Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W00tness

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was D3l3t3 ~ trialsanderrors 11:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W00tness

[edit]
W00tness (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Speedy tag and importance tag removed, so I bring it here. This is a non-notable web comic. It fails every aspect of WP:WEB as initially admitted by the authors on the talk page. Nothing notable here. IrishGuy talk 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to "fails every aspect of WP:WEB" Please see talk page, innocent bystanders! Tar7arus 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your only argument that it meets number 3 is that it has hosting. By that rationale, everyone who uses GoDaddy.com meets that criteria. This comment here illustrates that even the original author concedes that it doesn't meet the criteria: So, in order to be considered, he has to win an award, be published somewhere else, or be advertised in some manner? I find that unfair, but I suppose rules are rules. Do you have any suggestions for helping us meet these criteria in some manner in the future? Please stop attempting to send people to influence the discussion as you are doing on your forum. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have been arguing this since you first posted the article for speedy deletion. I am the one that removed the speedy tag, as it said to do so if we planned on contesting it. We posted a hang on tag as well. I removed the importance tag, because the importance of the article has been asserted. And yes, the author did say that it didn't meet the criteria in the beginning, but he hadn't seen what we had added to the article before posting that. We have continually stated the fact that the comic was recognized by Blizzard on the talk page for the article, but again, you have ignored it. And as for the hosting example: Wikipedia specifically states that sites like GoDaddy.com and Angelfire.com, etc. do not count as independant hosts. bungie.org however, is a completely independant site owned by an individual person, making it completely different. IrishNinjaSpark 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB at all. Not even close. You cannot have Shea host his site with a company and then turn around and claim they are independent of each other. That is like saying that every freely hosted site on Geocities is "distributed" by geocities and since geocities is owned by Yahoo that must mean that Yahoo distributes that content. Not quite.
The Blizzard link is entirely irrelevant. It was a one paragraph link. It wasn't a well known award, nor was it in any level distribution. It was also, arguably, not independent of the creator as that "feature" comes from people emailing in their favorite links. How do I know the creator himself didn't send in that link? Blizzard didn't recognize the webcomic. Blizzard put up a link which was emailed to them for a fan section. Very different.
As for the assertion of importance, saying The importance of this article is to provide a deeper insight and more information on the characters featured in this comic, the background of the comic itself, and the way this comic is seen by its fans. isn't illustrating any level of importance. That is quite simply using Wikipedia as a fan site. This isn't a notable webcomic. It has a forum with a grand total of 35 members...not exactly proof of an overwhelming fan base. And frankly, seeing as how you are a moderator on the forums, your lobbying for this article is more than a slight conflict of interest. With no verifiable notability, no sign of coming anywhere near meeting WP:WEB, this article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. IrishGuy talk 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and self admission of original author. →Bobby← 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Whpq 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nuttah68 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. This article is just as important as any of the other ones on this encyclopedia; and if those who would see its deletion have an objection to webcomic-based pages, then I would like to direct your attention to the xkcd page, which was allowed to remain on this site. The w00tness page in question is not being self-promoted by the author or those other staff of the w00tness forums; they are merely defending something which they feel has a right to be on this encyclopedia. And as for recognition, the mention by Blizzard's World of Warcraft Community Spotlight and the hosting by the largest Halo fansite on the entire internet (Halo.bungie.org) should fulfill your criteria. CaptainKirk91 19:22, 10 November 2006
As noted above and repeatedly on the talk page, no, that doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. What is it exactly that this community has against hosting an informational article about an up-and-coming webcomic? It seems like for no reason, you all have ganged up on a small group of people trying to publish some information and have abused the powers of being able to edit this encyclopedia. Perhaps I'm being naive, but the WP:WEB explanation says that an article is notable if it meets any one of the criteria; I would direct you especially to the third characteristic: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. In what way does the hosting of the site by the very well-known halo.bungie.org not meet this criteria? And you can't say that it has to meet the others as well. The WP:WEB page specifically states that only one of the criteria must be meant. So I say to you, WikiKGB, in what way is w00tness lacking? CaptainKirk91 23:52, 11 November 2006
First, please don't vote more than once. Second, as your exact words illustrate, this is an up-and-coming webcomic which means at this juncture it isn't notable and it isn't encyclopedic. It isn't personal and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the webcomic. It simply doesn't meet the criteria for WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain. My site is hosted by a very well-known provider, but because it's not independently notable in and of itself, it would not qualify under WP:WEB. Criteria 3 would only apply if it were actually being linked to on a daily basis by halo.bungie.org, which it is not. In fact, hardly anyone links to this particular webcomic [1]. If this comic attains some measure of fame or notoriety on the level of Penny Arcade or Dinosaur Comics, or if it is published in a major newspaper or comic book with widespread distribution, then its inclusion into Wikipedia will probably find more widespread support. Lankiveil 05:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification question. Does having an article on Wikipedia count as being noted by a mjor website? Does having a featured article count as a mojor award? Tar7arus 12:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to make an article and use that article to illustrate why that article should exist? IrishGuy talk 17:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is this: If it were a particularly good article that was of good enough quality to be considered worthy of being an A-grade article of even featured, would being a featured article count as the major independant award required to not fail at WP:WEB ? Tar7arus 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It wouldn't fit the definition of a well known and independent award from a publication or organization. While the article itself is rewarded in a sense, it isn't by definition an award nor is it well known. And even at that, it would be the article itself which garnered the recognition and not the subject which would still fail WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question asked, Question answered, thankyou Tar7arus 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. IrishGuy talk 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't allow non-notable articles to remain as examples to ward off other non-notable articles. IrishGuy talk 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/W00tness&oldid=1138735155"