Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker

Add links
Source: 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. There are extremely many unsigned votes by users with very new accounts. Because of this I suspect sockpuppetry intended at casting multiple votes. AFD voters should be aware that such votes are usually discounted as done here. Among the legitimate votes, there is a clear consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker

A page for Able and Baker, the first 2 animals to survive space flight? Up for deletion? No. A webcomic of the same name, found here. Alexa gives back a rank of over 1 million for the website on which it is hosted. And a google search shows up no assertion of notability for the website. - Hahnchen 16:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Able and Baker has nearly 400 comics and updates nearly daily. Wikipedia can serve as a guide for attracting and educating new readers. Without wide support for the arts, they are destine to fail. MokangoShabantu
    • Wikipedia is not guide for attracting and educating new readers. Longevity does not equal notability. - Hahnchen 16:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • MokangoShabantu has 6 edits, all but one on this AfD page. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn webcomic. MCB 22:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again, as a webcomic of little impact and importance. If a webcomic is going to fail because it's not on Wikipedia, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not the place to advertise or evangelize webcomics. Might I suggest Comixpedia if you want to do that? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What purpose does it serve to delete this entry? Able and Baker's entry was not made to plug the webcomic, nor was it made out of sheer fandom.The article was not made to help the webcomic from failing, in fact quite the contrary is true. Able and Baker's entry was made to provide information on a webcomic that is beginning to become very popular. It is completely informative in nature and should stay. SenatorVidal
    • SenatorVidal has 3 edits, all on this AfD page. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn webcomic. Dragonfiend 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Belongs to a major webcomic group and is gaining great popularity. Relevant and informative. Jim Burgess is a respectable webcomic artist and an esteemed member of Dayfree Press.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to what Hahnchen says, a Google search does not dictate life. Keep the entry.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a big-time strip, which shows that Alexa really is no judge for notability. And before someone brings out that 'sockpuppet' garbage again, there is no evidence of that here. Jim has not mentioned this page at all, so all the votes should count. -- Hijamiefans
  • Keep Contrary to what Hahnchen says, a Google search does not dictate life (if it did I would be a famous cricketer/painter/writer). Keep the entry. MrDaveS
    • User has 4 edits! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, if you do a Google Search for Able and Baker, the first search result is Jim Burgess's site, so I don't know why you try to argue that "a google search shows up no assertion of notability for the website." SenatorVidal
    • SenatorVidal's second vote. User has only 3 edits, all on this page. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is supplmental information to the existing Dayfree Press page.
  • Keep Size is no assertion of quality, the cartoon is well written adn thought out, generally quite high-brow. It is unique amongst web comics for its style and content. I take it you wish to delete Betamax from the Wikipedia for not being as big as VHS? It does suprise me how small minded some people are? Are comics not a work of expressive art? I read a lot of Webcomics regularly, but this is the only one I can get friends and family to read or be interested in. Sport Monkey (www.sport-monkey.com)
    • We've had our fair amount of analogies on these threads, and that is by far the worst. What about this? "I take it you wish to delete Thimbleberry Drive, because it's not as wide or as well travelled as the M1?" Yes! - Hahnchen 14:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not making an analogy of such ilk. And for you to think you are somehow better than me is offensive. We are not talking about comparing roads, but art, shoud I say delete Damien Hurst because I just don't get it? You are a little child who wants his own way and I don't see why starting an argument on this is fair to anyone. Grow up son.
        • How have I offended you? Have I claimed that I am a whole lot "better" than someone I don't know. Just as you have no idea who I am? Comparing roads to art? You compared art to betamax, I was just drawing a parallel with your broken argument. I don't get a lot of stuff that Tracey Emin does, by don't get, I mean, I think it's crap. I'm not going to delete that though, just because I don't like it. I nominated Able and Baker, because I don't think its notable. So far, the only establishment of notability, is that it is on the Dayfree Press network, is google rank number 1 for its own name (how is this notable?) and is mentioned once by the creator of dayfree press. To me, this isn't notability. Just as a local artist being mentioned in the local Hammersmith Daily News is not notability. - Hahnchen 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The keep vote above isn't actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC) <--Actually, it is signed by 'Sport Monkey'.--Tedzsee 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Tedzsee, not really sure how this works Sport Monkey
        • User:Sport Monkey appears to be a new/non-existent account, with zero edits. I know you're not really sure how this works, but I don't know what to tell you except that a contentious Vote for Deletion is a very, very difficult place to start learning Wikipedia procedures. Wikipedia is a community, with its own ways of doing things; please see Wikipedia:Welcome if you want some suggestions on how to get going here. -- SCZenz 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly, does this give you your excitement for the day? The comic Able & Baker is well known, intelligent and informative. And neither is the article an attempt to draw attention to the comic, it is simply contributing to the store of information that is Wikipedia. Now leave it alone, I'm sure you can get your malicious enjoyment in your generally boring life elsewhere. -Tao
    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia page was developed by the FANS of Able and Baker- a lot of them. I think that gives the web comic a lot of worth and credibility. Besides, it's intelligent and hilarious! (The page was NOT put up as advertisement by the creator.)
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Able and Baker is a well known comic as it is part of the Dayfree Press. What more evidence do you need?
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known comic and very active member of Dayfree Press - if not kept as a seperate article then should be combined with the Dayfree Press entry
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of the comic's artistic merit, which is obviously subjective, how does this article meet the criteria for deletion? I have yet to see someone make an actual case for deletion other than itisawebcomicwebcomicsbad. -Rehj
    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comics are just as important as a bunch of other things that are on this site. Just because you don't know anything about it doesn't mean it's not important enough to belong.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it is a web comic does not mean that it isn't notable enough to be on wikipedia, give up on your crusade -Chickendude
  • Keep Good comic and it is nice to have information on it - CC
    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a good comic, and, unless it is in imminent danger ofstopping production of new comics, I see no reason to remove it. - Rabek Jeris
    • User has 3 edits. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great comic. One of the best.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Freedom of speech. Its a non profit making well written cartoon. Does Jim Burgess have to be part of the controlled press to be worthy of a mention? Mind you then he wouldn't be able to speak his mind because papers censor even the cartoons.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Funny, didn't we just have this argument over at this page? Seems like Hahnchen is just going around and flagging a bunch of comics he's never heard of but a lot of other people have... unfortunately, in the former case, the author of the comic seems to have made a PR error by posting a link to the AfD and generated a backlash from the Wikipedian community... wait a second! So has Burgess! I quoth from the Able and Baker website:
Also: Wikipedia is trying to destroy your hard work! Readers put together such a badass page and now it is up for deletion! Go tell them what you think.
Now, why is it that one comic creator can do this and have no wikipedian backlash while another cannot? I'm going to propose a few thoughts:
  1. both these AfDs prove the utter uselessness of Alexa in determining a comic's popularity.
  2. both of these comics have been around for a long time and have rather huge archives. They both unquestioningly meet proposal B and their non-compliance with the regular proposal is questionable at best.
  3. I'm not going to use this page to refight another comic's AfD, but I will say this: Hahnchen, why don't you just lay off with the deletion votes? You obviously don't really know what you're talking about. Both this comic and the previous one have connections with Dayfree Press which, if you are unaware, is a rather large comic-publishing page. Both have readers who have been spamming their votes for deletion pages. But guess what? That means that they're both well-read. What's next?

EDIT: I FORGOT TO SIGN MY COMMENT: --Tedzsee 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As said plenty of times before: part of a major Web comic organization (Dayfree Press), Updates every day, and if someone types in "Able and Baker" in Google and clicks on "I'm feeling lucky" they will be directed to the Website with the comic. And Alex rank is determined by users who choose to install a piece of spyware onto their machine. — Kjammer ⌂ 23:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who IS Hahnchen, and what does he have against good comics? P.S. Stop using Alexa. Also, STOP USING ALEXA. --SuperHappy 02:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What he has a desire to have a uniform standard of what is "encyclopediac material" on Wikipedia. We don't have articles about every band, and likewise we shouldn't have articles on every comic. -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What I wanna know is - if A&B go, will QC go? (because it's smutty and has gay references, obviously.) White Ninja? (Because that's obviously not art) What about all the other Dayfree Press comics, will they go? (Because what is art, when you really think about it...) The entry on Dayfree Press itself? I mean, if I stumbled accross the page on Dayfree, I'd want to see what each of their comics are about - if one isn't there, then it's obviously not Dayfree, right?

PS I'm not a huge fan of A&B, I just don't see the point in having deadlinks and confused people all over Wikipedia. - Opinionated. 16:20, 9 October 2005 (GMT+12)

    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why dont we go a step further and delete every single webcomic out there, because, if it isint on paper it CAN'T POSSIBLY be notable. </sarcasim> -Chickendude
  • Comment - "This webcomic is good!" is not an argument to keep. These webcomics are not being nominated for deletion because anyone thinks they suck or because of any other judgement call based on quality; they are being nominated for deletion because they are not encyclopedic subjects. If you're coming here because of a link from Jamie or this webcomic's creator (hey, Josh, surprised to see you here), instead of "voting" (and I assure you, this isn't a democratic election) I suggest you please establish newsworthiness or notability, or become resigned to the fact that this article is probably going to be transfered from Wikipedia to Comixpedia, where this sort of article belongs in the first place. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) Jamie did not send people here. This is not Jamie's comic so the above comment is unwarrented. 2) Why does this article belong on Comixpedia and not Wikipedia? That is what I don't understand. If a comic meets all the Proposal 2 definitions and is not compliant with Alexa, does that mean it gets the boot automatically? Case and Point: Let me show you how flawed Alexa rankings are!!!
My own comic, "8 1/2 by Eleven" publishes at http://www.lucastds.com/webcomic. According to Alexa, my site ranking is 334,578. That's actually pretty close to my comic being accepted as a noteworthy article by Wikipedia!! How deceiving is that ranking? Hmm... let's see! I'd venture to guess that Most People have not even ever heard of my comic. I've got about 500 readers a week. I'd bet anything that Able and Baker, which is WAY more respected in the webcartooning community than I am and is a member of Dayfree Press for goodness sake (which most people admit they must have heard of) has more readers than me. And yet, with a few more American Internet Explorer users reading my comic, I could warrant an entry in Wikipedia while Able and Baker can't. Able and Baker is SOMEHOW way farther down on the Alexa rankings. Who knows why? And you're wondering why this system is absurd to me? Please, someone create an encyclopedia entry about my comic!! The AfD would be hard to prove on that one, even though no one in the webcomic community has even heard of my comic. If my unknown comic could make it into Wikipedia, and Hahnchen couldn't pull a delete on it because my glorious-all-bow-to-the-worshipfullness-Alexa-rating... oh man, that would make my day. *shakes head in disgust and walks away* --Tedzsee 04:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentin reply to a ma in black's comment, Since when is it up to you and the five people you ask to vote for it to be deleted to say something isin't noteable? how is it that you are warrented to say that something isint encyclopedic?

in my opinion something like the messed up landing gear on that jet bue flight isin't encyclopedic, or noteable, but it's not up to me now is it? -[chickendude]

  • Keep I say keep the article. I don't see how it's advertising itself or violating any criteria for deletion. Bravado 06:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Establishing Notability... just reread A Man in Blacks "comment"... which in fact wasn't a comment at all, but a derisive note about how much he thinks this comic is non-notable. He might as well have placed a vote against the comic with that comment. Apparently, being a Dayfree Press member isn't notable enough for him... just as Built for Comfort wasn't notable despite being mentioned on Phil Kahn's reading list etc etc.

What counts as notability in the case of Able and Baker, then? Just an Alexa rating? Does being mentioned on Comixpedia's List of 25 people in webcomics 2004 give Able and Baker notability? Who knows. Apparently Alexa is the only thing that counts for notability around here. But then again, apparently Wikipedia editors don't consider rational arguments at all, and instead make derisive comments about comics despite a huge public outpour against deletion and several repeated comments establishing the notability of these comics that Hahnchen seems to enjoy putting up for deletion so much. You all smirk and say that Comixpedia.org is where these articles "belong" despite having tonnes of people coming here to say contrary. I'll agree that the Able and Baker article needs to be fleshed out a bit more. But give these articles a chance to grow... deleting them is not the answer.--Tedzsee 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • A one line mention by the dayfree press creator in a list of 25 people in 2004 is not notable. Huge public outpoor, how many websites out there cannot manage a "huge" public outpoor. Any forum with what 30 active members could contribute to a huge public outpoor. And a reply to some other posts made about me above, since when have any of my arguments been, this webcomic is rubbish, let's delete it because I don't like it. The reason for the my nomination is lack of notability, I don't just nominate randomly. For example, I didn't nominate Venus Envy a keenspace comic, because Google shows up some mention in the outside world. But in my eyes, just being part of a online comics group just isn't notable enough. And I've been accused of an over reliance on Alexa. You're right Tedzsee, I wouldn't nominate a comic with your ranking, because I know Alexa to be inaccurate. But I also know, that a reasonably popular website, no matter what kind, would have an Alexa ranking less than 1 million. I wouldn't put it past me, for some lame webcomic readers to install Alexa just to rank up their comic now :( - Hahnchen 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry serves as an educational point for those who want to know what "Able and Baker" is. There is no use in deleting it, apart from removing knowledge from the wikipedia (which is contrary to the wikipedia cause)
    • Unsigned! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. It's a long running, consistently put out webcomic that is growing in size and stature every day.
  • Gosh, that's a lot of unsigned votes. Delete: does not meet notability guidelines. -Sean Curtin 19:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying that we as Wikipedia Users must have an account to have an opinion counted? Plus it meets both alternative guidelines.
      • Actually, if that weren't the case, we couldn't have any sort of accurate reflection of votes, unsigned user. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to get rid of this article. Even if it were smaller than it is and had only two readers, then removing the article from Wiki would serve no purpose other than to take knowledge away. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such a place to gather knowledge, not to remove it. --Awash With Blood 22:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first edit. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is my first edit. That makes no difference. Go read the policy on not biting the newcomers and stop being an elitist --69.175.129.113 05:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It makes a difference, in that all of the users who arrived just because of this AfD are impossible to tell apart from sockpuppets. I noted all the "first edit" stuff before I realized you were all likely separate people, sent straight from the comic. But the information is still useful to whoever closes this AfD and has to decide whether it's appropriate to count votes of users who have shown up only for this vote (I'm not quite sure myself). I am mindful of WP:BITE, and have gone to great lengths to explain myself and wikipedia practices below. -- SCZenz 07:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Many of the votes are unsigned, and at least some of the redlinked users have no edits except on this article and this AfD. I hope somebody sorts this out! -- SCZenz 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to do so, for the use of whoever closes this vote. -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • deleting all the comments is not sorting it out, also, the unsigned votes represents the fanbase that hasent botherd to sign up. or, in my case, may just be their first edit with an account(on the bfc afd page). btw, i did sign it. i am a user, unlike what you stated above
      • i'm going to leave this unsigned just to piss you off
        • Hi Chickendude. I figured out what was going on only after I did all the sorting. The trouble is that many fans, sent to personally secure the future of their webcomic's article, are impossible to tell from a bunch of sock puppets. Since we are editing an encyclopedia, we usually require people to have a general involvement in Wikipedia (as evidenced by having made edits aside from narrow, recent interest in one article) in order to make decisions about what is and isn't encyclopediac. Please understand we are not attacking you or the comic, we're just trying to be consistent about what websites are and are not going to be included in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of webcomics, or any other kind of website. You might look also at the comment I wrote on User_talk:SuperHappy, and consider the invitation for further discussion to extend to you as well. -- SCZenz 04:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for you being a user, I stand corrected and have noted it above. To sign your name, please write: ~~~~ at the end of your entry. -- SCZenz 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "A one line mention by the dayfree press creator in a list of 25 people in 2004 is not notable" <-- How is it not notable? Do you realize the source I am quoting is Comixpedia? Comixpedia is one of the most respected SOURCES of webcomic's journalism... Along with Digital Strips, Phil Kahn, the Webcomics Examiner and Websnark, it is basically the pillar of webcomics journalism. If you don't know that, and don't realize that being mentioned in an article by them is enough to make the comic notable, than I suggest you don't even bother voting in debates like this! As for Hahnchen's remark that an article about my comic wouldn't be deleted because my Alexa number is respectable, I can only laugh now! Someone please create an article about my comic. What a riot! Let's delete Able and Baker and throw up articles about purely random subjects with good Alexa ratings! Tedzsee 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the preview button to make sure your comments fit into the flow of the page. The situation here is getting quite confusing! -- SCZenz 05:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Today, Able and Baker was linked to by Questionable Content in a completely unrelated-to-this-deletion-debate link. I still don't understand what constitutes this mysterious "notability" in the eyes of Wikipedia editors...
  1. This comic has a dedicated fan base.
  2. This comic is mentioned by a top webcomic journal.
  3. This comic has huge archives and has been updating for several years.
  4. This comic is a member of Dayfree Press, which is represented at every major webcomic convention.
  5. This comic is linked to by a site with an Alexa rating of under 20,000.
However, because this comic does not have an Alexa rating of under 200,000 itself, it is seen as non-notable. I don't understand the logic!! Tedzsee 05:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible responses to think about:
  1. Doesn't it matter how big the fan base is? How can we tell that? (I'm asking the latter literally--can you suggest a good way to tell, besides Alexa?)
  2. Top webcomic journal? That's not quite a newspaper, is it? It's about webcomics, so of course it will discuss many webcomics; more even, perhaps, than Wikipedia should have.
  3. Lots of people have been doing lots of things for several years. I respect all of them, especially those who do things like writing a comic that require skills I'll never have. But still, is this notable in and of itself?
  4. Dayfree Press might be notable on its own; that doesn't necessarily mean all its members should have separate articles.
  5. Again, having a link from a notable site doesn't mean notability. It ought to depend on context, I think?
To use an analogy, let me talk about something that doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article: me. However, I can say:
  1. My name appears on the National Science Foundation website, and the Annals of Improbable Research website, both of which I'm confident have excellent webtraffic ratings.
  2. I have done physics research, day in and day out, for a number of years. All of this is documented and verifiable.
  3. I am a member of the A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS collaboration, which is funded by several dozen countries to the tune of at least $500 Million.
But still, I'm not notable at all! Should the standards for inclusion of webcomics be more lenient than those for people? Or those for music?
Perhaps the issue is that "notable for a webcomic" is a different standard than "notable for a general encyclopedia"--which is why there's a wiki site just for comics now. Please understand none of this is an attack on this comic in particular, it is part of a larger discussion on how many webcomics should be documented in the encyclopedia. (See WP:COMIC.) -- SCZenz 06:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is part of the problem. Being NOTABLE FOR A WEBCOMIC doesn't require that much. Webcomicking is a pretty small community. And, unfortunately for staunch Wikipedians, as their popularity picks up, I think that Wikipedia is going to face an increasing challenge regarding what sort of comics are seen as noteworthy. The main problem, however, is that Wikipedia's policy concerning webcomics is REALLY REALLY REALLY iffy. Able and Baker definitely meets both Alternate Proposals no prob. By association and notability in the webcomics community, it could be argued that the comic meets Proposal A as well, in a way. Really, the problem is with Wikipedia's policy. And I figure, until the policy gets sorted out in a firm manner, a campaign to simply oust every webcomic article deemed to be hangnails should be stopped. I'm not saying that you're attacking any particular comic, but I am saying that what is going on here really, in a way, contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia. As found on the talk page of webcomics, inclusion in NOTABLE collectives such as Dayfree Press and winners of awards and such are probably a good place to start with expanding Notability to something "based on something other than popularity or longevity". In the meantime, deleting possibly-notable comics while such bickering is going on seems to be rather sketch.
Also, it should be noted that mention in Websnark or Digital Strips or Comixpedia.com is rather like being mentioned in a top music mag in comparison. In terms of webcomic notability, it definitely a big plus. Whether this counts for anything in a "general encyclopedia" is what is in question. However, as I said, if this encyclopedia is going to include webcomics at all, then it should include webcomics that are deemed noteworthy by the webcomicking community. And I think there's no question that this one is. --Tedzsee 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing... the argument about YOU being non-notable is an interesting one. See the above discussion with Hahnchen comparing MY comic to the Able and Baker article to see the futility of using an Alexa-based system to verify the importance of a webcomic. According to Hahnchen, an article on my comic would be difficult to delete because of its Alexa ranking despite my comic not being notable at all in the webcomic community. It should be noted that if enough people undertook to write an article about your scientific research and work, and could back it up and connect you to the top names in the scientific community and you were working with those top names in some sort of collective, you might very well be notable if you had an effect on the small area of study that you were researching. Certainly, if you were cited by a top scientist (the way, say Able and Baker was linked to today by QC and mentioned in a list of 25 notables last year on Comixpedia and working with a collective such as Dayfree, I'm sure the argument could be made that you were notable in your community. This is essentially the argument that I am making. If that makes sense... --Tedzsee 07:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it isn't obvious, but the criteria at WP:COMIC are proposed, and the "alternate proposals" are not generally recognized as being workable by the community as a whole--see, for comparison, WP:MUSIC. The main proposal is no good either, because of problems with Alexa, but it aknowledges the important fact that a webcomic must have a verifiably exceptional readership base (if no other verifiable assertion of notability is given). Anyway, there are some regular wikipedia editors who feel that the most lenient proposals are appropriate, and they're the ones who work (and write their views) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. Consensus on this issue is still being built, though, so you can't take what anyone says as authority.
I do have to say that being in the top webcomic mag is a very different thing from being in a top music mag, based on basic things like total readership--my point is precisely that only the most notable webcomics meet the general Wikipedia notability criteria.
As for criteria based on things other than popularity or longevity, I'd love to hear them! What I've thought of so far is at User:SCZenz/Webcomics; if you have more ideas please tell me on mytalk page. -- SCZenz 07:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (above written before "one more thing", posted after due to edit conflict)[reply]
We need to work to figure out the relationship between notability in the webcomic community, and notability in the broader wikipedia--it seems clear that we disagree at the moment. -- SCZenz 07:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow...you know, I never thought it would be possible for an AfD to be more untidy than the BFC one. Then I saw this.
    • Yes, amazing isn't it. Tedszee mentioned it up above, but one of Able and Baker's claim to fame is being mentioned in a top 25 list. Can I clarify that it was mentioned once in passing, and the actual top 25 list was referring to the founder of the Dayfree Press, who just said that Able and Baker was a new cartoon. It has been compared to being mentioned in a music magazine, that does not make it notable. How many bands have been mentioned in music magazines that no one will ever hear about, and no one will be influenced by? How many bands have had their recordings played once or twice on the late John Peel's show at 1am in the morning? What about all the unsigned bands which get a song or 2 onto XFM? Being a member of the Dayfree Press does not mean instant notability, the comics should be assessed one by one, and assert it's own notability. Just as a band on the same record label as Moby doesn't mean it's instantly notable, and a book published by the same company which publishes Harry Potter isn't notable. - Hahnchen 14:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hanchen's attempt to get another point in nonwithstanding, what happened is that the comic in question linked directly to this AfD page, and told everyone to "come tell them what you think." Thus we had a bunch of newbies who looked like sockpuppets to me, so I noted them. Then, when I realized my "mistake" (I still think the info is useful), I tried to explain what was going on to the newbies actively editing the page. I've done the best I could... :P -- SCZenz 14:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, and in any case websites and webcomics shouldn't be given the slightest hope that they get their own ego-boosting articles on Wikipedia kept by rounding up all their supporters and sending them directly to vote the VfD--it shouldn't even come up. --Aquillion 21:42, 10 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Able_and_Baker&oldid=1137535466"