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 Delete: darthsanddroids.net and irregularwebcomic.net are now reliable sources and can be cited as references? Absolutely not. It looks as though this AfD nomination was canvassed heavily, so the number of keeps to deletes must be weighed appropriately. There simply aren't enough reliable sources and external coverage that establish notability for inclusion here. Passing references to the site only establish its existence on the Web, they don't establish that it's a notable place. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes Wiki[edit]

((notavote))

TV Tropes Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No reliable sources found, no news hits whatsoever. They've apparently been cited by the New York Times and a Lost DVD set but that doesn't inherently make them notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No WP:RS that are non-trivial found. I cannot see how this survived its previous nomination. Sorry, but the sources just don't confer notability, and the New York Times article mentioned in the previous AfD links to it (which doesn't mean much). DARTH PANDA^duel 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Give it time. Their influence will spread. ^[1] Cyberchao X 2:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no qualms against recreation then, when this site becomes notable and passes WP:WEB. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. If what Cyberchao says is true, eventually secondary sources will be found, but there just ain't any at the moment. JuJube (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have found repeated references to it as an educational resource, e.g. Hekman Library. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's only a trivial mention though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is heavily reminiscent of the webcomic deletions--web material is on the web and referenced by other things on the web. Web material is only rarely referenced outside the web. The fact that it's mentioned in more than one non-web source at all could only happen if it's pretty darn notable; it's just that the web notability guidelines are broken.

Also, it has 14316 pages (or 14685 non-discussion pages in the Main namespace only as of June). It really belongs on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis ; the only reason it's not there is that nobody put it in. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BIG doesn't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per above --Glass Star (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per above --Vignettelante (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per above. And remember, kids - just say "No" to "Notability". Lee M (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most people would beg to differ with you. Almost everyone follows WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To that I say, WP:Citation needed. I think a lot of the "Keep" arguments here are quite specious, but fair's fair. I know of nothing that would establish such a strong claim. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. How many web-notable sites are referenced outside the web? The minority, I'd wager. Heliomance (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Even so, it does not pass WP:WEB which specifically asks for non-trivial mentions in non-trivial work. It doesn't matter where this material exists; it's fine as the material exists. I can see no evidence of this fact. DARTH PANDA^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with reference to the linking in the NYT's Blog, [1] SamuelRiv (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a reporter's blog, not of the NYT itself. And mere linking doesn't establish anything, let alone notability. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mixed. I can't find any coverage of TV Tropes itself in reliable sources. Links to, yes, but not coverage. "Lots of sites link to it" doesn't matter; popularity is not notability. Anything we do ourselves to justify it would be original research. As WP:WEB says, articles need to do more "describe the nature, appearance or services" of a site. That said, it does seem to fall entirely within that which is allowed by WP:STUB. What's there is well-written and cited; the page is on the right track. WP:STUB and WP:N have always had a dynamic tension with each other; I don't see it as reasonable to consider either in isolation. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the multiple references from other web sites are not enough, the sole fact that it's referenced from outside the web should be.Medinoc (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not true at all. Please take a look at the WP:WEB criteria for notability of website articles. DARTH PANDA^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As noted, it has been referenced by webcomics which are themselves considered notable. Furthermore, the NYT is a respected mainstream publication, surely that alone should be enough (and of course a similar argument could be made for its mention in the Lost boxset)? While it is only linked to, rather than being reported on, shouldn't the fact that its being cited as a source itself be an indication that its notable? A decent text book tends to be quoted as much as its reviewed if you'll excuse a metaphor.--Bisected8 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not really. WP:WEB stipulates that "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores" doesn't count. The mentions that you note are largely a mix of the four, making all of these mentions "trivial" and therefore not notable. The issue is not that it should be mentioned; there needs to exist an article in a non-trivial reliable source that talks solely about the site, and that simply does not exist. DARTH PANDA^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a widespanning Wikia-type thing. JAF1970 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Widespanning? WP:BIG with a good dose of vagueness. There seems to be a good deal of WP:ILIKEIT comments here combined with former/current users of this wiki, which we need to avoid. DARTH PANDA^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is referenced by a lot of people as being a reliable source for analyzing the workings of fiction. It can be used as a helpful source (as one teacher did) and should therefore stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.88.90 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a useful site, as the above poster said, and is referenced by numerous blogs and other sites. This article is in need of improvement and expansion, of course, but it is a valuable resource nonetheless. [Here's] a [couple] good references. ATD (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A reasonably medium profile site; here's a minor mention in a Belfast newspaper. In addition, the second Google result for "Mary Sue" (after our own entry on the subject) is the TVTropes wiki entry on the subject. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 18:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin - The keep votes seem to almost uniformly fail wp:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would hope the admins know how to do their job. But you shouldn't forget that WP:ATA is an essay with unclear consensus status. It gets linked all the time, but as has been said on this very page, links do not establish anything. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lotta keeps there, but not one of them hints at it passing WP:WEB. I can't find any reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I would like to argue this from the perspective of looking at the TV Tropes Wiki as a site similar to Snopes. It does not receive much media exposure since its nature is not one that attracts the attention of "general media" (with the exception of the New York Times mention). Usefulness alone is not a good reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. Aglets are useful, but their inclusion in Wikipedia is based on them being notable information to a specific group. So this leads to the question, to who or whom should a source of information be notable to that its inclusion in Wikipedia be relevant. I firmly believe that Notability should define article inclusion in Wikipedia, and as a long time user of Wikipedia I have attempted to guage all my edits by this guideline. Analyzing this from my own subjective perspective I believe enough sources which are themselves considered notable enough for inclusion of Wikipedia have found TV Tropes worthy of interest or reference that I find its inclusion warranted. I would like to point out that constant interest in the site should be demonstrated, because notability is a time dependent phenomenon - in the future, TV Tropes may no longer be as notable. Future deletion is not out of the question, but I believe it is unreasonable to remove this entry at this point in time. Full Disclosure: I am am an active contributor to TVTropes and to Wikipedia. Ctrl build (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability, as it is defined by WP:N, is explicitly not time-dependent. I think you are confusing "popularity" with "notability". On WP, "notability" is basically whether a subject itself has received significant coverage. In other words, are there news/magazine articles, books, encyclopedia entries, documentaries, etc., about TV Tropes itself? Not links to or references to TVT, but actually about TV Tropes. Notability is about coverage, not use. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Time magazine blog "Nerd World" references TV Tropes directly.[2] --65.184.44.109 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with many of the above points, and especially with Ctrl build's analysis. But I cannot help but feel that this discussion contains a lot of policy quoting without substantive discussion to back it up. I also find it odd that our policy is structured in such a way that web references don't count for much. Wikipedia itself references TVTropes [3], and while I'm sure there is some policy regarding this, I find it ancillary to the fact that TVTropes has print references comparable to other sites whose articles we keep. Magicallydajesus (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now that you pointed out a reference by Wikipedia of TVTropes, I found a list of 147 references of this type [4]. I understand that the Notability policy does not recognize self reference as a defense, but it does point to it being considered a substantive source by contributors. Ctrl build (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If being trivial is an issue, then I must direct you to the hundreds of minor-issue comic characters this wiki has accrued. Being mentioned in newspapers and webcomics (which all have pages here) alone makes the TVTW more notable than Tagak the Leopard Lord. Andraxx (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks for letting me know. I've nominated him for deletion. DARTH PANDA^duel 18:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It would appear most of the people arguing "keep" are saying that TVT should be kept because lots of sites (including Wikipedia) link to it as a reference. That's not mentioned anywhere in WP:N that I can find. WP:N wants significant coverage of the thing itself. Lots of links to TVT is not coverage of TVT itself. For example, a newspaper article about TVT would be good. (An article which mentions TVT in passing would not.) If links are the only thing people come up with, the result is sure to be deletion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I should remind that the question is neither TVT as a reliable source for WK nor WK acknowledging TVT and the work of its contributor but rather does this article have enough strong references to back it. --KrebMarkt 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:ILIKEIT and I kind of hope it stays but I don't have any strong policy based reason to bold "keep". However, those arguing to delete have a point. I doubt it currently passes WP:WEB but perhaps it's time to consider lowering the bar a bit for popular websites if it's clear the site won't become more popular/notable "because" it has an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2008 (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.