On 10/3/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
When people fight for the inclusion of websites and webcomics (for example) it's more of a vanity issue. It may be verifiable and presented in an NPOV manner, but the fact they're trying to get a comic/site with a tiny audience into a general purpose encyclopedia is POV too, an attempt at promotion.
Surely third-party verifiability takes care of this one. If someone else cares to write something verifiable about it, it should get in.
My point is that far too often, it's not "someone else" doing the writing. Hence the use of the word vanity.
If this is true in general of non-notability deletion listings of articles about comics, bands, schools and whatnot, it's news to me. Are you absolutely *sure* that non-notability deletions on Wikipedia are usually simply because the person writing the article is not a third party but is someone associated with their production, operation or distribution? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
I probably wasn't entirely clear. What I was saying is that there's a lot of people that try to glorify a particular subject they admire which has no reason to be in an encyclopedia to begin with. I subscribe to the belief we can't have an article on every single website or band in the world, so cut-offs and inclusion criteria are the next logical step. What those criteria should be in order to keep out the drivel and keep in useful stuff could be up for debate.
For example, books should have a 5000 people audience according to current guidelines. Since webcomics don't have the limitation of being released in one country and not in another, the potential audience for it is larger, so I see 5000 people audience as a reasonable criterion for inclusion of a certain webcomic.
Popularity should be just as verifiable as everything else, so if you come across a comic with ghastly google and Alexa ranking and a ghost town of a forum, it's reasonable to assume it's not popular as claimed, despite what the article may claim.
--Mgm