User talk:SCZenz/Webcomics/Proposal
Please do not post further comments here. This is user space, so it's probably a better idea to put them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines.
Comment
[edit]We should probably relist Keenspace as Comic Genesis, since it has been renamed. Also, annoyingly, it no longer gives a top-20 rank. Snowspinner 20:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Too strict?
[edit]These are simply too strict. There's a lot of articles that would get quite easily kept on AfD that do not fit these criteria. Ambi 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not true. Even comics that meet it (e.g. for syndicate membership) are having trouble. What kind of changes do you propose? If it's little tweaks, that's fine, but I promise there'll never be consensus to keep comics without some sort of external verification of their notability. -- SCZenz 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Independent comics
[edit]This proposal presents a HUGE uphill battle for independent comics. I'm going to use my comic as an example (not because I think it should be on wikipedia, but because i know it's numbers well). It has an Alexa rating of 280,000, which is rather high. It is not, however, in a syndicate. If it were on Keenspace, however, it would likely be a high-ranking comic, as several Keenspace comics that recently defected to other syndicates (such as Boxcar) have higher Alexa ratings (for example, Beaver and Steve, currently at 367,154, or similar ratings (the highly-read Coffee Achievers, for example has an Alexa of 218,690).
Now, while I'm the first to argue that Alexa is basically bunk, it DOES mean a significant amount of readers. And somewhere in NOTABILITY, READERSHIP must be established. Your new guidelines make it hard for independent websites to be considered notable, while making it easy for comics with similar readership numbers who are published by a supposedly notable collective like Keenspace (which is really just a free hosting service) to be considered notable.
There must be a better balance