This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There needs to be something set out for Mechinimas. They arn't webcomics, and as there seem to be an increasing number of them being made, there needs to be a set of criteria for notability. Possibilities-

• Certian number of downloads
• Won Awards
• Been featured in a magazine
• Been around for a certian lenght of time

Dr. B 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of pointless miniaturization that we were trying to avoid. Now look at what we've started. Nifboy 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put together a suggested guideline for adding articles on machinima productions. Part of my reasoning is that I've seen numerous cases of people — especially those inspired by Red vs Blue — making articles on extremely minor productions, often yet to be released, very often their own productions. Sometimes they even make articles on their production groups that haven't even released anything yet. MisterHand summed things up well in one deletion discussion, saying "Gosh, how would it be if we had an article for every short made using The Movies?".--Drat (Talk) 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try and change tack to try and generate something more akin, I'll admit, to my own personal preferences on what notability guidelines should be attempting to define. I'll ask that people bear in mind that an encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge, and that Wikipedia is not paper. Let's try and expand this guideline to cover all webcontent, and so save having to revisit this argument again and again.

First up, I'll explain my motives. What I would hope we are all seeking is the prevention of the abuse of Wikipedia through spamming. These guidelines should not be an opportunity for editors to push their own view on what should and should not be included. There should be no writing of these guidelines to include or exclude any specific subject. The goal of these guidelines is rather to outline and expand upon the notion that Wikipedia is not a web directory, i.e. not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. It should also note and expand upon the fact that we do not appreciate advertising, given Wikipedia articles are not advertisements.

Taking all that on board, I've attempted a rewrite, which I hope can be discussed here rather than simply reverted. The main thrust of the rewrite is to place policies at the heart of the page, and to remove specificity. If a webcomic or a blog has won an award, that is citable, referential and verifiable. If a website or a podcast has received coverage in a publication, that is again citable, referential and verifiable. Obviously regurgitation of press releases does not amount to press coverage, so care must be taken to make note that the coverage is of an acceptable quality.

We should also note that the use of the site itself as a source comes under the caveat, from Wikipedia:Reliable sources We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. Therefore, we cannot base an article on any webcontent using only the site upon which that webcontent is displayed. Anyway, please have a read, and discuss below. I have sourced this rewrite most heavily from Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Hiding talk 11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of rewrite

Wow. Just wow. Although this in some ways amounts to just chucking out tons of what we'd worked really hard to get agreement on... I can't complain. If nothing else this is a much better base to build on, and I'd strongly support anyone who reverted anything other tha nminor changes that had not been fully discussed here first. Now for my one complaint. We have as an example something whose supporting material would fail this very guideline, I believe: Many people independent of Checkerboard Nightmare have published their own reviews of the strip.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. brenneman^(t)(c) 12:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that would come up. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), specifically footnote 2. Many people independent of the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms have published their own accounts of eating there. If you look at the article, it concerns something, which, in its field, is probably of equal worth to Checkerboard Nightmare. That's why I chose it as an example. I would suggest that Checkerboard Nightmare requires a drastic rewrite, but I think the reviews of the strip allow for an article to be written that can be sourced and verified, so that it does not amount to original research. The sources linked to here, I argue, match almost precisely the level of sources cited in Mavalli Tiffin Rooms#References. Remember, the poicies we're leaning on here are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jimbo has stated that verifiability is the key to inclusion. But I've already rambled on too long. Hiding talk 12:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We are allowing something to "bootstrap" off of non-notable sites. This will allow any Joe Blog's blog that is mentioned in any other group of blogs to get in recursivly. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Take your point, although I will defend the use of sequential tart as a source, it's been updated monthly since 1998. I would argue that the ST review and the comixpedia one are notable enough to allow the leaning on lesser sources, which are verifiable and citable. The thrust of the guidelines is that sources cited aren't trivial. I'm not disputing that Checkerboard Nightmare is, in my opinion, a bad article, but I am disputing the argument that no good article can be written on the strip. However, if you can provide a better example to use there, I'm open to debate. Hiding talk 12:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm obviously not that happy with the re-vamp. I'd suggest re-adding Keenspot, as we got a consensus on that after a long discussion. The bigger issue, however, is that I think it seems almost as if you're trying to sweep the old discussion under the carpet and hide it by archiving the old talk material and not summing it up at the same time as you implement a sweeping change. I don't think you're actually doing that, I really actually believe on more than assumption you're doing it in good faith, but it does give the impression there's not been too much discussion on it. Or something. Do you see what I mean? (Also, you've entitled the Archive "Archive 01", ignoring the 3 previous archives. I think that's a bit confusing. And I edited the archive for your typo of "ending 4th of Januray 2005") J•A•K 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Keenspot would still fly, just that it's not mentioned specifically.

Additionally, I while I agree that the links in the article for MTR aren't that impressive, look at what you get when you google it: [13], including (on page three) Saveur magazine names its 'Top 100' food items a heavy duty mention on the world's #2 website. These are several orders of magnitude apart, mate. We need a different example. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair play, anyone have any suggestions. I confess I only chose Checkerboard because it was mentioned on the talk page quite a lot. Hiding talk 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the tipo. I've never summarised an archive in all the time I've been here, to be honest, perhaps too many months archiving the various village pumps knocked that out of me, although I can't recall a specific policy that mentions they have to be summarised. I archived because the page was too long. See WP:ARCHIVE, and feel free to copy and paste any discussion from the archives back here that you still have interest in discussing. I ignored the previous archives since they don't archive this actual page, the archive I pulled is the first archive of this page, but some piping work can fix that.

Hah, I just went to sort the archive links out, and they aren't even archives, they're just links to older versions of the page. Give me a few hours before I sort that, eh? Hiding talk 13:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As to your point regarding Keenspot, that can certainly be introduced as an example at note 8. Hiding talk 12:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, this page was renamed on the 6th of December, as mentioned in the archive. It should be put with the others. Aaron, is there any chance you could do this, as you are more experienced than I? J•A•K 13:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now if I wasn't in such a good mood, I'd be insulted by that. I'm well aware of when this page was renamed, but I only happen to have the one pair of hands. Hiding talk 13:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry Hiding. For some reason I thought you weren't still here. And the reason I'm mentioning the name change is that that is the reason the archives are of a different page. J•A•K 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(I have no idea if this is even still relevent.)

We'd mostly been summarising here because the discussions were both long and contentiuos and there was never a clean break. You might have been a tad agressive.

This is so firmly grounded in policy that I find it hard to argue with, although I concur strongly with J•A•K about the appearance. I'd like note five to be changed to explicitly state that sources should also meet Wikipedia standards, and then we would not need to mention Keenspot outright, because it (I think) would qualify on its own. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(Too many edit conflict... I'm not even going to read whatever just came up for twenty minutes!)

• Yeah, I'd like to make it doubly clear that I wasn't accusing Hiding of anything. Just commenting that redoing the article and archiving the talk simultaneously seems a bit over-zealous in trying to move past the old. I don't exactly know what I'm saying, let me just say that I'm sure you've got nothing but the purest of motives, Hiding. J•A•K 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tidied up the mess of the archive links. Like I say, if people wish to add back discussion they don't feel has played out, they are entirely welcome to do so.

Aaron, can you specify what you mean by I'd like note five to be changed to explicitly state that sources should also meet Wikipedia standards. There are no standards, per se, although we could link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the closest we have. There isn't really consensus on what a reliable source is beyond the provisions in that page. Primary sources are out, beyond that we have to evaluate them and judge them on their merits. I'd agrr that the bloke on the street's blog isn't likely to be reputable as a source for much, but it can be useful in judging impact when looking at a vast quantity of such sources. Hiding talk 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• While drastic, I think this is a vast improvement, as it is strongly grounded in wikipedia policy. The only place I see right away that seems to deviate wildly from wikipedia policy is Note 5, which seems to encourage the use of personal blogs as reliable sources. Per WP:RS, "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." WP:CORP, in contrast, uses as examples companies that have been covered by reliable sources such as the Discovery Channel, major newspapers, etcetera, not minor personal blogs. If a topic having been discussed in a few personal blogs is going to be considered notable, then isn't every minor blogger on myspace that is discussed on five other minor myspace blogs considered "notable"? Or, for that matter, is any Wikipedia user who is discussed on five different, independant talkpages and RfCs now "notable"? We need to rely on reliable sources; Note 5 needs to be rewritten to reflect this. While I agree with 90% of this (after a quick read), I've updated the box at the top of the page to reflect that, based on the newness of this guideline, it is still in the "proposed" stage." -- Dragonfiend 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  I'm pretty much in agreement with you, apart from the fact that I believe Comixpedia and Sepuential Tart are reliable sources. Sequential Tart is cited as a source by comics scholars, see its listings at the comics research bibliography. Comixpedia, as I have said before, cites its sources in its articles. I do not consider either of these to be personal blogs, since they both have external editors. I'd be interested in pinning down the use of such sites as sources, because that's about the only issue that seems to be causing contention. However, I'll amend 5 to point to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which I believe both Sequential Tart and Comixpedia pass. Hiding talk 16:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  On reflection it appears to me that when citing reviews at blogs and personal sites, we aren't using them as secondary sources, we are using them as primary sources, since all we are using them for is to source the opinion expressed within that review. So I still fail to see a problem with the utilisation of the links above. I agree that they do not support the article as it is currently written, but that does not mean an article cannot be written based on those sources. Would that I had the time I would attempt to do so. The point is that we should not only use primary sources, and that the mix of both the Comixpedia and Sequential Tart reviews and those of personal blogs allows that a sourced, referenced and verifiable article can be written. Hiding talk 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • • In general, I don't think this proposed guideline (or at least at this stage, anyway) is really the best place to debate where certain debatably grey-area websites as sources may fall on the reliability scale between personal blogs and publications that use teams of fact checkers, editors and lawyers. That's probably more appropriate for WP:RS. If we're trying to create a guideline here that has consensus behind it, let's pick examples of sources that have clear consensus behind them. That said, I find many problems with the sources you, Hiding, are trying to use, besides just my disagreement with your above assertion that a review of a website is a primary rather than secondary source in terms of the website. My other problems include that the "comics research bibliography" you've linked to is maintained by John D. Bullough, Ph.D., who is apparently a "Lighting Scientist, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Architecture" at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's Lighting Research Center. Per, WP:RS and Beware false authority, "people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other ... Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing." You've also listed numerous blogs on the project page that you feel are reliable "non-trivial published works" that indicate the notability of a particular webcomic. One of those bloggers dedicates a single sentence to the webcomic, writing that it "has a great graphic look but too often I was left saying 'I don't get it.'"[14] Another one of the bloggers (who is apparently Webcomics Examiner and Comixpedia contributor William G.) writes, "Over at some internet database called Wikipedia some webcomic called Checkerboard Nightmare had someone call for the deletion of it's wiki entry because it isn't a notable item. ... here's the thing: Checkerboard Nightmare isn't notable." [15] Regardless of how any of us feel about the reliability of this particular personal blog, or whether this particular blogger ought to be considered a double-plus-good "expert," isn't it a bit strange to have a proposed wikipedia notability guideline that says if bloggers explicitly state their belief that a website is not notable enough for wikipedia, then we should conclude that it is in fact notable enough for wikipedia? The WP:CORP example of the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms, on the other hand, has been covered by the Discovery Channel and newspapers such as The Hindu, which has a readership of three million. -- Dragonfiend 02:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to try and keep this brief:

• • • • 1. Discussing here or WP:RS: The discussion started here and I posted links at quite a few places, including WP:RS to here because of the various issues touched on by this page. I thought it was best if everyone and everything was on the same page.
        2. Examples with clear consensus: Absolutely agree.
        3. Sourcing reviews as primary or secondary sources: If we source an opinion of something from a review, that source is primary source for the opinion.
        4. "comics research bibliography" and John Bullough. If you care to look again at the link, you'll see it is copyright to and maintained by him and Michael Rhode, who is a comics scholar, see Michigan State University Libraries, International Journal of Comic Art and Librarians in Comics. As to the site itself, note it is linked to by Yale, Comics Scholars' Discussion List, Prof. Mark Rogers of Walsh Uni, University of Southern Australia, Guardians of the North: The National Superhero in Canadian Comic-Book Art archival exhibition website and Gene Kannenberg, Jr., formerly of the Executive Committee of the International Comic Arts Festival amongst other positions. That, in my eyes, makes it a credible, reliable source.
        5. Using sources: I'm not at all clear what you mean here, but as I understand it you are prescribing using such sources because they offer negative opinion. Perhaps it will help if I offer an example of the sort of writing I believe can be produced from such sources. "Checkerboard Nightmare" is a strip which utilises the conception of a "fourth wall" within it's storylines, having been described as a "meta-strip". Straub himself notes his intention was to "have a self-referential webcomic, one that was actually self-aware." [16]. Although the art in the strips early days has been criticised by various reviewers, [17] , [18] the strip has more recently received praise for its look [19] and the effect to which Straus uses his simplistic style. [20]. "Checkerboard Nightmare" is held by some to be notable within its field, although doubts remain as to its connection with a wider public at this time. [21]. I hope that demonstrates what can be built from such sources.
        6. Outside sources dictating Wikipedia content: This should, in my humble opinion, never happen. Hiding talk 16:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • 1. Ok, then, let's continue to discuss WP:RS here rather than on the WP:RS talk page. Thanks for spreading the word about the discussion here.
          2. Agree with your agreement.
          3. "Secondary sources are texts based on primary sources, and involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation." That sounds like a review to me. To me, a website would be a primary source about itself, a review would be a secondary source sbout the website, our wikipedia article would be a tertiary source. How do others feel about this?
          4. Thank you for the additional info on librarian and comics scholar Michael Rhode.
          5. No, I'm not saying you can't use a personal blog that reviews a website in a single sentence as a secondary source because the single sentence provides a negative review. I'm saying that per WP:RS, "personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, ... are not acceptable as sources. ... Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." My reading of that is that you can use Joe's Blog as a primary source for an article on Joe's Blog, but not as a secondary source about Jill's Blog. Further, it is Note 5 of our WP:WEB guideline that we are discussing. This refers to "non-trivial published works." We seem to disagree on whether personal blogs are non-trivial published works -- but can we at least agree that a single-sentence review on a personal blog is trivial? Again, if a half-dozen single sentences on a half-dozen personal blogs is going to be considered an indicator of notability, then pretty much every livejournal, myspace and flickr account just became notable. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. To sum up, personal blogs are unreliable, single-sentence passing references in personal blogs are trivial. -- Dragonfiend 17:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • • Actually, regarding secondary sources and personal blogs yes, you're absolutely right, and I apologise for being so thick skulled it has taken me this long to work it out. Hiding talk 18:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• These guidelines work for me. In fact, they are the very guidelines I use when deciding whether or not an online source is credible. --Alabamaboy 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. These guidelines are a LOT smaller than the old ones, which seemed to be accreting into a twisty tangle of special cases, exceptions, confusing examples, and attempts to satisfy everyone. I like the approach here a lot. But before I say I'm 100% behind them, I'd ask this (of every reader, as a thought experiment)... Pick a category of websites and pick a percentage that you think in your gut should pass the notability test. Does this set of guidelines produce the number you expect? (for reference my percentage of say, blog sites, at this time, given how many there are, etc, is somewhere well less than 1% are notable... my percentage of webcomic sites, at this time, given how many there are, etc, is somewhere around 10%... (that may come as a surprise to some people but there you are)). My read of these guidelines makes it hard to judge but my gut tells me they winnow to about this level... So I'm supportive. Well done, Hiding. Now go shorten some of the other guidelines around here! ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Hiding's work. This sort of change has been bubbling up on this talk page for a while, now. (See this comment and this comment by Geogre last year for example.) I was planning on pushing for this sort of change myself. I'm pleased that it has happened, and I'm additionally pleased that the resulting discussion has not really been about the basic criteria themselves, but mainly about what good examples of the criteria in action should be given in the footnotes. Uncle G 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, and would like to understand the issue here. Is the purpose of this guideline or policy to determine when we can create an article about a given web site? If this is the case, what is the connection with verifiability? I ask the question because a link to this issue was added in Wikipedia talk:verifiability

The connection with verifiability is that if we do introduce such guidelines, how far do they push us away from having verifiability as the sole criterion for inclusion, per Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance#No. The intention of the link is to invite the broadest number of people possible to comment on this page, thus building a strong consensus and allowing opinion outside of those who regularly discuss the issue. Hiding talk 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend adding some sort of guideline that links audience size to notability, as is done with magazines and other publications. For example, if a podcast is regularly getting 1,000 downloads a week for several weeks, I would probably qualify that as notable, even if it didn't meet the other criteria. And if a website is clearly getting tens of thousands of visitors on a regular basis, that would count. Though there should probably be some sort of exclusion for the occasional slashdotting, which could bring in 20,000 visitors over the space of 24 hours on a curiosity basis, but I wouldn't count that site as "notable" unless they had substantial sustained interest. Elonka 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with this is that accurate web stats are very hard to come by. One can be certain what the top fifty to a hundred websites are but beyond that accuracy is hard to achieve b/c you are dependent on web site owners, to a large degree, to report their stats (and they have reason to fudge the numbers). In addition, web ranking services like Alexa.com are also notoriously unreliable.[22] --Alabamaboy 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict probably already answers this) In order to verify that this hypothetical podcast was getting that many downloads (and not just claiming to), it would have to be written about in an independant source, thereby passing criteria 1. Nifboy 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nifboy makes a good point, and I'll add to that the response to this argument that I gave when it was argued that WP:CORP should have inclusion guidelines based upon number of employees or annual turnover: Wikipedia is not a directory. A notability criterion that says that "all podcasts with an audience of N or more are notable" produces a directory of podcasts with audiences of N or more, even if there is nothing actually to say about the podcast apart from its audience figure. It doesn't produce an encyclopaedia.

These guidelines, in contrast, work from the principle that notability is determined by the world at large, that the best way to measure notability is to see whether the world at large has already deemed something to be notable, and the best barometer of that is to see whether other people, independent of the subject in question, have expended the time and the effort to create and to publish something non-trivial of their own about it. In other words: If there's more available about a podcast or a web site from independent sources than simple directory-entry information (e.g. for web sites, the sort of information that one can glean from whois), it satisfies the primary notability criterion. Uncle G 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Audience size is a rather dubious criterion of notability. Particularly, how would you apply it to sites that are now inactive or defunct? Some of the most influential sites in the history of the web no longer exist, does that make them less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Sergeirichard 03:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the article makes reference to both webcontent and web-specific content. Is there supposed to be a distinction: I can think of some things that would come under the heading of web content by virtue of being webcomics, but which aren't web-specific. Does that come under this? J•A•K 08:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite examples as to what you mean? I asked about this before I re-wrote the page and was informed that webcomics were still thought of as webcomics, regardless of what happened to them after they originated. You ypurself said "if it started (or gained notability) while being published on the web, it's thought of as a webcomic". However, note 1 addresses some of these aspects: Content which has been packaged into material form, such as onto cd, dvd or book form, but which is still only available for sale via the internet, still falls under these guidelines. If such packaging of the product is available for sale in brick and mortar retailers, then it should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), does that help answer the question? If you can give some specific examples I'd have a better understanding and could answer your question better. Hiding talk 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is excellent start; I'm a little afraid it may not adequately cover sites that are important precisely as research resources. I think most of these can be covered as part of the article on the associated institutions, but I suspect that there are some serious ones that may simply be websites.

Examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about are Ethnologue ([23]), a first-rate resource on populations speaking various languages and on how languages are related to one another; IDESCATT ([24]), a first rate statistical resource for Catalonia; or HistoryLink ([25]), a large collection of excellently researched, well-cited articles about Seattle and environs, whose contributors include several most prominent archivists of the regions history. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I suspect most sources, if they are actually first-rate, will be used by other reliable sources long before they are used by us. ethnologue.com was discussed in the article "How Linguists and Missionaries Share a Bible of 6,912 Languages " in the July 19, 2005 New York Times, for example. historylink.org has been used as a source for numerous Seattle Times stories. -- Dragonfiend 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Notes" are now longer than the guideline. Just an observation. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not too bad as it stands, they serve to clarify any points of contention, and two of the notes are for the preamble, so they're almost the same length if you discount them. Did you have anything in mind behind the observation? It's funny really, because if you look at a lot of our policy, most of the ancillary pages are quite obviously notes that have spun off, Wikipedia:Reliable sources could almost certainly have started life as a note at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hiding talk 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Does anyone else agree that the page would look better (and be more easily readable) if the notes were inlined instead of put at the bottom? E.g. list "...won an award, such as the Blob or Blab" rather than "has won an award.... FOOTNOTE ... Awards that are important enough include the Blob or Blab". Radiant_>|< 22:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My love for the footnote caused me to totally misread that. Anyway, added ((footnotestext)) and changed to new version without the numbers. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't think it would look better. Footnotes are less disruptive and the way they are now looks great. One comment on #5... (and in general regarding notability), would it make sense, where possible instead of just giving a link to the WP article on the publication, give a link to the actual article IN the publication? Not always possible as some publications don't have web versions or don't make them available for linking etc....... ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I actually took one external link out. The external links should be in the articles themselves. I had a quick look, but it's hard to tell with the inline refs. (Another reason that I love footnotes.) If they aren't, we shouldn't be using them as exampels anyway. Oh, and I combined notes 7, 8, and 9 in case anyone objects. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd rather worry about note creep than guideline creep. I prefer the footnotes. -- Dragonfiend 07:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think that having the footnotes separated by the text makes reading slightly easier (because you don't have these examples in the middle of sentences). However, I do not see why you can't give a try at inlining the footnotes (it's not even a content change). - Liberatore(T) 12:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I too prefer the footnotes/notes to inline text, I think it simplifies the text of the guideline whilst allowing for clarification of any ambiguity at a deeper level so as to avoid misunderstanding. I like the current revisions, especially the merging of the three notes. Hiding talk 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the new version of this guideline because:

1. it is based on a simple principle (independent review)
2. it does not use Alexa or Google rank any longer

I however would like to make the following change: after the criteria, saying something like:

This is somewhat implied in WP:V, but I think it would be useful to report it here. Any objection? - Liberatore(T) 13:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like this seems worthwhile to me. Note that part of the preamble to the WP:MUSIC guideline reads, "Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." Although I'd suggest avoiding the judgemental term "rant."-- Dragonfiend 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made this change. The "Reference" section allows giving a proof of notability that is not available on the Web (for example, a paper-only article on a newspaper). - Liberatore(T) 12:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed comic from under examples that was added by its author. I'm making no judgements about the actual facts in question, except to say that two examples seems plenty and that it just looks bad. If its appropiate, let someone else add it in. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Although, to be fair, the author in question also added Bob and George as an example; I took that out because it was unsourced (which kinda goes against the purpose of the guidelines). Nifboy 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the comparisons section relevant? I've seen people use google hits in debates on topics which aren't web specific, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rastko Perišić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berom, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Akin Sawyerr, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanauts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backwash (musical group) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords of the rhymes. I would suggest the material is moved to Wikipedia:Notability. Hiding talk 20:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind it moved someplace (Wikipedia:Google test comes to mind), but it mainly does apply to internet-related items. People (especially newbies) regularly claim on AFD that their site is notable since e.g. it gets 400 google hits, or since its forum has 150 members. I do not want to encourage decisionmaking on the basis of google hits, but it wouldn't hurt to have some reference in Wikispace that shows what a reasonable amount actually is. Radiant_>|< 21:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• A guideline would be useful - or rather a set of guidelines since there are some "web things" that get quite large numbers of Google hits without actually being notable, through ad sites etc. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just run across Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles which could do with some work and a rename, (to avoid listing every reference works or libraries in the world), but it may be the best place to work up such online verifiability tests.

• This does seem out of place, but more than that, how is it to be used? No matter what caveats we put, it's going to be mis-used to draw a line in the sand. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the latest version of these guidelines fails to mention Alexa Internet rankings anymore. Whilst I disagree with their usage as the sole indicator of notability, they do provide a very good guide as to the most popular websites. Surely no-one would be disputing the fact that any of Alexa's top 500 visited websites were of sufficient notability for inclusion? Maybe the service could at least gain a mention on this page, or an inclusion in the comparisons table, since it is a genuinely good means of contrasting websites. Finally, I do wonder how many articles we have about websites which would no-longer meet these revised guidelines... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• They are not good guides at all. Far from it. See Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa_test. An argument based upon an Alexa ranking is a flawed argument, and in some ways a lazy one. Checking an Alexa ranking is not research, just as counting Google Web hits is not research.

  As for articles that would be excluded: The point of guidelines such as these is to exclude subjects which can only ever be web directory entries because (when self-sourced material and outright original research are excluded) directory entry information is all that is available for constructing an article. If we have an article on a web site that does not satisfy the present criteria, then it will be the case that either (a) the article can never be more than a web directory entry, and not desirable because we aren't creating a web directory, or (b) the article has been padded out with original research (e.g. the participants in a web-based discussion have come to Wikipedia and written an original history of the discussion forum that has not been published anywhere outside of Wikipedia) or simply wholly unverifiable material. Uncle G 18:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the rewrite, the old version of this guideline explicitly stated for forums something like: "A forum of over 5,000 members that has had an impact outside of its community". This line needs to be put back in somewhere, there are MANY forum articles that were AfD'd (and eventually deleted) specifically for failing to meet this requirement. Spend any amount of time on RC Patrol and you'd see that a lot of forumcruft is created, most often by newish Wikipedians unaware of this guideline. Zunaid 07:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. Indeed, exactly the converse: We need to keep such criteria, that say "a forum that passes arbitrary numeric metric X", out. We aren't in the business of creating a web directory of all fora that exceed the bar of "arbitrary numeric metric X", which is exactly what such numerical bars would give us. Having an impact outside of its community is implicit in the wording that reads "whose source is independent of the site itself". If a site has had no impact outside of its community, there will be no published works from sources that are independent of the site itself. Conversely, if there are published works from sources that are independent of the site itself, it is demonstrable that the site has had an impact outside of its community (because other people, outside of the community, have considered the site notable enough to go to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it). What you want is directly implied by the wording that we already have. Uncle G 10:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of the mainly inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging, and I believe the current WP:WEB fails bloggers. An accurate way to measure a blog's popularity isn't through Google or Alexa - but Technorati. I suggest in any rewrite of WP:WEB, you allow all of the Top 100/200/500 blogs have an article. ComputerJoe 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice the current criteria don't mention Alexa at all, and Google is only there for comparison purposes, and isn't part of any actual criteria (I'm not quite sure what it's doing up there). Nifboy 19:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia which lists the top whatever of every given field, as determined by some arbitrary rankings. Wikipedia can't fail bloggers, since it has no duty to them in the first instance. The guidelines aver that if someone's blog has an impact outside of their blog, such an imact will have been covered in a source or sources outside of that blog. They are not used to determine a blog's popularity, although popular blogs will, if truly popular, generate coverage in reliable sources independent of their site. Hiding talk 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Last time I checked, policies WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS say that blogs are not reliable sources. This implies that blogs cannot verify another blog, sorry. Isn't that what the technorati rank is? --Perfecto 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wholehearted agreement. There do exist blogs that get mentions in major media, Wired magazine, Salon, etc. Those are the blogs that we should be carrying. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag on this page and replaced it with not policy - these guidelines are completely erroneous, and reflect the hijacking of this notability discussion by people with a very poor understanding of several Wikipedia policies, most notably no original research. The result of these guidelines is to render hundreds of long-standing articles including at least one featured article unfit for inclusion. When your policy manipulation has reached a point of such obvious error, you have stopped creating policy. I invite any of the people involved in this debacle to take up the initiative in restoring this page to something resembling sanity. --Phil Sandifer 00:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Phil, I'll be more inclined to discuss this with you when you apologise to me for the above statement. Thanks. Hiding talk 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Following the maxim of "be bold, revert, discuss" we're now at stage three since I've replaced the tag. The place to make this argument is on this page, things don't simply become un-policy because someone says so. If there is compelling narrative as to why this shouldn't be policy, it will sway reasonable and open minded individuals, and a consensus will be reached that this is not, in fact, a suitable guideline.
brenneman^{T}{L} 00:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether this is a suitable guideline. It is whether this guideline reflects any semblance of reality. It does not. The issue of suitability is wholly secondary to the fact that, simply put, you cannot alter deletion policy such that featured articles are suddenly deletion candidates. --Phil Sandifer 00:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dare I ask which one? --Nifboy 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha. --Phil Sandifer 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? A "Site of the week" from SciFi.com doesn't count? --Nifboy 03:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how you can possibly construe that, Snowspinner. Care to point out which clauses exclude Memory Alpha or Wookiepedia? --maru (talk) contribs 03:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Since they're inclusion guidelines, the more relevent question is which ones include it. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In general: This guideline has been the subject of long and careful work by a wide variety of editors. It's been listed on the village pump, on centralised discussion, and been the subject of arbitration. It's been spammed on talk pages, almost certainly ran hot on e-mail back channels, and I'll be suprised if it hasn't appeared on Eric Burns' blog. The fact that there exists a vociferous minority who appear unable to compromise becomes diminshingly important as it becomes clear that this guideline is accepted.

More specifically: There is extensive commentary on my talk page regarding memory alpha. It's already subject to thoughtful discussion. The argument that since there exists at least one counterexample, the entire guideline must therefor be scrapped? That is thin indeed. This page begins with "This page gives some rough guidelines..." and goes on from there. Is the contention that there does not exist even one decent article that fails WP:MUSIC, for example?

brenneman^{T}{L} 03:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You hold up WP:MUSIC as though I like it. Phil Sandifer 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's use of the term "some Wikipedia editors"

It's pretty evident that the items listed here are not very complete, and equally obvious that not all editors subscribe to this proposed guideline, so I'm using the phrasing "This page gives some rough guidelines which some Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia." This also takes into account the rather controversial nature of the "notability" concept in itself. There are writers who seem to be capable producong perfectly good articles without any consideration of whether their subject is "notable". Strongly inclusive wording here is therefore unjustifiable, for there is much division. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I really don't care one way or another, and don't see what the big deal is. Nifboy 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to use a qualifier, is should be an accurate one, so I've changed it to "most". This guideline has been done to death, and is linked to Hanoi and back. I think that unless we're going to decide that "rough consensus" doesn't include the case where one or two people disagree, we've got rough consensus here. We've had discussions, votes, arbitrations, more discussion, ad nauseam. This not only reflects Wikipedia's non-negotiable precept of verifiability, almost everyone accepts it. Look at the history of the main page: lots editors working together and moving forwards, very very few (almost one!) editor objecting. Enough already.
brenneman^{T}{L} 03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not over-bothered, although on reflection I perhaps should have said "This page gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors can use". To be honest, I figured the use of the wording rough guidelines contextualised the meaning of the page pretty well. I used WP:CORP as a basis for the rewrite, that seems to have a pretty strong consensus behind it. I advertised this page high and low after I rewrote it, we didn't get any major objections. I can't see why there's such an objection to it or why the issue is such a big deal. We've got notability guidelines on many issues, see Template:IncGuide. Why does it appear this one is being singled out? Hiding talk 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neglected Mario Characters (a rather pitiful sprite comic whose only claim to fame is being the first) is up for AfD. I think it's an interesting case, and so I'm linking to it here. Nifboy 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that we are trying to brainstorm some rational notability criteria for websites which existed in the early web era (circa 1991-1997) at WikiProject Early Web History. The current criteria are a decent filter when considering the 100 million sites on the Web today, but are too fine when considering the historical relevance of one amongst perhaps only several thousand early web pages. KWH 06:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have thought that the current guidelines were more friendly to older material than the various suggested interations. Nothing currently about google or alexa, which discriminate against the older stuff. My off-the-cuff response would be that the history of the web is a hot topic in print and online sources like Wired, so there should really be no issue. Can we have an example of something that might be thought "important" in the history of the web but that would fail these guidelines? (Great idea for a project by the way!)
brenneman^{T}{L} 11:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

ComoAnda and guideline #3

There is some disagreement between me and another editor about how the web site ComoAnda applies to guideline #3. The discussion can be found on my talk page. I would like to get an outside opinion on this. --Cymsdale 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. According to that criterion, every single project on SourceForge is de facto notable. Just zis Guy you know? 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it trivial to get a project on SF, though? Nifboy 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the point. --Cymsdale 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the AfD discussion, I think it turns on what a reasonable definition of "distribute" is. No reasonable person would hold every project on SF to be notable, even though SF "distributes" them... Last I checked the article originator seemed to "get it"... ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it help if we changed the word to "endorse"? It seems the guideline is really looking for a kind of affirmation that the content is good; Free hosts don't do that, but if somebody like the New York Times publishes an article, that's also an endorsement of sorts, on top of being a "mere" publication. Nifboy 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think footnote seven is good enough to catch tyhis, although we might need to expand the examples to add serch engine results as being trivial distribution. I thought that was a no-brainer, personally, but I never considered search results to be content. I suppose since they can generate income they probably are content, but they are certainly non-trivial. Hiding talk 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Per this and the iTunes sitch below, I'd certainly support beefing up either the footnote or guideline, whichever makes more sense, to address this loophole. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't really see it as a loophole. AFD is probably the best place to discuss contentious issues like the one below. The guidelines, to my mind, shouldn't be able to cover every eventuality. I don't think there should be wikilawyering over the guidelines, but that each case should be discussed individually, using the guidelines as a reference but not a rulebook. Hiding talk 13:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

iTunes Music Store

If a podcast is available via the iTunes Music Store, is it being distributed by iTMS? I.e., can anybody get their podcast on iTMS, or is there enough vetting done that a podcast available there would be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes? —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My instinct would say that a podcast should not receive notability simply for being distributed through the iTMS service. However, guideline #3 does seem to imply this by its wording. I think some more clarity needs to be brought to this guideline, it's much too vague as it stands now. --Cymsdale 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd have to look at what being distributed by iTMS means before we categorically state whether it denotes notability or not. If distribution by iTMS is trivial, then it's caught by footnote seven. So we just need to get a consensus on whether iTMS distribution is trivial. Anyone know the mechanics of how distribution by iTMS is gained. What podcasts are we talking about here? Hiding talk 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The podcast in question at the moment is Radio Askew. As far as I can tell, there is some vetting of podcasts done by iTMS; it's not a parallel with having, say, a Geocities URL. The problem is, Apple's help is vague about how much review is done, though it implies consideration of whether explicit language tags are appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

reading this The iTunes Music Store podcast directory will only contain references to the RSS feeds available on a podcaster’s website. A podcaster must be running web-server software in order to host their podcast. When a user subscribes to a podcast through the iTunes Music Store, iTunes accesses the podcaster’s RSS feed and downloads the enclosed audio files directly from the podcaster’s website., from the [iTunes podcast FAQ, it reads to me that the podcasts aren't distributed by iTunes. I guess it hinges on your definition of distribution. However, I'd be inclined to vote keep on the podcast in question at afd, it seems a notable podcast given the guests, endorsement and output. But I'm an inclusionist, YMMV. Best thing to do would be to list it at AFD if you don't think it merits an article. These guidelines aren't rules for deletion. Hiding talk 13:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As shown time and time again, the guideline here is sorely lacking in dealing with internet memes in particular (although I think the new changes are really horrible across the board, but that's a separate discussion). With this said, I have been trying to get input regarding creating a guideline for internet memes only, which is being discussed on and off at User:Badlydrawnjeff/Meme. I'm hoping people will throw in their two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing, but for that that there is no other place for a "meme" guideline than here. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure? Serious question, because I don't really see how it can be properly encompassed here, especially given the recent changes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some examples of how "the guideline here is sorely lacking in dealing with internet memes." Like maybe take a look at a dozen or so memes and see whether they meet this guideline. Are there some notable internet memes that it is believed may not meet this guideline? -- Dragonfiend 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say LUEshi, Prime Number Shitting Bear, The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and, while I hate to open that can of worms at the moment, Brian Peppers are excellent immediate examples. Of the four, only Brian Peppers has a shot in hell of ever reaching the absurd standards of the guideline here, while the idea that many of these memes are notable isn't really in doubt. The problem is that this is a passable guideline for actual websites, which are a dime a dozen, but don't do well for internet-only content like internet memes. Even most notable blogs wouldn't have reached these standards before the 2004 US elections, and it still fails otherwise notable blogs, I'd imagine, given the overly strict standards applied.

Let's put it another way - it's a relative consensus within the community via the AfD process that internet memes can be notable. The problem is that there's no consistent standard to apply to them, and there's a rather lazy use of crossover memes like All Your Base and the Star Wars Kid as some sort of basement for notability, which would do a disservice to other absolutely notable memes like Badger Badger Badger. If we're going to have internet memes on Wikipedia - and we should - we should be working toward a unique consensus guideline for them as they are a unique body of work. Of course, with no general standard, a consensus that they should be here, and the closest available guideline (being WP:WEB) not doing it justice, we end up spamming AfD with the same AfD twice a month. A good, solid guideline to deal specifically with this sort of medium would do us good. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Existing guideline

OK, let's look at whether these memes meet the current WP:WEB guidelines -- Dragonfiend 04:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• LUEshi
• Prime Number Shitting Bear Covered by South China Morning Post. -- Dragonfiend 04:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny Covered by Chicago Tribune (December 27, 2005) -- Dragonfiend 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Brian Peppers
• All Your Base Washington Post (January 2, 2006), The San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 21, 2004), The Toronto Star (May 21, 2005). -- Dragonfiend 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Star Wars Kid See references section of article. -- Dragonfiend 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Badger Badger Badger Covered by Houston Chronicle (February 14, 2004), Florida Sun-Sentinel (February 8, 2004), The Toronto Star (February 12, 2004) and mentioned on MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olberman on (August 10, 2004) -- Dragonfiend 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Metrics

(Reset indent)

• We're going to have problems if we begin with a supposition like "we should have internet memes on Wikipedia". That's an entirely inappropiate foundation to build upon, and lends itself to bending over backwards to attempt to "force in" something that a personal POV indicates is "worthy".
  • I build this supposition based on the consensus of the community, which has not historically weighed the WP:WEB guidelines to base the notability of internet memes. The only example I'm surprised saw actual media coverage was the Prime Number Shitting Bear, which wasn't presented at the time of its AfD, but still somewhat fails to address old memes when the internet wasn't something the media really covered. And even WITH the current standards actually somehow meeting these crazy standards, there's no evidence that it's being considered as such, since people still don't care to use WP:WEB as a standard. There are far more wrinkles in internet-only media that aren't exactly being addressed here, which is why I'm still a strong advocate for a separate guideline. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• A better place to start would be "what metrics are we going to use to determine the encyclopedic qualities of internet-based themes?" The first metric in the proposals at User:Badlydrawnjeff/Meme subpage is Minimum 20000 Google hits/XXX "Unique Hits". I've altered this to (Unique Hits / Google hits/1000) just for scaling and because "higher = better" is more intuitive..
  

brenneman^{T}{L} 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The "minimum" was just a starting point for discussion, which I hope you'd take over there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just use the existing guidelines

I really don't see what the problem is. If the articles use reliable sources to build the information, then they meet guideline 1. It's that simple. At the moment LUEshi cites no sources, so that needs to be addressed. Hiding talk 10:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The problems involve what works as a "reliable source" for an internet meme, and the issues of notability for web-only content that is unlikely to get "traditional" media coverage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not really a problem that these guidlines or any notability guidlines should seek to determine. The reliability of sources is an issue upon which, in a certain respect, you have to make your own judgement on. If you don't feel the sources are reliable enough to support the information that has been added, dicuss that on the article talk page in the first instance, and then at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you're concerned that the article in its entirety is not supported by reliable sources, I'd add a template:sources, again discuss the issue on the article talk page, and if none are forthcoming within a week or so, then consider listing the article at WP:AFD, citing your reason as being that the article cannot be sourced in reliable sources. WP:AFD is ultimately the only forum which can generate an article specific consensus upon an articles inclusion or deletion. I'd note that Dragonfiend managed to find "traditional" media coverage for many memes, so it might not be as unlikely as you say. However, all that said, a rule of thumb you might consider could be that if the sources in question meet the guidelines outlined in these guidelines, then they can be thought of as reliable sources. It's something to consider. Hiding talk 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But this guideline is designed to take that into account. You seem to misunderstand me - I don't want to see internet memes go by the wayside, I want to see them stick around, and WP:WEB is not doing the greatest job in reflecting the general consensus, nor is it designed to do so. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the guideline is designed to move the debate from is this notable to is this a reliable source on which to build an article. In this instance it appears to have worked. As I suggest, consider the sourcing of the articles in question, consider whether they are verifiable, are of a neutral point of view and that they do not constitute original research. These guidelines are not meant to tweaked to allow for any particular article on a given topic or topic group to exist or be deleted. Each article should be taken on its merits; the guidelines merely offer guidance on what to consider. And again, since Dragonfiend found traditional media sources I'm not entirely sure there is a problem here. I confess I am baffled as to what consensus you are describing above. Does there exist a consensus that all internet memes are worthy of an article? Hiding talk 22:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to use the moronic "it exists" argument, but the existence of memes are reliable, just as, say, the existence of you or I. The question is how to judge whether such things are notable. I'm certainly not, and some internet memes are, but some are not. Traditional, non-internet media do not always do it justice - it certainly doesn't for Peppers or LUEshi, and a lot of people would scoff at the source for the Prime Number Shitting Bear (those were the three examples of internet memes that I was providing), but they're still notable, like Star Wars Kid, Badger Badger, etc. And I'm not saying all internet memes are notable and worthy, but that some are, and the current guidelines fail to properly address that. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, many memes I've voted keep on during AfD wouldn't meet the guidelines I'd like to see. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The criteria are absolute bullshit. All they do is present things which need decent recognition from getting the recognition they deserve. I added a comic that I personally enjoy but do not write as I feel it deserved to be on the webcomic list. Why do other webcomics get to be here but not my favourite one? This is absurd. Things that are already exposed don't need more exposure and already have plenty of information available on them, so there's no reason why thigns like this shouldn't take equal preference. I realise this is to prevent over-flooding on articles, but most people won't bother to write a Wiki article on their comic, at least not a very big one that takes up any space or bandwidth. I fail to see what the issue is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Epicenter

--User:Kittie Rose

Wikipedia is not and should not be a place where anything gains recognition: It is a repository of things that have already been recognized. Nifboy 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And, moreover, Wikipedia articles should represent verifiable scholarship about the thing being discussed. The issue of verifiability is not whether a meme (or website) exists, but whether there is anything significant, reliable, independent and verifiable that has been said about it. If a meme has been observed 100 times, but has been the subject of peer-reviewed articles, it is valid for inclusion, and there is something to say about it. If a second meme has been observed 1,000,000 times, but no one with any credentials has said anything about it, I see no way to write an NPOV article of interest without committing original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be labelled as a clarification of existing policy (WP:V) as it applies to website articles, since that is basically what it now is. While WP:WEB isn't technically policy, it might as well be, since WP:V is. --W.marsh 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)