Ryan Delaney wrote:
Alphax wrote:
As you can see from what you quoted, I never said
it was a policy. You
asked for guidlines, so I provided you with one, official or not.
As for your love of [[Elf Only Inn]], I see that (as of 11:00 UTC, 7th
September 2005]] you have made a grand total of ZERO edits to that
article. Stop bitching about the fact that an article was deleted, and
expand the thing.
While we're talking about policies and guielines, would you say that
[[WP:CIVIL]] applies to the mailing list, or is this a free for all...? ;-)
Maybe I should just violate [[WP:NPA]] and call Snowspinner a... nah.
Snowspinner, I'm sorry that I harassed you, and that you feel so hurt by
articles being deleted, but if people feel that something is not notable
enough to belong in Wikipedia - and AFAICT, this is still a valid reason
for voting to delete something (actually, I don't think you even *need*
to provide a reason when voting) - then they will vote, "nn. webcomic,
delete".
It is neither your job, nor mine, nor the purpose of Wikipedia to
increase the "notability" of something. Wikipedia is pretty big on the
internet, and we have (or used to have) standards which meant that
Wikipedia was being used as a measure of notability of a topic elsewhere
on the Internet, and in the wider media in general.
As it has been pointed out in another thread:
Fastfission wrote:
Well, recognizing that Wikipedia itself is becoming a
cultural object,
wouldn't it make sense at the very least to say "When it is more notable
than its inclusion in Wikipedia would be"? ;-)
Put more simply, if I were in EB, it would be pretty amazing and the most
notable thing about me ("Otherwise unnotable man included in Encyclopedia
Brittanica," the headlines would proclaim). However if I was more notable
than my inclusion into EB would be, then it wouldn't be any big deal if they
had an article on me -- it might even be expected, if they specialized in
breadth.
Of course, the problem with this is that it is self-reinforcing policy! That
is, if the standard for inclusion to Wikipedia went down, then the
likelihood of having a Wikipedia article about something would go up, which
would in turn affect a standard for inclusion based on the likelihood of an
article being in Wikipedia... and so on.
It's a slippery slope once we say abolish such meta-guidlines as
notability and encyclopedic potential. Wikipedia is NOT a web directory,
and for many articles (not all, but many nonetheless) on webcomics, that
is all the article is being used for. As I said before:
Alphax wrote:
We are here to document the state of things, nothing
more. That is the
essence of NPOV, the policy which (along with Freedom of content)
Wikipedia is founded upon.
To me, staying neutral means "we don't write about something until it is
notable outside of the community it originated in", because otherwise we
are pushing that communitie's POV that the subject of the article is
notable outside of that community.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \