Snowspinner wrote:
On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:21 AM, Alphax wrote:
Now if the webcomics community feels wronged by the Wikipedia community, I am sorry. But we cannot help it if we find an article on our encyclopedia which fails our notability guidlines. It is not the job of Wikipedia, *and never will be*, to make things notable.
Which notability guidelines are these? The terrible webcomic ones that I outlined the problems of? Or the ones at [[WP:NOT]] where it says there are "no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page?"
Maybe you want to check [[WP:N]]. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable.
I mean, we're not talking about someone's garage band with a single self-released EP here. Articles are getting deleted that are verifiable articles on webcomics with substantial readerships. Elf Only Inn was picked up by the biggest webcomic syndicate online. Deleted.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Elf_Only_Inn, there are 13 deleted edits - you can restore them if you wish. Elf Only Inn is a webcomic that I would call notable, even back in April. Other webcomics, not so.
And what on Earth does it mean to be notable outside its community? For a webcomic to be notable outside its own fans? Outside of webcomics fans in general? We're willing to have an article on each individual Simpsons episode (Explicitly - it's on the meta page "Wikipedia is not paper"). Are these notable outside of Simpsons fans? Or is the judgment that Simpsons fandom is somehow more notable than webcomics fandom? And if so, who's making that judgment?
It means "Just because fans of a particular (whatever) love this thing to bits, doesn't mean we should have an article on it". There are video games that are notable in their own right, and the storylines of those video games are very notable amongst the fan community, but that doesn't mean that we need articles on any of the events or characters from said storylines.