Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Wish for Wings
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 of the debate was no consensus
Vanity created by User:Jenn Dolari. The articles originally had links to her User page, which I have deleted. RickK 06:44, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't create the Closetspace one (Tualha) did. I did add to them, and create the AWFW one (if one is one here, why not both?). I also added the links to myself just cause...well...it's me. :) (EDIT - my memory sucks...I DID create them after talking with Tualha, who had put them on the general Webcomics page) Anyways, up to y'all if it stays or goes. Jenn Dolari 07:17, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) (heavily edited, 'cause I don't know how to make the strike through markup)
- Now with a few hours at home and time to really sit down and look at my EMails and the history, I'm gonna put in a vote after all. 1 Vote to Keep on the grounds that those listings are NOT Vanity listings. I recieved an EMail from Tualha that she had added my comics to the List of webcomics which you can see in the History. In the same EMail she INVITED me to write articles for them, since I actually draw the comics. I'll be happy to share this EMail with Tualha's permission. So I wrote the articles. They were never an attempt to say HEY! LOOK AT MY WEBCOMICS! but to fill an article. Now, you wanna delete it cause it doesn't fit the Google Tests or Alexa Tests, fine. But on the grounds of vanity? I'm going to vote KEEP (assuming I can vote on my own articles). Jenn Dolari 11:47, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) (who keeps fogetting to log in :P )
- Can someone explain to me more clearly how to apply the guidelines at Wikipedia:Web comics to the alexa rankings? Which stat is it that I should be looking at, and should the number be higher or lower than 200,000? Also, if anyone could speak to how strictly these guidelines are enforced, that would be great. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 07:32, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- When referring to Alexa rankings, smaller numbers are better. The problem here is that Alexa is useless for the Closetspace comic, since it has moved domains, seemingly fairly recently. Like all inclusion guidelines, it's but an opinion, rather than hard and fast rules. What can definitely be stated, as generally the case with these kinds of stats, is that a comic with an Alexa ranking of greater than 200,000 is DEFINITELY wikipedia-worthy. Others may qualify too. —Morven 12:27, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly. Hmm. Well, in the absence of harder and faster standards (I'm not sure I like the numerical standard anyway), I'm going to say keep. Webcomics as a whole seem to be embraced, I don't think there's sinister vanity-motive here, and above all, Wikipedia isn't paper. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 12:57, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- My opinion parallels Morven's, and was my understanding of what the guidelines were for from the discussion that preceeded their creation. I read through this comic a few weeks ago due to a link from elsewhere. I'd be a bit less ambivalent about keeping the pages if they hadn't been written by the author. No vote at this time. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- When referring to Alexa rankings, smaller numbers are better. The problem here is that Alexa is useless for the Closetspace comic, since it has moved domains, seemingly fairly recently. Like all inclusion guidelines, it's but an opinion, rather than hard and fast rules. What can definitely be stated, as generally the case with these kinds of stats, is that a comic with an Alexa ranking of greater than 200,000 is DEFINITELY wikipedia-worthy. Others may qualify too. —Morven 12:27, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 05:23, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: vanity, adverts. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep (both): why not? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 07:20, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
- Keep. They're neither vanity pages nor ads. They're pages about webcomics, that happened to be originally written by the author of those webcomics. The subject matter is legitimate. Should we say that Sluggy Freelance and MegaTokyo deserve articles because they have many readers, but these don't because they have relatively few? (Or so I assume - don't really know.) FWIW, I had intended to write articles on these comics if Jenn didn't. But she did, and she's certainly better qualified to write about her own comics than I am. Tualha 19:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That's precisely the issue. As you say, these "[didn't have articles] because they have relatively few readers". This is why we call these articles vanity pages. Ambivalenthysteria 21:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon, but not having readers is not what makes something a vanity page. Writing yourself a page which manifestly does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia becuase vanity is what we call a vanity page. Tualha's point is that, as she would have written the articles anyway, (and requested that Dolari do it instead, according to Dolari), and, therefore, vanity is not at issue. Which seems reasonably irrefutable, provided Tualha isn't a sock puppet. The question is whether the comics are now or will be soon popular enough to warant inclusion. And that's a serious question.
-- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Ha. Catch me living in Texas (where JD lives). ;) Tualha 23:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- "The question is whether the comics are now or will be soon popular enough to warant inclusion." They got me invited to the webcomic panel at Trinoc*con. :) For the record, here are the stats for my comics (to be fair, they only go back to Feb 2004 and they're combined, since it's the general dolari.org stats) - http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?action=stats&site=s18clickorama Jenn Dolari 00:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Forgive me. The comic manifestly does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, and the presence of the author on Wikipedia here, combined with the content gives enough credence to the vanity argument. The lack of readers (which was as good as admitted by the article's author) just turns it into particularly insignificant vanity. When we allowed webcomics to have articles, did we really intend for every small one where the author (or a friend of the author) chooses to do some advertising to get one? Ambivalenthysteria 06:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- "The lack of readers (which was as good as admitted by the article's author) just turns it into particularly insignificant vanity." No where have I said something like this. Tualha said something akin to it, but she didn't have access to the site logs, which are on a link a few entries above. Jenn Dolari 08:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon, but not having readers is not what makes something a vanity page. Writing yourself a page which manifestly does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia becuase vanity is what we call a vanity page. Tualha's point is that, as she would have written the articles anyway, (and requested that Dolari do it instead, according to Dolari), and, therefore, vanity is not at issue. Which seems reasonably irrefutable, provided Tualha isn't a sock puppet. The question is whether the comics are now or will be soon popular enough to warant inclusion. And that's a serious question.
-- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That's precisely the issue. As you say, these "[didn't have articles] because they have relatively few readers". This is why we call these articles vanity pages. Ambivalenthysteria 21:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If it doesn't fit with the Alexa test, then it's probably an indication that the comic is not that popular. 228 Google hits for "closetspace jenn". Delete. Dysprosia 09:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- 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.