Erik Moeller wrote:
For my favorite example Gnipper, on the other hand, it seems unlikely that
we really want the kind of information that *could* blow this article up
to massive proportions, since most of it would probably come from Internet
fandom and as such have the stigma of low verifiability. So the article
about Gnipper could still "conceivably" get very long, but in my opinion
not "realistically". This is an important distinction.
We can test the thousand-person rule on this - if there are
thousands of fan pages, then at least there is the phenomenon
of the thousands of pages to talk about, and one could summarize
that. "Gnipper" by itself garners 579 Google hits (with Wikipedia
entry as #1, hmm), but most are non-comic-strip; "gnipper gnasher"
only turns up relevant hints, but there are just 34. Given a
likely ratio of readers to web posters, there are probably a few
thousand people who care about Gnipper, and so it squeaks by. But
I tried "gnorah" and there were exactly two refs not in Wikipedia,
and so I would say the mere mention of Gnorah in Wikipedia makes
it the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world (at least on
the subject of Gnasher and Gnipper :-) ), and there's no good
reason for a Gnorah article.