User talk:Sandstein/GU Comics

This discussion is archived. Please do not add to it. Sandstein 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning for deleting the GU comics entry. It is notable and is one of the more popular webcomics online, with hundreds of thousands of unique hits per month. Could you please re-instate the article?--Breandán 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of GU Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was appropriate under WP:CSD#A7, according to which articles on web content may be speedily deleted if they fail to even assert notability. This was the case in this instance. I will restore the article if you can show that the comic meets the criteria of WP:WEB, such as that it has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Sandstein 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what, you only belong here if you're self-aggrandizing?--TelevisedRevolution 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the length of time the article has been here at Wikipedia you should have used AfD instead of just deleting it. Mikemill 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring GU Comics

If GU Comics is irrelevant and lacks notability, then so do most other webcomics present in the Wikipedia free encyclopedia. The difference being if you contact Sony Online Entertainment and ask them what GU is they will tell you that GU was the first webcomic to cover their game, and powerful enough to have forced change in the way they related to their community after leading a player boycott of their products. We could however have John Smedley contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Blizzard makers of World of Warcraft about what GU is. They could relate to you how GU was the first webcomic to talk about their game and as such was invited as a guest of honor to BlizzCon to run a panel in conjunction with Mike Krahaulik and Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade and Scott Kurtz of PVP. Or we could have Rob Pardo contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Sigil Games, makers of Vanguard, about how they feel GU Comics is a vital and essential part of their community makeup. A site that can actively take in the voices of the community and translate it via the comic into criticism that is not dismissed lightly. Or we could just have Brad McQuaid contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Mythic about how they knew GU's influence and thus GU was one of the first sites they contacted to spread the word about their upcoming game Warhammer Online.

Or maybe the references to GU by GamePolitics.Com is enough. Because apparently they feel our take on certain aspecs of gaming is notable.

The simple fact is this, GU is considered to be a crucial element of the MMOG landscape. And the fact that every major MMOG Developer/Publisher out there knows our work and respects our commentary as the voice of the community makes us notable. Or we could just have our sizeable readership which includes CEOs, designers, developers, community relations people, PR firms, marketing firms to contact you on our behalf.

20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my above comment. Do not have anyone contact me. Personal and anecdotal knowledge is not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. Instead, please provide references to specific reliable sources, such as magazines or newspapers, that support these claims to notability. Alternatively, you may also request undeletion at WP:DRV, but such a request will likely fail if no reliable sources are provided for the comic's notability. Sandstein 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

00:44, 14 February, 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note that GU comics is indeed one of the more notable web comics and should in my independant opinion not have been deleted. Please replace the original page and if you belive that it should be deleted start the slow deletion process that allows easy debate. (James Beal) zz9pzza correct email on file.

In terms of Webcomics, the Wikipedia policy on notability seem to me to be fundamentally flawed. By their very nature, webcomics measure of success is not down to what someone with an official title thinks about it, it's down to how long the comic continues to be popular, measured in the number of consistent hits per day from unique IP addresses. How does one accurately gauge how popular a webcomic is other than that, given that there aren't jobs for people to specifically review and comment on webcomics in the same way as one might review, praise or criticize a physical comic? What you are demanding here appears to be unrealistic - you are asking for recognised people to say they believe it's notable, when there is no job working for anyone which does just that. From the point of view of determining whether or not the web community bothers to read GU Comics, you only have to read the daily forums. Unlike some other comics, GU Comics has a daily feedback page, and I've seldom seen it shorter than four or five pages of comments long. I also note that you've voted to delete a number of other webcomics, and worry that the flaw in the criteria could see several articles about very popular webcomics deleted. Wikipedia must, by its definition, have articles on popular items - how else is it going to be an encyclopedia? - to 'fast delete' webcomic articles which generates a high degree of argument feedback is an obvious sign of a flawed policy, which should be reviewed in the light of the fact that it is applying rules that don't fit the media it is judging. Whisperwolf 04:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Magazines then

Computer Games Magazine - Issue 167 (page 69 "The Acute Angler" and page 73 "Get Peso for Plat")

Der Spielekurier - October 2004 (page 15 "Online Comics")

Film: Avatars Offline (Documentary 2002)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.60.70 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean by those citations? Are these meant to refer to stories? Did they cover the comic as their primary subject, or did they mention it in passing, or do they refer to reproductions of comic strips? You may find it useful to use the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates, if only to copy the citations to the article if it is restored. Finally, please post as a logged in user if you have an account. Sandstein 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Determining Notability

I do not have a user account as I don't see why I need one. Other users were managing the GU entry so I didn't need to. I was contacted about why my site disappeared from WikiPedia. What I found was a link to a deletion log.

Now I have to fugure out why GU is considered any less notable than sites like VGCats, Ctrl+Alt+Del, The Devil's Panties, AppleGeeks, etc. All of which are webcomics. All of which present the same kind of Wiki-info as GU comics.

I also have to determine why leaders of the MMOG industry, who are subjects of wikipedia articles themselves, vouching for the notability of my site and what it means to the gaming community are dismissed as anecdotal.

---

In Computer Games magazine, GU images are being used to illustrate the Author's (Cindy Yans) article. In Der SpieleKurier, I can't tell you what exactly GU's role is as the article is in German. The title of the article is "Online Comics" and they received permission to use a couple of my images and talk about GU. In Avatars Offline GU was spotlighted for it's take on the gaming industry, it's relation to the MMOG community, etc.

---

Ultimately, if you're going to remove GU permanently then I demand removal of all other webcomic articles that do not meet your requirements. And I'll be forced again to call WikiMedia to discuss why my entry is less valid than those of my peers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.60.70 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Obviously he's just a disgruntled idiot on a power trip. Isn't that obvious? - Random Peon

Do links help, since Woody referencing magazine articles doesn't seem to help how about online publications?

Gamespy [1]

GamePolitics [2]

RPG gamer [3] That states "Enough emo for now; I'd like to introduce you to GU Comics. It is a webcomic that parodies MMOs, and more recently, gaming in general. The comic is popular enough that Horizons, often showing up in GU Comics's Zapper comics, added an NPC parody of its author (Woody Hearn) to their game (Hoody Wearns)."

All 3 of these sites are listed on wikipedia so I guess that would make them notable? Smackin 02:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prick on a power trip is what we have here. If you want to base your claims on the lack of mention in the New York Times or the BBC, then you should delete about 99% of the entire Wikipedia site. Just because it has no meaning to you, or does not meet your own biased criteria, is not grounds for deletion. GUComics is notable. You dismiss it as mere anecdotal evidence, but it is not when you are good friends with several MAJOR game developement companies, invited to special functions related to such multi-million, even -billion-, software projects. You similarly dismiss notable and major gaming magazines as irrelevant sources...which is more stupidity. Just like Computer Gaming Monthly does not report on the daily events of Washington and New York City, the NYT and USAT do not report on the latest computer gaming industry news. The topics are outside of each entities purview. GUComics is not in the position of being reported on by your so called "notable sources" because it is ITSELF a notable source. It IS the New York Times of online games, and last time I checked, The New York Times, USA Today, BBC, CNN, etc, do not run stories on each other just simply to prove the relevance of their peers. Hell, to even say "it is not a published work" is itself foolhardy. No one in their right mind could look at the GUComic website, the massive amount of traffic it recieves, the merchandise they sell, and think it is "unpublished". The internet IS a form of publication, and while the definition lacks clear boundaries in the realm of the net, applying the legal standard of "any reasonable person", GUComics is most definitely qualified as a published work via the internet. If you don't think so, then consider just what exactly that means about wikipedia itself. I found the comment "do not have anyone contact me" quite funny. And cowardly. You simply do not wish to man up to anyone who might prove you wrong and hold you accountable for you abuses of power.

Sandstein doesn't want anyone to contact him (sorry to assume gender Sandstein) because he doesn't think that everyone with whom he has a disagreement here has a right to badger him with personal attacks like what you are doing here. The apparent group of people who are attacking him here (calling him a "prick" and a "disgruntled idiot") are, right off the bat, violating one of the fundamental social principles of this website, no personal attacks. Whatever you think of this website, calling people names just isn't the best way to get them to see your point. That's just reality. I'm not familiar with the deleted page, but I looked at the last two sources you offered and you might have a point, you should read Wikipedia:Reliable sources just to make sure, and if you have a problem with that policy or the policy on website notability, the place to dispute those issues is on their respective discussion pages, not on the talk page of a user who is just trying to abide by the rules decide upon by consensus in this particular community. Things can change here, policies are modified all the time. But the real way to get people to listen to you is to place a strong argument in the right location without being a dickhead about it. Maybe the article was deleted in error, maybe it wasn't. But taking it personally only hints toward a conflict of interest and getting angry only makes people stop listening. Bottom line: I'm not against you, but I will be if you don't take it easy with Sandstein. --Tractor kings fan 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the Admin,

Who are you to determine notability? Just because something isn’t personally notable to you, doesn’t mean it lacks notability, it simply means you have not been exposed to it. Though I don’t know, and cannot pretend to guess, what your intentions are in this baseless action you are taking against web comics, common sense would suggest that you are not making choices as an impartial administrator, but as a personal crusader against something you don’t like. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free, user generated, encyclopedia. As such, if the users are actively using an article, the article is not causing harm, and has relevance to a community, whether it is your community or not, the article should be kept. Whatever your personal agenda is, you will soon find that the online community has more power than you alone hold. Though you hold the power to delete any entry you find unsuitable to your perfect world, you will find that those who traffic the pages you scorn, those who make full use of the web, and know the power it possesses; those people can quickly cause anything they dislike to fail. No one likes to be censored. The internet has always been a place for expression; censorship will not be tolerated by anyone. You will do well to keep that in mind the next time you decide to abuse your power. I hope you are prepared for the backlash you will soon incur. Wikipedia can easily be replaced by those you are censoring.

And Tractorkingsfan, I’m not taking a lash at you, I just want to let you know that this isn’t an accident or a “polices and procedures” conflict. This is a personal agenda. The fact that certain web comics, of the same “rank” and “notability”, were left alone or reinstated because the creators had “pull” with Wiki or because the comic has featured a Wiki reference is a clear indication that this is a biased censorship. JerseyGirl919 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to remain civil, and have read over all of the comments made by all posters here with some attention. However, I must be perfectly honest: I see a lot of overblown rhetoric, a disturbing amount of anger, and a nebulous accusation of administrators acting in bad faith. Now, if you were the average non-biased third party in this conversation, which would you think was more likely: that a group of Wikipedia admins is actively conspiring with the creators of certain comic-related websites and blessing them with articles while maliciously ignoring others, or that a group of people with a clear bias towards a certain website are upset about their article getting deleted and have decided to lash out with furious rants? I have seen very little evidence of the former, and as for the latter just ask the emperor of Mexico there. Seriously though, if you can back up those claims of bad-faith activity, I'm all ears. In the meantime, I think the worst we could possibly have here is a mistaken deletion (and there are other places to discuss that, i.e. Wikipedia:Deletion Review. --Tractor kings fan 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest question that is being posed here is simply this, what about GU Comics did not satisfy notability guidelines? Strips from the comic have been shown in a number of magazine articles and it is referenced constantly in on-line news sources, but it was simply removed. The people who are posting here are doing so because you never gave them a chance to defend it on a proposed deletions page. Is that so much to ask for?

Imperial Reprimand

We, Norton I, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico, USEnet and Wikipedia, do hearby find, through Our own research, that the website known as 'GU comics' is in fact of a notable and otherwise important nature at least in keeping with such criterion which has been applied to other articles which have been reinstated after deletion by the very user in whose talk page We now find ourselves to be commenting in. And that while we find no other particular fault with this user, that his continued campaign to delete articles of Webcomics is further evidence of the generally poor execution of our protectorate Wikipedia as we have already commented on elsewhere.Emperor Norton the First 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is just childish nonsense. --Tractor kings fan 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of GU Comics

The fact that you would delete GU comics, and remain firm that you will not reinstate the comic after the asked for examples are provided shows your childish ignorance. Congratulations sir, you have just illustrated why wikipedia is the most unreliable source of information on the web, and why nobody will allow a wikipedia article to stand on its own accord for any substantiation / research purpose.

And no, I wont create an account as you have asked Woody to do because I dont feel your site is worth the time it takes me to register when you show unbiased favoritism, something that I cannot support.

67.173.83.37 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Removal of GUComics

One of the strengths of the Wikipedia is that the experts of the fields involved can get articles up and maintain them. And other experts of those fields can edit those entries, correct errors and misconceptions and expand where details are lacking.

For GUComics, that industry is the online gaming Industry, specifically the MMO industry, an industry you apparently know little about. To say that having representatives of Sony Online, Mythic Entertainment, Sigil Games, Green Monster Games, and even Blizzard contacting you to say they know and recognize GUComics as being an integral part of the Online Gaming community shows an extreme bias on your part and a lack of understanding of what you are editing, and clear reasons why you should NOT be editing those entries in the first place.

You have basically removed an entry on Relativity by Einstein, even though Stephen Hawking is vouching for its veracity. For people involved in the MMO/Online Gaming industry (either as fans or as workers), it is just completely boggling why this action was taken; and clear that it should be reversed ASAP. The Wikipedia is only weakened both in its content and its reputation by the uninformed actions of people like you.

74.106.226.147 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GU we Love you!

Hey I just wanted to show you something. Before questioning if something is really um.. notable why not do something as simple as Google the name. Just for fun let’s see Results 1 - 10 of about 1,180,000 for GU Comics.

Lets check some of the webpage’s that it posts http://wii.qj.net/GU-Comics-talks-papal-criticism-of-games/pg/49/aid/81324 http://vanguard.tentonhammer.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=132 http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/GU-Comics-Screenshot-59123.html http://www.silkyvenom.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8495 http://warhammer.gameamp.com/news/viewNews/2412.php http://www.answers.com/topic/gu-comics http://planetside.station.sony.com/news_archive.vm?id=63998&month=102004 http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/01/web-comic-riffs-on-popes-video-game-criticism/ http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/28/web-comic-holds-jacks-contempt-in-contempt/

I could keep going. What does it really take to show you that just maybe you should have stopped what you are doing with your right hand and read something or taken the time to look up information before acting?

I expect to see the page back up soon. I would hate to think that your idiocy continues in the face of the facts that you even asked for. 68.47.143.130 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Tisban[reply]

GU Comics, Source of info.

Wow.. The fact that people like you can delete entry's based solely on YOUR feelings of a subject make Wikipedia lose credibility, at least with me. From now on I doubt I will take the article here very seriously.

And, just so you know, GU comics it the first place I learn about new Games. When Woody creates a comic about a game I haven't heard of, I always look it up. When he talks about a feature or a bug in a game, I go to the site and look more in to the game. GU Comics is a very important site to me (and, I believe the whole web community), one that I personally visit 3-4 time daily.

-JPS

Please excuse the grammar errors and all, English/Writing where never my best subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.181.127 (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Another thought on GU Comics

Based on your profile, I imagine you don't really follow webcomics or MMOG's (Massively Multiplayer Online Games). Therefore, you can be forgiven for lacking awareness of either sizeable community (both well into the millions). But I would like to suggest, that perhaps it's unrealistic to demand that a purely digital medium (with a large community) which is often employed to comment on developments in yet another purely digital medium (its industry, and an even larger community) have references in print as proof of it's relevance?

We don't exist in a world of print anymore. I know that may be hard to grasp, but hey, we're arguing over what should be stored in a digital encyclopedia. Is wikipedia struggling with the amount of data on it? If you're looking to trim fat, maybe you ought to just spin-off the entire pop-culture section into it's own site, since that's where all the "irrelevant" (internet, videogame, tv, etc.) content is. I'm sure you would have no trouble finding investors for it, just look at IMDB. Hmm, I wonder which would get more traffic and donations?

Is it a concern about people using wikipedia as a web portal? Is there such a big bandwidth problem for the site that they've asked the admins to start getting rid and sections that will attract through-traffic?

Your deletion of the GU Comics section seems awfully arbitrary to me (I mean, isn't this the purpose of the AfD?), and I just have a hard time seeing the justification for your absolute obstinance when people can keep coming up with examples of it's relevance simply because they aren't the specific kind of example you want. Of course, as you can tell from my argument, I'm more concerned with the fact that this is just the latest in a trend of deletions (or attempts for it) I've seen. I thought wikipedia was the free encyclopedia? Maybe we need to categorize articles and restrict the editors based on fields of expertise.

-H3Knuckles 71.225.83.114 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:RS. We do not necessarily require print sources, just reliable ones. If you want to create articles on anything you want, try Comixpedia or Wikia. If, however, you want to create a Wikipedia article, you must adhere to the community's inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]