiquing are the same as solicitation. --Nmaster64 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Please be civil and don't swear at me. Thank you. -- Selmo (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil and don't accuse me of your bull. It's much more offensive to make unfounded accusations than it is to swear. Thanks. --Nmaster64 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say you know Wikipedia policy and then canvas on off-wiki forums for keep votes. I wasn't uncivil. My accusations are based on solid evidence. "Your bullshit" is far from civil. -- Selmo (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's illegal now for there to be discussion outside the Wikipedia of stuff happening within it? You can't not expect users on a forum of a given wiki article to talk when that article goes up for deletion. It's a given, and hardly marks me as soliciting because I've engaged in such conversation. And what of your sockpuppet claim, huh? What nonsense is that? Stop being a Wiki Elitist, your not better than others because you waste your life trying to censor harmless information. --Nmaster64 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong to tell someone of known bias that a Wikipedia article is up for deletion, because it obvoiusly leads to votestacking/meatpuppetry. Also don't make personal attacks (ie. Stop being a Wiki Elitist, your not better than others because you waste your life trying to censor harmless information.) -- Selmo (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't grasp this...there is this big ol' banner at the top of the article's page that says "This is up for deletion!". I didn't have to point out the deletion debate, other people just kinda noticed ('cause, ya know, they can read it without my help?). The fact a discussion arose on said topic is not solicitation, it's just that, discussion. The topic at hand was the wiki article, so whenever people go and see that huge banner at the top, you can't claim that as solicitation/meatpuppeting/canvasing/etc. You can't hang a sign above your head saying "COME HERE!" and then blame someone else when other people come over. In addition, nobody even knows if anybody from this apparent "solicitation" has shown up. --Nmaster64 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entry on your blog is blatant solicitation of votes - you posted So please, save my hours of work. Just please, login to Wikipedia, go to the Article for Deletion entry, and add a keep. Do me a favor and add to the discussion if you can, so they don’t just further accuse me of soliciting votes. Pretty clear to me. MikeWazowski 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, reading it again, it came across worse than I meant it, and I apologize for that. The meaning was to request people to actually add valid discussion. Unlike the Fanboys forums, there's nothing that says readers of my blog are fans of the comic, so they can just as much vote Delete as Keep. In fact, I've received a number of comments in the past about people NOT liking the comic. Honestly though, I could really give a crap less at this point what you wanna call it, except I will not be accused of sockpuppetry. --Nmaster64 04:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate the idea of simply setting up redirects to each comic's respective Comixpedia article, assuming a viable one exists or the Wiki entry is good enough to move over. It seems like an awesome solution for a large number of webcomics that don't supposedly quite meet Wiki standards. The Wiki can just toss users over there and wash their hands of the matter. Seems like that would make most everyone happy... --Nmaster64 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose they could be moved over, but we can't have a bunch of redirects to external wikis. Pages on Wikipedia that warrant their own content can link off to their specialized wiki site (like Star Trek and Memory Alpha). Otherwise, we can't have a page that simply redirects to another site. The software won't allow external redirections anyway. Carson 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's as I assumed then. What about an extremely small stub that essentially says, "this is a webcomic. You can find out more about from the comixpedia," or something simple like that? I can even go a step further to try to make some people happy. What if instead of each getting it's own page redirecting to the comixpedia, there was a single page internally where they all redirected to that either maintains a list of links for these comics and their comixpedia articles, or simply even just links to the Comixpedia's list of comics. Anything, just as long as someone who comes to the Wikipedia searching for information on a given webcomic are able to easily and quickly find the information they were looking for (assuming of course it exists). That is my goal, and seems like it should be the goal of the Wikipedia... --Nmaster64 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have something similar already set up on list of webcomics, as well as a link to Comixpedia at the end. It isn't necessary to specifically link off every webcomic listing to its respective Comixpedia article (otherwise it may bring up issues of Wikipedia endorsing Comixpedia, stuff like that), but a blurb could be added to the intro of the list saying that most/all of the listed webcomics have a page on Comixpedia (if a bunch of them ended up being deleted off Wikipedia). Carson 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, though if we don't keep, do a mass AfD on the list of Webcomics.
  • I'd say keep if it was a little older. The problem with webcomics is that they tend to die out quite fast. Some of the 'accepted' Wiki-articles have the same thing also.
  • I would propose to give a certain age-limit for webcomics to be included. And if they are regularly updated still, and show a real sign of life, don't nag too much about notability. If they're too young, only include them if they've won a notable award or have gotten notable attention. JackSparrow Ninja 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a reasonable idea to me. A hard age limit that requires younger webcomics to provide a touch more evidence of notability. That works against my case for Fanboys, but it makes sense. Webcomics that are no longer updated should be assessed to see if they hold any historical value or can be considered to have had been big enough they merit staying archived, which probably eliminates most webcomics once they've stopped updating. If it's current and popular, it should be here. If it dies off without leaving notable impact, just delete it at that point... --Nmaster64 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Propositions seperate from "keep" and "delete"---

A couple ideas hit me for more reasonable answers to this debate, and I thought I'd throw them out for consideration.

  • Delete and merge with Bomb Shelter Comics. Since F@NB0Y$ exists under the umbrella of Bomb Shelter Comics, it seems feasible if a quality article could be written for the webcomic group, the F@NB0Y$ article could be shrunk and merged into it. The Bomb Shelter Comics would serve as a good single article listing that particular group of smaller webcomics, and thus could stem this occurance from happening again with any of the other comics in that group. If none of the comics in that group are considered notable, it seems to make sense all of them combined likely do. This is of course assuming the fact some independent sources can be found to help define the included comic's and/or the group's notability.
  • Article redirect to the comic's Comixpedia page. If it doesn't merit it's own big Wikipedia entry, why not hand it off to the Wiki for comics? This seems harmless and win-win, and seems to me a good solution to 99% of webcomic article debates.

--Nmaster64 06:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I find it strange that everyone is fine with trying to point out the site having little traffic as basis for deletion, yet when someone proves that the site gets plenty of traffic, he is told that having much traffic is not basis for keeping an article. And for anyone's information, i saw the note added to my last edit, and I just happen to have a special interest in webcomics. This is not a sockpuppet account, simply a person who mostly edits webcomic articles. Again I say, Keep per Nmaster64 Zaron 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to "vote" again - once was enough. MikeWazowski 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quite clearly marked what I said as a comment, in case you didn't read. I made it extremely clear that I was restating my opinion, not "voting again." Zaron 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Web traffic is an effective negative argument for notability, but not a positive one except at extreme levels. In other words, getting 200,000 google hits doesn't make you automatically notable, but only getting 12 does make you automatically non-notable (unless you're like an 8th century philosopher only mentioned in Persian texts and academic papers, or something else pre-internet). --tjstrf talk 08:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You obviously have no clue what makes a web page notable by Wikipedia standards, as there are many other reasons a web page can receive little or no traffic (without being of historic value) and still be notable. Do your research. Zaron 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm calling you on that one. The three criteria for notability are independant mentions, republication by a notable independant source, and awards from notable independant sources. No notable website exists which is not either historically important or high traffic for its field. --tjstrf talk 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll call you both. Tjstrf is indeed technical correct about what Wikipedia standards state in terms of requirements for notability. However, Tjstrf, I'd request you point out to me how each of the comics on the Wiki meet those criteria. In terms of historical importance or republication, VERY, VERY, few qualify. Even some insanely popular ones like Dr. McNinja or VGCats don't seem to fit the criteria. The third criteria, "independent mentions", needs to be much more defined, as it's obvious there is argument over how many mentions are needed, and of who qualifies as a source reputable enough to make a mention. I would say that by these policies only a handful of comics should exist, certainly 90% of the list above should disappear, which personally seems unacceptable. We are knee-deep in a horrific case of double standards... --Nmaster64 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Are there no opinions on my two other ideas? I thought they were both reasonable, that maybe some middle ground could be established with one of them... --Nmaster64 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AfD has obviously become malformed with requests for outside influence. It is a sad day when notability requirements are circumvented by editors' personal preferences. If one editor tries to refute every delete vote with broken logic like Just because wikigeeks DON'T like something does not give it NO notability then it seems his efforts are more hell-bent on keeping the article online at any cost instead of actually abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just because it's a community encyclopedia does not mean anyting you like warrants inclusion... nor does justification come from well look at article XYZ. /Blaxthos 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You vastly misunderstand me if you think I fight simply because I like this comic, my personal fanboyism would never go to such lengths. I fight 'cause I busted my ass for a good 6-8 hours to make that wiki, and it pisses me off to see my work destroyed in an effort to, however you wanna label it, censor perfectly good information. I feel the Wiki's standards are completely broken and inappropriately written in the case of webcomics, and nobody could possibly give any reason as to how expanding the Wikipedia to include webcomics of this level of notability would hurt the project (and that does NOT mean every Joe Schmo comic, but nobody can deny it's obvious F@NB0Y$ enjoys a solid user base and is noted by a few reputable sources). It's just damn stupid to limit information like this, and if there's one thing I hate it's stupidity... --Nmaster64 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your fanboyism has gone to such lengths.
  2. If you are so strongly advocating keep because [you]busted [your] ass for a good 6-8 hours to make this article, then it is simply sour grapes and not arguing the merits of inclusion.
  3. Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.[1] We are not censoring any objectionable material, we are simply applying minimum notability standards to what we include. Please stop intentionally missusing this term.
  4. By saying nobody could possibly give any reason as to how expanding the Wikipedia to include webcomics of this level of notability would hurt the project(sic) you are, in fact, asking us to change Wikipedia policy so that your favorite webcomic can be included.
  5. You destroy your credibility by attempting to influence AfD discussions via outside channels (blogs and the like). Couple that with...
  6. You gather no respect by trying to refute every delete vote and most especially by using words like stupid with regards to other editors.
Perhaps you're just wrong, and bitter that your favorite comic isn't opted for inclusion. This isn't personal, and by reacting with such force you make it seem as though you have some sort of vested intrest in its inclusion, even when the community opposes such. /Blaxthos 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Your opinions of my reasoning are both severely flawed and meaningless. My feelings are in no way limited to this specific article, and I am not asking for a change in policy JUST for this webcomic. It's obvious the policies are poorly written and need to be better established first off, and second off it disturbs me so many people can be so blindly faithful to them, condemning any varying opinion or disagreement thereof. It's this close-mindedness that I cannot tolerate and bear no apologies when referencing anyone who thinks as such as "stupid". You can accuse me of meatpuppetry 'til your blue in the face, but the majority of people here are of the Wiki community, not from any of my own. I honestly could give a crap less about the vote at this point, I have a more vested interest in seeing a reasonable middle ground be found so as to not deprive those seeking information. I don't care if it's F@NB0Y$, ExtraLife, or any comic on that entire list above, 90% of which I've never heard of, regardless, if I'm looking for information on them the Wikipedia should either be able to provide it or point me to the correct Wiki that holds it. I argue I am not misusing the term censoring because it seems to me that Wikipedia holds a strong biased against webcomics, among other things, and in a certain sense does look upon it as objectionable.
Say what you will about me, accuse me of whatever, but when it comes down to it I am the one trying to help the USERS of Wikipedia. The opinions of this community, which the majority of portray themselves as nothing less than elitists, are of no concern to me. It's the people, like myself, who find the Wikipedia a valuable resource and feel it should strive to be the best source of information available I look to. Does that mean maintain a directory and entry on every little webcomic ever made? No, certainly not. But it does mean possibly toning down the notability requirements, looking to reader base as a viable means of judging notability, and most importantly, at the least, pointing users to where they might find the information they are looking for. A comic on the notability and with a user base on the level of F@NB0Y$ at least deserves so much as a "This is a webcomic, you can find more information on it at it's entry on the Comixpedia, the Wiki for comics, found here." (and there are even less obtrusive ways I can suggest too) If you find that as unacceptable, then please evaluate on the damage such a thing causes by existing, as I can certainly describe the negatives of giving users pages that say "Sorry, we've got info on this, or at least know where to find it, but refuse to give it to you because WE don't think it's important enough. Your own opinion is of no impact, as your just a filthy user." That is what is being portrayed to me by this event. --Nmaster64 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know you folks from the comic forum think this is unfair, but this is an encyclopedia not a directory. Once you have gained attention of multiple third party reliable sources try again. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy WP:WEB, WP:N or WP:V. The only thing that even attempts to satisfy notability is the Joystiq award, which isn't notable itself either. -- Kesh 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, meatpuppet army. --InShaneee 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's amusing the endless accusations of meatpuppetry, when there are only maybe 2 or 3 votes here I can see as being from a link of my own that could be considered as such. A couple people is a far cry from an army, and it seems to me it's being used simply to dodge any legitimate discussion on the matter. The people on the forum already agreed they'd keep away, and I've stressed to non-Wiki members not to get involved. Honestly though, I fail to see why a couple outside users completely demolishes the establishment of a resolution, and in all reality it seems the Wiki community could use a little bit of outside opinion, as it seems to close-minded in it's own. The "outsiders aren't welcome" policy is kind of ridiculous in a certain light, ya know? Believe it or not, the users of the Wikipedia may feel different from the editors, and it may be a good idea to interact with them. In the case of a yay or nay vote of course it's a problem and nothing comes of it but arguing. However, it's amazing if you think outside the box for a second then there may be actually be an option OTHER than keep or delete that can satisfy people on both sides, although that can only be achieved through discussion and putting new ideas forth. I personally would much more enjoy hearing different ideas being tossed around than this "eff you webcomic people"/"well eff you wiki people" that this is degrading into, partly of my own fault I admit. --Nmaster64 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion about F@NB0Y$ in particular, but... about that list.
Does the AFD crew really want to piss off that many people across the globe? Webcomics are very popular, and causing the global consensus to go against wikipedia might not be so terribly great.
Many of the webcomics articles seem well researched, and fairly easy to verify (you just go to the webcomic pages and see for yourself). Note that some of the webcomics in the lower alexa rank list are likely going to be quite easy to verify because they have a lot written about them, or are very old, or both. For instance a webcomic that ran last century is not going to have a high alexa rank today, for instance. It can be very notable if it has since influenced much newer comics. On the flip side, a comic with a higher alexa rank could be rather non-encyclopedic.
So, if you use the measures some people are proposing, we'll end up deleting a number of historical and notable webcomics, that have contributed to web culture greatly, and simultaniously we'd end up keeping a bunch of one-day flies.
On the long term, of course, you'd end up deleting all webcomics... some people might love that idea, because they think webcomics are inherently non-notable.
To them I say Meh! What's the alexa rank for Shakespere these days, guys? :-P
--Kim Bruning 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa rank of Shakespeare? Pretty good, it looks like to me-855 even if you don't count the Wiki page. I don't like using Alexa rank in terms of AfD, though, some unpopular things are notable and some popular things are not. The question goes right back to WP:N-does enough reliable third-party material exist for a full article, or not? In this case, the answer seems to tend toward an "or not". I personally don't care if something is a Webcomic, a Pokemon, or a "literary classic"-if the material exists, it stays, if not, it goes. Easy enough! Seraphimblade 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, if we were to be persuaded to keep simply because deleting would annoy webcomic fans, we'd also have to keep all the articles about blogs, fanpages, forums and flash animations people are fans of. WP:N is the only way we can prevent Wikipedia from becoming a repository of every little fan-item that pops up on the web. -- Kesh 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks the multiple non-trivial sources necessary for writing a trustworthy, neutral article. -- Dragonfiend 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has spiralled into a group of webcomic fans who want to bend or break the rules because of personal affinities. I believe Mr. WhalesWales as well as the community writ large has defined what wikipedia is and is WP:NOT, as well as what thresholds must be met for inclusion (both in notability as well as verifiable information). It is absolutely incomprehensible to me how an emotional set of users seems to think that the voracity of their appreciation for webcomics should trump our most basic principles. The law is the law, except when I don't agree with the law. /Blaxthos 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wales. ;) Carson 04:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:V as it provides no sources for notability for those outside the webcomic world. Wikipedia is not a place to catalog things; it is an encyclopedia that is full of information that will be verifiable in 10 years and interesting in 100. Also the disregard for Wikipedia guidelines in this afd is staggering. - Ocatecir 09:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ENOUGH WITH THE AD HOMINEMS ALREADY! Yes, we get it, he's elisted an army of meat puppets. Stop bringing it up. Nmaster, as a personal bit of advice, I'd say go enlist your crew to go find some outside sources. That's the biggest issue with the article, so if you can get some good sourcing on this, then there's absolutely nothing to complain about. Oh, and the mass AFD of webcomics is moronic, if for no other reason then it's just a giant glob of aimless google tests. -Ryanbomber 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. People don't understand I'm more interested in discussion and resolution than votes. And furthermore they don't realize I am pretty much alone here, I have no army or helpers in this matter, at most just a few people on the sidelines cheering me on. As for outside sources, an honest question, where do you expect me to go? What IS considered a notable mention for a webcomic? Nobody talks about webcomics except blogs, there are no really good sources for these cases. It's just one of those things, a webomic could have a million readers but that doesn't mean the New York Times is gonna comment on them. That's my problem with the notability standards, there needs to be some way to acknowledge webcomics that most certainly have a really big following, even if their only claim to fame is a few of the more popular blogs (and I'm speaking in general here, not necessarily just in the case of F@NB0Y$). There HAS to be a way to do that, although I admit I haven't come up with a good solution yet myself... --Nmaster64 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After seeing Joe Loves Crappy Movies get deleted from Wikipedia I've become convinced that Wikipedians simply don't want Wikipedia to fulfil the idea that you can find any information about anything on it. I understand that many people try to use Wikipedia as a way to advertise and get hits to their webpage (anyone remember Jesus Camp?). However, F@NB0Y$ is not using Wikipedia any more than any other person that has an article about them on Wiki. Just because the comic is not notable to one person, doesn't mean it isn't notable to the people that view it. I bring to light evidence A, the fact that Torchic was a featured main page article recently. ALL information is notable. Pop culture classification does not mean that it has no merit as knowledge. Webcomics have become extremely popular and the more we know about them the more we can study the trends. You all have to realize that Penny Arcade was once just a no nothing comic like this one and has since then become one, if not THE, most dominent name in the gamer subculture. Deleting yet another webcomic on the grounds of notability doesn't make sense because the notability of anything comes down to personal bias. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree with you to a point H2P with the idea that notability is in a sense "in the eyes of the beholder", and non-notability just the same, we do have to recognize the need for some standards and requirements in terms of independent sources. I just feel people don't recognize that in the case of webcomics, there are almost no sources to pull from. Nobody talks about webcomics besides blogs. F@NB0Y$ getting the props from Joystiq, Destructoid, as well as numerous other "notable" webcomics seems to me about as good as it gets. Looking at traffic, we know it gets thousands of hits a day, so that seems like a decent reader base to me. At that point, what's the harm in the article existing, or maybe a stub pointing to it's Comixpedia? --Nmaster64 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harm is in information which is not reliably sourced existing on Wikipedia. If blog mentions are "as good as it gets", the subject is not notable, and does not belong here. There are certainly webcomics such as Penny Arcade which do meet the standards, but if most webcomics don't, that doesn't mean they need a "special exception"-it means, until those webcomics start attracting wider and reliable attention, they're not suitable for articles yet. As to a "link to Comixpedia", WP:NOT a directory of links. Seraphimblade 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it's not a matter of it not being notable. Millions of people read webcomics, there's plenty of proof to show they have a substantial following. It's quite clear the subject is notable, it's simply a matter of the data that does exist not being considered acceptable by the Wikipedia, and I feel there's probably a little room for broadening that scope while keeping things in a good check. --Nmaster64 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point

Why are you guys so obsessed over notability (a guideline) when the glaring problems are with verifiability and original research (policies). Even if it meets with what you believe is the notability threshold, the problem is with non-negotiable policies. /Blaxthos 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is non-negotiable. See: Pillar #5 of the five pillars of Wikipedia. -- Nmaster64 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here." One of those five general principles is "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" which states "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." This IS non-negotiable, as stated, as you mention, in Pillar #5. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is however room for clarification and further evaluation on what may be a reliable or notable source. --Nmaster64 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the reliable source guideline? It doesn't leave much up to chance, and any "up in the air" certainly doesn't apply to articles that have little or no third-party sourcing at all (as found in most Webcomics articles). Face it, the articles are (for the most part) completely original research, primarily because third party reliable sources don't write about each webcomic, because (in the big scheme of things) the comics really are not notable (despite how notable a wikicommunity fanbase thinks). So, even if you get over the hurdle of our (wikipedia) measure of notability (which is still contested by some), there is probably little (if any) chance that there will ever be reliable third party sources (as defined in the guideline). QED they will, most likely, never truely be in compliance with our most basic principles on Wikipedia. That is why they keep showing up in AfD -- no matter how many different ways you slice it, the fundamental problem (which most seem to conveniently overlook) remains. /Blaxthos 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be talks and ideas thrown forth upon how that fundamental problem may be resolved. Nothing with Wikipedia is set in stone, and even if it seems impossible to you, that hardly means there aren't possible solutions. Could there be a reliable way of measuring traffic? Should a comics ranking be taken into account? Is there a good way to use the Comixpedia for handling these? There are a number of things that seem open to discussion and possible middle-grounds to find other than "screw all webcomics" and "every webcomic deserves a page". Good solutions never lie in extremes.
Remember, the goal is simply to give users the information they're looking, or at least point them in the right direction. The details of how this is handled is not important, but "you don't get any information on this because WE don't deem it notable" is not acceptable. And that's not for webcomics but the Wikipedia in general. --Nmaster64 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not relevant to this AfD. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, feel free to bring it up for discussion on the policy Talk page in question. But right now, we have to go by policies as they are. -- Kesh 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to see changes in the notability criteria, please go to WT:WEB and/or WT:N and bring up concerns there. But remember, this project goes by consensus-and consensus doesn't mean unanimous. If a huge majority is in favor of something, it is sometimes necessary to go ahead with it even though a few people aren't convinced (and probably never will be). This is nothing against those who still disagree-it just means that there comes a time to end debate, recognize a clear consensus, and act on it. If you have concerns, please bring them up! We invite everyone to participate in policy discussions, but so long as they remember to beware of the tigers. Seraphimblade 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't get too worked up about this whole issue. In the long run, there's nothing to prevent you from recreating the article (if it's deleted), once it attains more notability. In the meantime, you can copy the page to your userspace and work on it until it's ready to return to mainspace. Carson 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again (ironically?) everyone has just glossed over the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V issues. /Blaxthos 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can read. Still, for instance some people are calling Joystiq a non-reliable source PURELY because it's defined as a "blog". Last I checked though, they're an official member of the press and get into every event the industry offers pretty much. They've got more clout in the industry press-wise than much of the media it seems. Destructoid is not far behind in those terms either. They're just as reliable as the NYT as far as I'm concerned, being labeled a blog just gives them some leeway in joking around and being a little less "professional" in their writing. It doesn't change the validity of their articles however... --Nmaster64 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From official policy WP:V#SELF: self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head -- unless a reliable third party has published the blog's finding (WP:RS back in the mix), it doesn't really meet the exception requirement. Also, I believe the NYT and Washington Post are held to a little bit higher scrutiny and credibility standards than a blog (hence the policy). /Blaxthos 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that before, and I'm saying that if Joystiq is not considered a reputable source, than reputable sources do not exist on the internet. On this I stand 100% firm, if a site like Joystiq is not to be considered a reliable source, then the policy is wrong, in every possible way, and needs to be changed immediately. Personally, I don't think it was the intention necessarily to block a site like Joystiq, because it's far from your "typical" blog. I just think it's sort of a casualty of generalization, and some clarification is needed. They are an official member of the gaming media, and generally have full press access to most everything. Barring a couple non-printed sources like IGN, they are about as reliable as come. Their articles might not go through the rigorous editing processes the others do, and they have a bit more freedom on what they can write about, but it hardly makes them any less notable. Them, and a handful of other extremely popular multi-editor blogs are reliable sources, and if the policy has been adapted to the strict level where none of these can be referenced as sources for notability, then it needs to be changed ASAP, because that conception is ridiculous. --Nmaster64 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset indent

I think you're missing the point of the policy. As a general rule, yes, a source that is self-published on the web is not an acceptable source, because anyone can publish anything on the web. Now you're calling for a complete rewrite of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Isn't that a little arrogant, expecting Wikipedia rules to change so that a webcomic you like can have an article on Wikipedia? Your rabid defense and attempt to explain away/refute every delete vote, your attempts to influence AfD via meatpuppetry, and now you willingness to spit in the eye of our policies shows your motives serve no interest other than your own. /Blaxthos 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, calm down. It wasn't his intention to solicit meatpuppets, and his ideas aren't that revolutionary. He is trying to invoke some changes for the greater good, not just for this AfD. Carson 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Carson for that edit conflict...I removed a couple choice words...Now listen, do you honestly think I've been trying to save this little article this whole time? Do you honestly believe I've held any hope of this staying? I've been trying to encourage discussion of new ideas and possible solutions to what I see as a serious problem in the Wiki. I see an area with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of readers and the Wikipedia not providing information like it should be, instead shooing users away because it doesn't feel the topic is notable.
I'm not calling for a complete rewrite of policies, I'm calling for some clarification and broadening of what's defined in the rules. For example...Joystiq is not a single guy in his basement ranting about his life, it's a rather large team of people who are industry insiders and for the most part do this for a living. If that doesn't fit the exception, then it's NOT a general rule, and yeah, it should be changed. The only eye I'm spitting in is editors refuse to allow the concept that maybe the guidelines are wrong, that maybe we could make things better with a little change, into their mind. You say I'm explaining away every delete, but aren't you and the other editors doing the same with every keep? All you can seem to respond with is "the rules say that doesn't count" and "ZOMG Meatpuppets!" You refute everything with a simple WP link, and nobody even seems open to thinking about non-keep/non-delete solutions...
This isn't an isolated case, it's one among many. At some point, people should be willing to stand up and say "hey, maybe we should try something else. This ain't working too well..." Simply put: having thousands of thousands of readers makes you notable, in a most true sense, so the question that should be asked is how can that be established in certainty, since no one magical trustworthy source just gives us this information.
And honestly, I'd still like a good explanation as to why there is such voracity in getting things like this removed, the articles seem 100% harmless too me, and don't understand the concept of limiting information on this level... --Nmaster64 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what other intention one could have (regarding soliciting outside influence). As far as encourage discussion:

Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself.

— WP:POINT
.

do you honestly think I've been trying to save this little article this whole time? Do you honestly believe I've held any hope of this staying? I've been trying to encourage discussion of new ideas and possible solutions to what I see as a serious problem in the Wiki.

— Nmaster64
So, you're now blatantly admitting to violating WP:POINT. Way to win respect for your position. As others have already pointed out, you should bring this up on the appropriate policy talk page, or at the village pump, not by supporting AfD's that are being held to current standards. /Blaxthos 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete compliance with WP:POINT if you read through the examples, as I didn't make this article to prove a point or anything of the sort, I just randomly one day felt I'd contribute by throwing up an article for this. It was supposed to be harmless...I had no idea there were such people that spend hours each day removing useful information. I support this AfD because I feel it merits supporting, that there's a bit more room for interpetation than you may think. I still have yet to receive any real replys to my earlier ideas instead of just keep or delete entirely... --152.7.199.2 (aka Nmaster64, sry, changed computers) 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(dialogue about indentions removed)

I think you're missing the point of NMaster's use of the other articles as examples. He simply meant to point out that Fanboys' Alexa ranking isn't such a low rank, as there are many notable comics on Wikipedia with lower rankings. It was not a defense of the article itself, just pointing out the significance of Fanboys' Alexa rank, as it is a relative measurement. I could be wrong, but that is how I took his list of references, or else I think he would have linked the articles themselves, not the websites of the comics. Zaron 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you got it. I know Alexa doesn't provide the best of measurements, and I'm never one to say they should be used to directly compare a couple sites. But the idea of comparing to ALL of them is the idea of proof in numbers. I think it's safe to say given that huge list, F@NB0Y$ is one of the more relatively popular webcomics, and I think that should count for something, if only a little bit. By the way, anybody read today's comic? Hehe... --Nmaster64 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to imply the artist had something to do with this, which he has not, other than granting permission to use stuff here. Besides, you can say that about pretty much every single article on Wikipedia... --Nmaster64 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is getting out of hand. Nmaster has brought it up and I'm going to bring it up again, and I don't want to see another "delete: per nom" or WEB reference until this is answered. WHERE do you guys want us to get sources? This is the main problem WEB presents to Webcomics. They aren't notable in the academic world so we can't pull the information from CNN or anything similar. I know on the TV show I edit we can site episodes for the information, is there a way to do this here? Is there a way to directly site the author through an e-mail or something? If you can answer this then we will go to work and find the sources. But you can't just sit there at your desk claiming we don't have sources and not verifying what constitutes as a source. AfDs are not just for deleting, they are a call for cleanup as well. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You can look at WP:WEB, and WP:RS for info on what type of sources. If you are having trouble finding them then it is very possible the comic does not meet inclusion standards. However, if you are going to find a source it needs to be done fast as this AfD is close to ending. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, TV shows get some type of critical review through newspapers, magazines, or other editorially controlled reliable sources. If they don't, they're not notable either! Some things aren't mentioned in reliable secondary sources yet. That means they're not suitable for an article, not that we need to change policy so that they will be, not that secondary sources should be replaced with primary ones, not anything of the like. Seraphimblade 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just really confused as to what the sources are supposed to prove. Are they supposed to prove that the comic exists, cause a quick link to its site will prove that. Sources are supposed to back up claims. I'm not saying this page is perfect, it does lack... content of any kind (nMaster go actually write something about it on the page!) and I may just be jumping here because of the WP as a whole (in which case someone point me to where I can open a discussion). I don't think notability should be the issue, notability is a biased understanding and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." -- Dragonfiend 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you got me there. NO webcomic other than PA will ever make impact or historical significance. That takes years and Wiki is too short term to see any of the comics out. And if you don't count Joystics awards then I guess you win. It's one of the reasons I'd like to discuss the policy somewhere relevant, but at this time you win. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For examples of webcomics-related articles that cite reliable sources discussing impact or historical significance, see Gene Yang, Amy Kim Ganter, Megatokyo, Fetus-X, Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Van Von Hunter, When I Am King, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonfiend (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well removing PA, pages about authors not the comic, and comics that were in print before the web, I get three. Megatokyo may as well be a comic book in terms of comparison to other smaller comics with many readers. So really the only links you give me lead to one comic currently with an AfD and one comic that is one paragraph wrong with two sources to random lists in a couple of magazines. All these webcomics out there with thousands of readers don't fit into any catagories that is approved. So where do we put them? I can't agree with you that they just don't belong. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I don't even know where to jump into that...but this is some good discussion. First off...I did something wrong with the article? Damn, I thought I did pretty good...well, what's it missing content-wise? Second, I've definitely got a problem with policies if they require historical significance. It seems to me the Wiki should be worried about current significance, not historical (in regards to things that are in fact current and updating of course). So, for example in the case of webcomics, a very popular comic should get it's own article, IMO. If that comic stops updating or disappears or whatever, then the article needs to have it's historical significance put into question, and most in most cases the article should be deleted.
As for sources, H2P is hitting around what's been bugging me. Now let's compare to TV shows for example. TV shows are big business (funny how Wikipedia is pro-BigBiz, anti-LittleGuy, eh?), so no surprise there are all sorts of sources looking at them. Some are probably even paid by the people making or airing the shows. So tell me, does it make a TV show immediately notable when some published source reviews them, even though it's that sources job to review every show? See, there are sources for many mediums that will look through EVERYTHING that comes their way. Any show that comes on a major network is gonna be noted and reviewed by someone. That doesn't mean anybody watches it though, or that it has any historical significance. It could get canceled the next week, but because there's a paid published source that mentions it, that makes it notable? Seems money is defining notability here...and I don't see why being printed on a piece of paper makes you any more verifiable than being stuck on a screen. There is no evidence some of the rags that do entertainment reviews have higher editing standards than say Joystiq, that's purely a conception.
I'm also wondering about why site statistics like it's rank and stats from independent sources, like eXTReMe Tracking can't be used. It seems to me if you've got hard number data on visitors, then it should be easy to define in those cases whether something has enough readership to garner an article... --Nmaster64 18:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all points that need to be debated at WP:WEB, not here, as current policies unequivocally speak against inclusion. --Beaker342 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - F@NB0Y$ is a notable webcomic, even under the current WP:WEB. It does need some additional sources and information. But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Destructoid and Joystiq are both highly notable and popular video game blogs. F@NB0Y$ is a largely niche comic, but it's niche is significant and the comic is VERY WELL KNOWN within that niche. You trot the Alexa number out without any sort of context to present it in. The fact it, according to Alexa's website, F@NB0Y$ often has the same daily reach as El Goonish Shive and The Wotch [2], both highly notable webcomics within their niche. The people clamoring for deletion are looking at the breadth of notability, which is the population in general, people who are mostly casual readers and don't do much beyond look at it and occasionally chuckle. This comic's notability is in it's depth, it does NOT appeal to a wide audience, which is what the people hiding behind WP:WEB think is the only thing that matters. The fact is, most people in the population at large would get the "Giant Enemy Crab" jokes, but those who do, would find them absolutely hilarious. That, is the draw of F@NB0Y$' humor, and it has succeeded in carving out a niche for itself, if the weekly webcomic polls on Joystiq are any indication. skyman8081 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)— Skyman8081 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Given that you have made only a total of 10 other edits (the aforementioned 'few') and have not participated in the project for almost a year, I came to the not unreasonable conclusion that you were directed here by the rampant off-site canvassing. While I am sorry if I offended you, I felt it necessary to tag your post given the canvassing problems that have plagued this discussion. --Beaker342 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next time sign your posts. The SPA flag is for accounts that have made few edits OUTSIDE of a topic. I've had this account for a while, but I infrequently use it, and often I simply end up logged out because of cookie issues. Accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet is a VERY SERIOUS accusation. So if want to make that accusation, you better be certain that the person you're accusing is a sock/meatpuppet. skyman8081 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Meatpuppetry/canvassing has been a serious problem here. Given the evidence, I don't feel I was unfounded in coming to that conclusion. I'm sorry that you were offended. --Beaker342 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what, you just pop up out of the blue after months of absence on one of the hottest AfD's in recent memory? That dog don't hunt. Sorry to accuse you of bad faith, but the tag is absolutely appropriate -- you appear to be here with the single purpose of supporting a particular outcome. /Blaxthos 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm angry because the tag was put on unsigned. I would appreciate it if we could get back to the actualy content of what I said, NOT where I came from. However, since that is not going to happen, I would like to see evidence that I am a meatpuppet, or that my vote was canvassed. Since you are the one making that accusation. skyman8081 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
SPA templates don't need to be signed. You haven't edited more than ten times (or more than three or four topics), you haven't been around in ten months, and you've never participated in an AfD. Even if you really just magically stumbled upon the AfD by accident, decided to become familiar with the policies (except the ones you ignore -- WP:V and WP:OR), and then logged in just to participate you should still be able to recognize that your account appears to be a single-purpose account and that the tag was appropriately applied. /Blaxthos 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Though this discussion seems to be going down hill there are a few clear issues that need to be adressed. First of all policy states that for a web related article to be notable it must meet one of three criteria. The second criteria is that the subject in question must have one a notable award. Fanboys Online has won the Joystiq Weekly webcomic award. One can debate the worth of an award who's winner is determined by a web poll but two things are a bundantly clear. The award was awarded by a notable body as Joystiq itself passes the notability tests which makes it valid and the means of conducting polling and determining the winner of said award, is an accepted method. Hundreds of notable, undisputed awards are determined by web polls including the 2005 and 2006 People's Choice Awards.

Inaccoredence with the policy these awards are noted on the article page.

People are also using meatpuppetry as a reason for deleteing the article are just absurd as it completely throws all acedemic merit out the window in favour of spite. Since the subject of the article is not doing this themselves it hard seems right to use it as a reason to remove the article.

I suggest a quick read over of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions by anyone trying to use the Google test as evidence either for or against the deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njiska (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).— Njiska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment What EXACTLY in this article is unverifiable and needs sources? If this comic is as notable as people say it is, then it should be easy to back this up with evidence. This could simple be a case of the article being worded poorly and in a way that makes it seem less notable than it really is. Rather than run around in circles with keep vs delete, we should consider cleaning it up and adding more 3rd party sources to it. I'm seeing people throw WP:V and WP:OR around, but I would like to know what exactly in the article is original research. --skyman8081 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of WP:V is on the article to include reliable sources. If it is so easily verifiable using appropriate sources, then you should simply improve the article instead of asking the AfD forum to simply ignore our rules and policies. In the end, there are no reliable sources because the topic is simply not all that notable on a worldwide scale. /Blaxthos 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would elaborate more on "clean it up". Ok, so for one it needs more 3rd party sources, I got that. Can someone please elaborate beyond that on how it should be "cleaned up"? Seriously, I'm asking for advice here... --Nmaster64 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to calm down here

  • Neutral - This AfD has clearly provoked greater strength of feeling, on both sides, than any other in which I've participated. It might be a good idea for the various users above - both pro- and anti-deletion - to stop arguing for a while and give everyone else a chance to state their opinion. Personally I lean towards deletion, as it would be a bad precedent to state that all webcomics with a large fan base are inherently notable (not to mention a fairly broad interpretation of WP:WEB). Yet at the same time I can see the argument for keeping this article, so don't treat the above as a "vote" for deletion (not that we technically "vote" on these anyway). To any admin planning on closing this AfD, I certainly wouldn't advocate deletion now that it's provoked so much ill-feeling. Walton monarchist89 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not really for the keeping of this article as it is. It needs serious clean up and actually something worth reading as it really has no decription other than character bios. My main problems with this AfD right now is the constant deletings of every webcomic with a page on Wiki. WEB doesn't allow for webcomics (other than like 5) to have pages and I think the policy itself needs to be looked into and that the delete happy manuevers be toned down to allow all the webcomics out there to catch up. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what it needs is reliable third party sources, which will probably never happen, because it really isn't notable (no matter how much noise the fanbase makes). As someone else pointed out... THe criteria at WP:WEB is made so that we don't get 20,000 articles about every webcomic and video on the internet. /Blaxthos 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete THe criteria at WP:WEB is made so that we don't get 20,000 articles about every webcomic and video on the internet. While i don't believe that this should be an article, i don't see why we can't change the criteria in order to allow a certain alexis rating. (begin sarcasam) That And after looking at his comic strip, I felt i should do this after he called the people deleting this "Wiki Trolls".(end sarcasam) The Placebo Effect 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will it really be so bad if this one doesn't get in? Can't folks be content to enjoy their comic without having it Wikipedia-ized? I'm sure it already has a Comixpedia entry... GassyGuy 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it does now...and for cases like this where there are entire Wikis specifically for the topic, why can we not use them to help out? Like, point the stuff that doesn't merit it's own article over to there. It doesn't bother me so much about webcomics not getting articles as much as the idea of giving users searching for them a big fat nothing. If the wikipedia doesn't want to hold the info, point them to the wiki that does for gods sake! Just that would make me happy... --Nmaster64 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I have to imagine a webcomic strip is not covered under WP policy when it's not being used to illustrate something. Perhaps a link to the appropriate website from your page would have the same effect? GassyGuy 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do be careful though-by submitting to Wikipedia, you don't just need the artist's permission for use on Wikipedia. Unless it's used under fair use (which is not allowed on userpages, but is in some cases in articles, for example a single comic panel could be used under fair use in an article about that comic), the artist would have to agree to release under GFDL, which would mean, among other things, anyone in the world could make use of the webcomic so long as they follow the GFDL's terms, on a personal or commercial or any other type of site. It's certainly not something the artist would want to agree to lightly or without consideration. Seraphimblade 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I quote, "I don't care where my comic ends up. I encourage it. So no copyright violation. NYEH!", Scott Dewitt. That's as clear as it gets, end of discussion. --Nmaster64 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump WP:V. Whispering 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a serious webcomic with a high fan base and several thousand unique hits a day. Google search for "fanboys" brings F@NBOY$ as the Number 4 hit, with "F@NBOY$" bringing the comic to NUMBER 1. Yahoo also confirms the correct redirection for both. It follows every guideline cited by the argument for deletion. I also highly doubt deleting it will do any good, since, upon it's deletion, frequenters to the site will be notified immediately, and many new entries will appear. User:tehmorte 20:19 , January 22, 2007 (UTC)— tehmorte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment of Comment That would only apply IF multiple pages were made AND those pages were made in an "unencyclopedic form or against policy". User:tehmorte 21:31 , January 22, 2007 (UTC)
Note I am not encouraging anyone to do this, simply stating a possibility. I in no way condone such behavior. User:tehmorte 21:31 , January 22, 2007 (UTC)
  • The F@NB0Y$ community has agreed to stay clear of the Wiki. If it pops up again it won't be from us unless after some time and with a handful more notable sources. Salting it would be a regrettable decision... --Nmaster64 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: SPA accounts are removing appropriate SPA tags. I believe if indiscriminant CHECKUSER was available, we would find at least one puppetmaster amongst the keep voters. /Blaxthos 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot Total

As of midnight, 23 January 2006 (central standard time, GMT-0600):

  • 40 Definitive Responses Overall
  • 65% Delete (Raw)
  • 79% Delete (adjusted for SPA)

DISCLAIMERS: My counting could be inaccurate. Simple vote counting is not the main determination of consensus. These numbers are simply to show where we stand right now, and to demonstrate that when extrapolating WP:SPA accounts that consensus appears clear. /Blaxthos 06:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the closing admin will be perfectly adept at handling this sort of thing... this page is grossly long as it is. Maybe move this (and my comment) to the talk page at least? GassyGuy 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume I wasn't counted (as I didn't "vote" either way). Just trying to make this discussion clearer. Walton monarchist89 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I was acounted as a SPA, since someone did mark me as one, but I honestly don't think I should have been marked as one, since I do have more than a couple of edits outside AfDs, and it's been almost a year since I have participated in an AfD anyway. Zaron 12:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments without delete or keep were not counted. Any vote with SPA template next to the vote was counted as an SPA. Every SPA tag appeared to be legitimately placed, including USER:Zaron (contribs). /Blaxthos 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the Disclaimer, simple vote counting does not reslove an issue, however my intent was to show that consensus is clear. /Blaxthos 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Stop Being Trolls I know I don't have many edits under my belt and they are all about web comics. I can also tell by the timbre of this discussion that somebody is going to make a snarky comment about that. This has gone beyond childish into the realm of the absurd. If you want to accuse someone of being a talking head or "puppetmaster" it's very easy to do because you can hide behind your monitor and flame away. It's much harder to actually try and see both sides of an issue. We're seeing trolling from both sides of the fence and the delete trolls are being down right rude. If you are stepping in just to call someone a "meatpuppet" then don't post because you honestly have NOTHING PRODUCTIVE to add to this conversation. SPA's are just as valid as chronic posters so back off of them. More posts does not make you more important. People tend to forget that. It is a neutral article that is strictly informational. All the information is verifiable by outside sources. The nasty comments about notability are 100% SUBJECTIVE. You can say whatever you want about how notable something is and change your criteria the next day. It's the same as having a discussion over what supermodel is the skinniest choosing weight one day and the number of ribs you can count the next. It's pointless unless you agree ahead of time what your metric will be. Let's get back to being grown-ups and present some more cogent, FACT-based arguments. If you want to use metrics such as Alexa, get together and set up official rules about what parameters make that metric valid. The government assigns committees that evaluate what metrics to use and how to use them. It generally takes them 6 to 12 months to institute a single metric. I figure the wiki community can do it in 3 - 6 weeks. So let's get started. -- Brutilus 10:56, 23 January 2007
If SPA's are just as valid as chronic posters then why do you think we have WP:SPA templates? We recognize (and therefore attribute less significance to) single purpose accounts because, by and large, they do not bother to learn the appropriate rules and policies of Wikipedia; they do not intend to truely improve Wikipedia. Generally speaking, SPA's show up simply to manipulate the system or influence a particular discussion's outcome without showing any regard to what is actually appropriate or within established guidelines and policies. SPA's generally advocate discarding the rules in favor of an emotional or loyalty-based argument on subjects that coincide with their particular interests or likes. That's exactly what is occuring here, and tagging SPA accounts as such doesn't constitute trolling. /Blaxthos 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Marrion-Webster". Retrieved 2007-01-18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/F@NB0Y$&oldid=775669522"