Talk:Lackadaisy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Query

What is the point of hyperlinking the author's name in the info box if it just redirects you to the same page?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 

Yes that's right. And this article is a repost of that deleted article - an identical repost, except for two sentences:

"In 2007, Lackadaisy was nominated for, and won four awards in the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. It won the award for Outstanding Newcomer, Outstanding Artist, Outstanding Character Rendering and Outstanding Anthropomorphic Comic."

I trust that that's enough of a difference for the article to be kept. It's certainly not speediable as a repost. It could be taken to AfD but would most likely now survive. Herostratus 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As the speedy deletion nominator, I agree. I didn't have access to the deleted page, but on the face of it, it seemed like a complete repost. Still barely notable, but at least on the keep side as far as I'm concerned. --Pekaje 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was a previous wiki article. And I didn't know that it was deleted. I found it on WikiFur and decided to put it here. I guess, it could be deleted. - 63.24.40.244 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in a non trivial way and won a notable award (just see the reference section of the award). Then it is notable itself. It is fairly good on the keep side. -- Esurnir 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Lackadaisy

Well cats and kittens we can forget about the AFD. This comic has won quite a few awards, so it's not going anywhere. I haven't read through the character bios yet because I'm pretty tired, but if they were a copy from the Furripedia then we can't trust them without reading them. Also, let's get some images for the characters preferably not from the lackadaisy bio page but rather from the strips themselves. The artist told me we can use her images all we want. --Rebent

furry?

Is this strip a furry strip? Yeah they're cats, but I don't think it is. --Rebent

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.46.185.14 (talk)

This is a talk page. Please sign your comments. --Rebent

I think the term "Anthropomorphic Comic" is more acurate, furry has connotations of people dressing up in fur suits, and all the stigmas contained therein. FRA 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Q. Why cats? - A. When dealing in sociopathic criminalism and gratuitous violence, how could it not be cats? Don't take it too literally, though. It's mostly just a device I like to use for characterization. The mobile ears, tails, and big eyes help me emphasize gesture and expression more than I could with human characters, they allow me to be as ridiculous as I like, and, well, they're just plain fun to draw."
"[...] I draw furries (if you can't think of a less schmaltzy name for them),.."

Taken from the offical FAQ[1] at Lackadaisy's website. So it's a furry strip, in a way. --84.62.191.242 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because the author calls if "furry" doesn't mean she actually does. I wonder if she understands the term as it is generally used today, or if she merely means that the creatures she draws "have fur"? --Rebent 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The author was invited as guest of honour to Furry Connection North 2009 (and accepted, contributing artwork for the website's interface). She had a Yerf account, indicating her involvement for at least half a decade (the site went down in 2005). GreenReaper (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, she's been around deviantArt (a large art community) for quite some time now, I think she is aware of the contemporary meaning - and besides I think the comic clearly falls in the furry-category, no matter what the author says. I mean..we're talking about a comic whose main characters are anthropomorphic cats, I can barely think of anything which would define the furry phenomena clearer. --84.62.176.18 04:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Furry" usually has a sexual connotation to it, so keep that in mind.

"Furry" only has a sexual connotation to it to people who assume so. It is not in and of itself a sexual thing. Lackadaisy is a furry comic because its characters are anthropomorphic animals. That's all there is to it. --63.95.64.220 06:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone equate "furry" with "yiff"? We furries aren't sex-crazed, just a bit different.--Oreichalcos (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think 'anthropomorphic cats' is a more professional description, as whether or not it is appropriate, 'furry' strikes me as being too slang to be used in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.140.122 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Status

I've upgraded this article's rating to class C based on the work done in the last year. Getting to class B (and close to Good Article status) will require more work. Additional images, references for all cited facts and a plot summary that extends further than the setting would help greatly. GreenReaper (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoral

After discussion with the deleting admin, I have gone ahead and undeleted this page, and expanded it with additional sources and information about the comic's nomination for the Eisner Award. --Elonka 17:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I've added the notability tag to this. This is a recreation of previously deleted material that was deleted for failing the notability standard of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lackadaisy (3rd nomination). The only difference in sourcing between this recreation and the deleted version is the addition of a mention in a list (insignificant coverage) and an interview (primary source). Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

New information has been added which includes the Eisner Award nomination, a significant award in the comic industry. I have also added a citation to a substantial (14-page) article in a magazine. The article does include an interview, yes, but it is still a third-party source independent of the subject. --Elonka 18:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw what you added: Sources that do not meet the notability guideline. You added a list of Eisner award nominees, but an entry on a list is not significant coverage because the "significant coverage" standard requires that sources address the subject directly in detail. You also added an interview, but interviews are primary sources, not secondary sources. So, I added a tag that says we should add better sources so that this meets the notability guideline. I thought that would be a better alternative than tagging for speedy deletion as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in discussion on this. I've added more sources, including some reviews. Is this more what you were looking for? --Elonka 20:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You've added many references that look like they are brief mentions or unreliable blogs or other obvious failures at meeting the notability guidelines. Which of them do you believe meet the notability guideline? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I did a quick Yahoo search for "Lackadaisy Eisner Award" and couldn't find any substantial coverage; just various sites (many of which probably don't meet the RS criteria) noting that it was nominated. I'm a fan of Lackadaisy, but I'll be the first to admit that it may not meet the notability criteria. Source research isn't among my strong suits, but I'm happy to try to improve the article if it isn't likely to get nuked again in any case. Doniago (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

All help appreciated.  :) Personally, I feel that 11 award nominations and 8 wins, including the nomination for best comic for the top award out there, the Eisner Award, affirms notability. A multi-page article in an independent magazine qualifies for me as "substantial coverage in a reliable source". Plus let's not forget that the webcomic has appeared on the cover of multiple independent magazines. And checking interwiki, that there are articles about Lackadaisy in Hungarian, Swedish, and Russian, carries a (small) bit of weight with me as well. The comic is in print in one volume, with a second volume in the works. In aggregate, all of those add up to me to a clear case of notability, especially with the Eisner Award. I do agree that there hasn't been substantial coverage about the Eisner Award other than to list Lackadaisy, but so many different places have covered the Eisner Award, that I think it's pretty clear that it's a notable award. Regarding the other magazine interviews, the standard in WP:WEB doesn't say anything about discounting sources just because they include interviews. It says, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". The magazine coverage is clearly non-trivial. The Eisner Award is non-trivial. The multiple Web Cartoonist Awards are non-trivial. The Draw! article is definitely non-trivial (14 pages, and a major banner on the cover of the magazine). The Italian Fumetti article is non-trivial, and carries additional weight because it shows international attention, not just American. Would more sources be better for this article? Sure, more sources are always better! But I believe that the case for notability has pretty much been made at this point. --Elonka 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

An award nomination does not "affirm notability." According to Wikipedia:Notability (web) "web-specific content[3] may be notable based on ... The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." It has to win an award, not just be nominated for an award. The award has to be well-known, and I'm not even sure the Eisner award is well-known. It's not the Oscars, The Emmys, or The Pulitzers. We can't just simply say "The Eisner Award is non-trivial" when it is just a nomination that as far as we can tell hasn't received any non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Speaking of secondary sources, Wikipedia:Notability says "Sources for notability purposes, should be secondary sources." Wikipedia:No original research says "Primary sources are very close to an event ... examples include ... interviews ... University of Nevada, Reno Libraries ... offer as examples ... interviews ... Duke University, Libraries offers this definition ... Primary sources may include ... interviews ..." Interviews are primary sources, and we need secondary sources. Look, I know we're all fans of Lackadaisy here, but just disregarding wikipedia sourcing guidelines and policy and recreating a deleted article with the same type of poor sources that got it deleted is just going to be a waste our time. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Though it's not what I personally might like to hear with regards to this particular article...well-said, and I agree. I'll see whether I can dig up anything substantive myself, but I have to admit I'm not optimistic. Doniago (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

...well, that was a bust...hopefully other editors will have more luck. :| Doniago (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the webcomic. I've seen it of course, but would not count myself as a regular reader. Instead, I am helping out here in an effort to improve the encyclopedia. As for sourcing, I think a distinction needs to be made between sources that are used for content in the article, and sources that affirm notability. When it comes to an interview, yes it is a primary source in terms of sourcing major claims. For example, if the artist said, "My work makes $5 million/year," we couldn't use just an interview to source that kind of information in a Wikipedia article, because it's a remarkable claim. However, the fact that the interview appears in a reputable magazine gives it a different sourcing level, because the magazine itself is a secondary source, not a primary one. The magazine is what we're talking about at this point. So a primary source (an interview) can appear in a secondary source (a newspaper or magazine), but the notability standard is met, because it's the secondary source (the magazine) which decided that the topic was notable enough to deserve coverage. It is a source which is independent of the comic itself. Or look at it another way: If an actor or politician is being interviewed on multiple news channels, the interviews count as primary sources, but the news channels themselves are secondary sources, which is what we are looking for when we are trying to meet the notability standard. --Elonka 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were saying you had better sources than the previous article that was deleted, but is seems you are instead just disregarding the reasons why the article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lackadaisy (3rd nomination) and you are adding sources that are similarly bad. You say you believe an interview should be treated as a secondary source, but this article was deleted after editors said sources were "merely interviews with the cartoonist and thus do not meet the criterion for non-trivial independent coverage" and others said ".Net is an interview, and interviews are primary sources, not secondary." You believe "The multiple Web Cartoonist Awards are non-trivial," but this article was previously deleted because the "Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is insufficient for notability." So I guess I'd like some clarity here. Are you saying, A) You believe you have added new sources that are substantially different from the previous sources so that now this meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? Or are you saying, B) You disagree with the previous deletion discussion consensus and believe that interviews should be considered secondary sources and that the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are the type of major, well-known awards that confer notability? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions, I'll try to answer. To be clear, I didn't say that an interview should be treated as a secondary source. I said that a magazine is a secondary source which may contain primary sources. If a secondary source (a magazine) covers a topic, then that can help qualify a topic for notability, even though the material in the magazine might be considered a primary source in terms of sourcing controversial information. Trust me, I've gone over this question in excruciating detail over at Franco-Mongol alliance.  :) For example, an academic journal is a secondary source, but it might contain material which would be considered a primary source, since the journal would just be providing what had been said verbatim. Specifically: if an academic journal on medieval history was reproducing a manuscript from the 12th century, the journal is a reliable secondary source, but the manuscript itself is a primary source. But by being quoted in that academic journal, the manuscript could then be quoted on Wikipedia. Getting to your other question though, I believe that there is sufficient new information that has become available after the February 2011 AfD, to justify undeleting the Lackadaisy article to add that information. I brought this up with the deleting admin at User talk:Beeblebrox#Lackadaisy, we discussed the matter, and the article was undeleted so the new information could be added. As for the discussion about the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, that appears to be a discussion that is heavily flavored with wiki-politics at the moment. There are some editors who feel strongly that the WCC awards are not an indicator of notability, and indeed the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards article itself has been nominated multiple times (the last three unsuccessfully) for deletion. Other editors disagree about the WCC awards. There's been a bit of a battle that has sprouted up because of this disagreement, and some webcomics that have been the recipients of WCC awards have then been sucked into a battleground between these two groups. Which I'm pretty much staying out of, but it's worth being aware of what's going on. Personally, I think that one minor WCC award probably doesn't affirm notability, but multiple WCC awards probably do, and that it's probably worth looking at articles case by case. But I don't feel strongly enough about it that I'm going to jump into every AfD on the matter. In looking through the Lackadaisy AfDs though, that WCC debate is clearly an issue. If it weren't an issue, I doubt that the article ever would have been nominated for deletion. If you're interested, check the WCC talkpage for the links to the AfDs, and check the names of the editors who nominate and/or participate in the debates, and you'll probably start seeing a pattern. Anyway, since the Eisner nomination took place after the February 2011 AfD, that's what made me think that it was worth undeleting the Lackadaisy article to add that information, along with other sources which were released after the February AfD, such as the major article in Draw! magazine. Does that help clarify? I do have a question of my own though: What is your own preference for how the Lackadaisy article should be treated? Is it your feeling that it shouldn't exist? Or are you trying to help strengthen it, or are you just interested in the policy debate? --Elonka 23:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the Eisner Award article they're given in July/August. It would seem that whether Lackadaisy receives the award may impact its suitability for an article based on the availability of notable coverage. Perhaps we can agree to reconsider the issue at that time? In the meantime, if notable sourcing is found the article should of course be updated accordingly. If the comic fails to win the award, or winning the award doesn't result in notable coverage, or the award itself isn't considered notable enough (that's beyond my scope), then personally I'll have a hard time recommending that it stick around; it can always be reinstated at a later date if notable coverage emerges. Doniago (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much how I feel. I think recreating this deleted article was at best premature. If it wins an Eisner award then maybe that will result in the type of significant coverage in reliable sources that we need. It's no guarantee though -- there have been past Eisner award winners that would be very unlikely to meet our criteria for a stand alone article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable course of action. I have no objection to tabling the matter for now, and then we'll take a look at things again after the awards are announced. On this at least, we have consensus. :) --Elonka 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh good, my reputation as the Henry Clay of Wikipedia is secure. :) Doniago (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is, quite frankly, silly. The Eisner is a major award, equivalent to the Hugo or Nebula Awards in Science Fiction; and, to the best of my knowledge, no comic which has ever been nominated for an Eisner has ever failed an AfD on Wikipedia. Ray Radlein (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all well and good to say that, but Sharks seems to be contradicting you up above. I'm not familiar enough with the Eisner awards to offer an opinion as to their notability, and when I started a discussion regarding the Eisner award's notability I received no feedback. That certainly doesn't prove anything, but it isn't a positive sign IMO. I think we need more evidence and/or feedback from other editors. Doniago (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ray that the Eisner nomination affirms notability, especially considering everything else that the comic has going for it -- multiple WCC awards, and plenty of attention via articles, reviews, and interviews. Doniago, if I'm understanding your own feelings, it's that you personally feel that the comic is notable, you're just not sure if it meets Wikipedia guidelines? My question is, if it were just up to you, would you want the article deleted? Or do you think it should stay? --Elonka 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel comfortable offering an opinion as to whether the comic meets notability at this point, because I don't feel I have the information I need to have a qualified opinion. As I said, I tried to get a consensus as to the notability of an Eisner award, and it went nowhere. Plus, I'm a fan of the comic (enough so that I'm considering writing a fan-fic, have posted in the forums, have IM'ed with the author...) so even if I didn't feel I was actively biased I couldn't deny that bias might enter into the equation. Heck, I posted to the LD forums asking people there whether they knew anyplace where LD had been discussed so that I'd have more fuel for this article...didn't pan out, unfortunately.

If I was the sole arbiter in the decision? Keep it until the Eisners. If it wins an Eisner, keep the article. If it does not, delete the article. Don't bother questioning why I'd do that, because I can't particularly defend it beyond it being unambiguous and decisive. But frankly I'd consider it a godsend if we could get uninvolved editors to enter the discussion. Even Sharks has been quiet, but that may be because we already reached a compromise previously. Doniago (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you don't want me involved. I think this whole notability thing is silly - either the sources show the facts referenced, and you're confident in the accuracy of the sources, or you're not. I see no real harm in having an article about a comic if everything in it is true. It may just be shorter than the articles for which more information is available. GreenReaper (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend reviewing WP:GNG. The accuracy of the information isn't even being contested AFAIK. Even if an article were to consist purely of reliably-sourced information that wouldn't necessarily make it appropriate for publication here, sorry. Doniago (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the notability guidelines, I just don't agree with them. I have seen articles that are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work, but this is not one of them. All its deletion will accomplish will be to make it harder for people who want to read about this particular topic to do so. (They will probably end up here, which is good for me since I run that site, but bad for Wikipedia.) GreenReaper (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the guidelines, the best thing to do would be to start a discussion to change the guidelines at the appropriate discussion page, not to debate it here. The point here isn't whether or not the guidelines are appropriate, but whether this article meets them. And even if we felt that it would be appropriate to waive the guidelines for this article, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so without the input of more and more experienced editors than have contributed to this discussion thus far. Doniago (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added numerous secondary sources to the article, and feel that it is time to remove the notability tag. Are there any objections? --Elonka 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel as though I'm forced to object to the idea of someone who was opposed to the notabiity tag in general, and in fact was behind the movement to get the article un-deleted, removing said tag. That seems somewhat COI'ish to me. I'd like to hear from Sharks or at least one uninvolved and experienced editor before we remove the tag, especially given that I thought we had consensus earlier. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change, when new voices enter the discussion. Sharks (who I'm not sure would meet your standard of "Experienced editor" considering that account only has a few hundred edits) has not participated in a couple weeks now, and has not seen the numerous new sources that I have added. Everyone else feels that the topic is suitable for Wikipedia. Have you reviewed the new sources yourself? Or what exactly is your concern at this point? You are welcome to remove the tag, if you feel the sourcing standard has been met now. --Elonka 20:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that this entire discussion has had the involvement of very few editors, and I'm not at all sure how many of those editors are experienced. Those who have stated that the article's subject matter is notable have, IMO, not done so without also seeming biased in favor of the article's subject to begin with. The argument that other articles exist which don't meet the notability guideline is of course ill-founded and doesn't do anything in terms of justifying this article's existence. I'd like to hear something that, frankly, sounds like an expert opinion from an uninvolved editor. I would especially like to hear this as both Sharks and I were satisfied with the earlier consensus to wait until the Eisner awards winners were announced, and it's the pro-article contingent who are coming across as unsatisifed that we should even wait a couple of months to have a discussion about maybe deleting the article. I don't get it at all, frankly; it would make more sense to me if anyone had been pushing for an immediate delete, but nobody has done so and I wouldn't support doing so right now.

I've just skimmed the list of sources. I'm no expert on sourcing, particularly sourcing that would establish that an article meets GNG, but I didn't see anything there that, with my limited experience, clearly qualifies. Then again, I'm not necessarily qualified to offer an opinion on the matter in any case, so there it is.

As Sharks hasn't made any edits since May 19, I don't think we can reasonably draw any conclusions regarding how they feel about the current state of the article. Waiting to see whether they return and then choose to speak up seems prudent and courteous provided it's not a long time. Then again, we had agreed to wait until the Eisner award winners were announced in any case. I have left a message on their Talk page as well. Doniago (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, you may wish to review WP:CANVASS. It's considered bad form to only notify editors that agree with you, and to disregard everyone else. In any case, we can still re-discuss the deletion question after the Eisners (though I think it would be moot at this point). Since that "wait until the Eisner award" discussion, I have added several new sources, in a variety of languages. So my issue right now is with the tag. In my opinion, it's kind of absurd to continue to see a "notability" tag on the article, considering the awards and sources that are now listed. I am trying to do the courteous thing by bringing it up on the talkpage first, and everyone who has commented in the last several days says that the topic is notable, except you, Doniago. So my recommendation is that we should remove the tag. If consensus later emerges that the tag should be re-added, so be it. But for now, how is the project hurt by removing it? --Elonka 04:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel I'm canvassing by asking one editor who previously contributed to this discussion whether they'd like to add anything, you're welcome to contact other editors as well. I fail to see how I've disregarded anyone, I've simply expressed concerns that additional opinions may be merited, and I fail to see why you're resistant to that. I already indicated that I'm not the best person to speak for your additional sources, so of course their addition isn't going to influence my opinion...especially the ones that aren't in English, as I can't read them in any case. One purpose the notability tag does serve is that it may draw in additional editors who can comment on the Notability of the article; if we remove the tag we lose that functionality. And again, we're talking about a couple of months, which to my mind is not a significant length of time. How is the article harmed by including it? Doniago (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In any event, I've posted at the Notability Noticeboard requesting additional opinions. Doniago (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Tracy Butler and Lackadaisy are featured on the cover of the current issue of Draw! magazine.[2] This is significant coverage in a third-party source. --Elonka 18:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless and until other editors choose to speak on the subject, I don't believe anything you or I can say is likely to change the others' opinion at this point. An editor did chime in at the linked discussion who appears to feel that the subject hasn't met Notability standards yet, but you've already seen that. At this point it seems you and I are in a ping-pong match, and there's nothing to be gained from it. I still don't see that there's any significant issues with waiting for the outcome of the Eisner awards and reevaluating the article at that time; you are of course welcome to improve it in the meantime. I have provided a reason to keep the Notability tag in place, and I have not heard any arguments as to how having the article tagged is harming it...in fact, it may end up helping it. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, it looks like we're making a little bit of progress here. Previously Elonka had been expressing a belief that webcartoonist choice nominations and awards and an Eisner nomination "affirms notability"[3], but now it looks like Elonka has backed away from that belief and seems to understand that our notability standard is "significant coverage in multiple sources which are independent of the subject."[4] Am I reading that right? Are we now on the same page where we agree that notability is not inherited from award nominations, and agree that notability is instead determined by whether the topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we please get away from discussing editors, and instead stick to discussing the article? The question is: Is it time to remove the notability tag? And if not, why not? Personally, I think it should have been removed a long time ago. --Elonka 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is time to remove the notability tag. You had earlier said you thought the tag should be removed because webcartoonist choice nominations and awards and an Eisner nomination "affirms notability". I think that's wrong, I don't think notability is inherited that way, and I instead believe (and I believe consensus reflects this) that notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Based on your more recent comments Elonka I thought you were saying you no longer believed comics inherited notability from award nominations, but now I'm not sure because you have failed to answer a direct question when I asked you "Are we now on the same page where we agree that notability is not inherited from award nominations, and agree that notability is instead determined by whether the topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources?" Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier statements, but I am also trying to address other valid concerns. You said you wanted to see more sources. I have added more sources. Have you reviewed them? Or could you please try to articulate just what exactly your concerns are at this point? I've been trying to be patient, assume good faith, and engage in courteous discussion about this article, but I am starting to wonder if there are other agendas at work here, because no matter what is asked for, and what I supply, you seem to keep moving the goalposts. So please be specific here: Why don't you think that this topic is notable? --Elonka 22:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I strongly disagree with your belief that any notability is inherited from things like the webcartoonist choices, I am sorry to hear that you are still sticking with that line of thinking, and I instead believe that notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. My belief in the "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources" standard is supported by wikipedia policy, by the previous deletion discussion, and by third-party opinion. You ask "what exactly your concerns are at this point?" My concerns at this point are the same as I expressed when this discussion began: This article needs "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."[5] My question to you that you never adequately answered is still the same as it was about two weeks ago: "You've added many references that look like they are brief mentions or unreliable blogs or other obvious failures at meeting the notability guidelines. Which of them do you believe meet the notability guideline?"[6] Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be forking to multiple pages, which is not helpful. Shall we continue at Talk:2007 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards? --Elonka 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think right here on this very talk page would be a great place for you to answer my question of "Which of the references you've added do you believe meet the notability guideline?" Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

{outdent}You guys seem to have suffered some confusion here. To be notable, the subject of the article has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If I am interviewed by The Times and given a full page article, that constitutes significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. I didn't pay the Times to get interviewed. The fact that parts of the article consist of my words does not make it a primary source - it is still journalism. If The Thunderer also reproduced the five page love letter written to me by David Beckham (I wish), that would be a primary source. The only question should be is the magazine that published the interview itself of sufficient readership or esteem to be of significance. If instead of The Times about an affair with Becks (sigh), it was the Cleckheaton Enquirer that published a full page article about my prize vegetable marrows, I would venture that the notability standard would not have been passed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Interviews in major publications count as secondary sources. Just because you have the person involved being interviewed doesn't make them primary. Primary is a work published by the source, which is different than an interview in a reputable third party publication. Silverseren^C 23:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, my concern has been whether the sources have sufficient readership and/or esteem to be significant, not whether or not the sources are primary. Doniago (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Elen: Thanks, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, but I like your Beckham example better!

Doniago: Actually, earlier you said that you didn't feel qualified to comment on sources,[7][8][9] and that you wanted to see some opinions from experienced editors.[10][11] We now have opinions from experienced editors, especially Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs), who is a highly respected member of the community, an administrator with checkuser and oversight access who is currently on the arbitration committee. So I believe this should address your concerns at this point? --Elonka 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, I don't feel qualified to comment on sources, which is exactly why I wanted to hear from editors more versed in such. As I didn't feel qualified to comment on sources all I could do was be concerned that the sources provided didn't qualify as significant enough. While Elen's comment does speak to what our concern should be, they do not appear to actually be addressing whether Lackadaisy has qualified as notable. Doniago (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what Elen, and I, and others have been trying to do here, is to help improve your own skills in this area so that you can make your own determination, rather than having to wait for others to weigh in. As a general rule of thumb, if a source has its own Wikipedia article, such as Library Journal, Escapist, Riverfront Times, etc., then it can usually safely be considered as "significant". As for the quantity of material in that source, it can usually be determined simply by counting lines: If the source only includes 1 or 2 lines about a topic, then that might not be "significant coverage", but including several pages on a topic, along with a major headline or a mention on the cover, would count as significant coverage. There are exceptions to these rules of thumb, especially when dealing with sources in another language. For example, there might be a major article in an Italian magazine, but that magazine might not have its own article on Wikipedia. So some judgment might be required with non-English sources to determine whether or not they appear to be reliable sources. Questionable sources aside though, the Lackadaisy article currently has several sources, in English, with substantial coverage of the topic. That's why I (and others) feel that the topic is notable enough for Wikipedia. Does that help clarify? --Elonka 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability tag

Based on the above discussions, I think most concerns have been addressed at this point. There may still be some disagreement on whether the awards are sufficient for notability, but on sources alone, the article meets the standard at WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The article is well-sourced, with references in English, Russian, and Italian showing substantial international coverage of the topic. Even just counting the English sources though, notability is affirmed by sources such as The Escapist,[12] Library Journal,[13] the Riverfront Times,[14] Draw! magazine[15] and others (please see the sources section of the article for a full list). Are there any other objections to removing the notability tag from the article? --Elonka 04:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a detailed list of the sources you believe would justify removing the tag stating "The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." Let's look at these sources to see if they represent significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

1) The Escapist,[16]: This is an interview. This type of interview is a primary source, not a secondary source.

2) Library Journal,[17]: This is little more than one sentence, which is plainly trivial, not significant, coverage.

3) Riverfront Times,[18]: There are reliability and notability problems here. This is a local newspaper to the subject (see WP:ROUTINE for warnings about local-person-wins-award stories), it's also a small alternative newspaper (less reliable than a large mainstream newspaper), and it's even on the alternative newspaper's website as a blog entry (less reliable still).

4) Draw! magazine[19]: This is an interview. This type of interview is a primary source, not a secondary source.

Looking at these, I see that the very best source here (a blog entry on the web site of a small local alternative newspaper) has issues with reliability and issues with using as a source for notability, so I don't see any problem with retaining the tag. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharks, I'm sorry, but pretty much every single argument that you have raised is incorrect, and it is distressing that you are continuing to raise these points, despite the fact that multiple editors have been pointing out the errors in your arguments. Your interpretation of sourcing is not correct. As multiple editors have tried to explain, The Escapist is a secondary source, not a primary one. The same with Draw! magazine, it is a secondary source, not primary. Whether or not the information in the source is an interview, is not relevant for the purposes of determining notability. The notability guideline at WP:WEB says, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." All of the mentioned sources qualify. In the case of Library Journal, the coverage of Lackadaisy is not simply a trivial mention on a list, but the fact that the Journal decided it was notable enough to include a recommendation to read it as part of Women's History Month. For the Riverfront Times, though the URL says blog, be aware that newspaper blogs are acceptable as sources. See WP:RS, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists". In the case of the RFT article, the article was written by Aimee Levitt, who is a staff writer for the paper,[20] and therefore it is an appropriate source to help establish notability. These sources, along with all the other sources on the article, affirm the topic's notability. The question is whether or not the 'Lackadaisy comic has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," and the answer is pretty obviously "Yes". --Elonka 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

With regards to interviews as being primary or secondary sources, it would appear that we are in disagreement. Let me see if I can clearly state my understanding of primary sources: Primary sources are very close to an event. An interview is one type of primary source; other types are things like autobiographies and speeches. Even if an interview (or speech transcript or autobiography) is published by, say, Rolling Stone or the New York Times, it is still a primary source. So, for example, if Fergie of The Black Eyed Peas is interviewed in Rolling Stone, that's a primary source. Is this your understanding? Or does your understanding differ, and if so, how so? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We've already gone over this, multiple times. In a nutshell: An interview is a primary source, which may be contained within a secondary source. For the purpose of establishing notability, it's the fact that a secondary source (such as a magazine) is covering the topic. Whether or not the magazine is publishing a detailed fact-based article, an interview, or a collection of photos, is not relevant. The point is that the magazine is an independent source which has deemed the topic notable enough to write about. See also these other comments already written.[21][22][23][24][25] --Elonka 19:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding of primary vs. secondary sources seems to be very much at odds with my experience at every institution I've ever been a part of. Here are some members of other institutions that agree with my understanding. At Ithaca College they believe that "An interview in the Rolling Stone with Chris Robinson of the Black Crowes would be a primary source".[26] Georgia Perimeter College believes "Primary Sources ... Appear in popular magazines and newspapers as interviews with the author."[27] Hollins University believes an interview with Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer published in the Paris Review is a primary source.[28] PBS believes an interview in the New York Times is a primary source. [29] Hawaii's Windward Community College believes "Barbara Walter's 2001 interview with George W. Bush regarding his impending inauguration" is a primary source.[30] Finland's University of Tampere believes "An interview in Suosikki with Juice Leskinen would be a primary source".[31] I think we can all agree that my understanding of interviews as primary sources seems to be quite widespread, whereas your understanding of interviews as secondary sources does not. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly hesitant to interject at this point, and I'm definitely not interested in engaging on the subject that would be in any way confrontational, but judging from what you're both saying it sounds like the confusion is over Sharks' understanding of primary and secondary sourcing based on prior experiences versus how Wikipedia uses the terms. I'm not assigning any blame in this, as we call come here with our own preconceptions and at some point I think we all end up finding out that WP handles something differently from what we might be used to. Without placing value on WP's definitions versus those Sharks is used to, I will just say that I believe WP's definitions are less stringent, and that LD does appear to meet the notability standards for sourcing based on WP's definitions, though perhaps not based on the ones Sharks has more experience with. I sincerely apologize if I'm making any unwarranted assumptions or offending anyone. Doniago (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. It sounds like we're all finally in agreement that under the generally accepted (outside of wikipedia at least) definition of primary sources, and according to off-wikipedia experts in using primary sources, that these types of interviews are primary sources. We can all agree on that, right? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Having played with the Society for Creative Anachronism, I am familiar with the notion of something like an interview being considered a primary source, which can lead to some confusion when compared with WP's definitions. I believe the gist is that there's no actual critical review of what the source is alleging. For instance, Shakespeare made up many of the names he used in his works, and consequently one of his works can't be used to establish a precedent for a name from that time period because there's no way to confirm solely based on the work whether the name is indeed period; you need a secondary source that analyzes the primary source.

That being said, this isn't material to the Wikipedia notability question, as Wikipedia articles only need to satisfy Wikipedia's definitions and guidelines, not the more generally accepted standards. FWIW I initially had the same problem with placing periods outside of quotation marks; it wasn't what I was used to, but it's WP's standard.

I hope we can agree that while we may or may not be happy with WP's perhaps more relaxed guidelines, they are what they are. Doniago (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like us -- me, you, Elonka, -- to confirm our agreement that under the generally accepted (outside of wikipedia at least) definition of primary sources, and according to off-wikipedia experts in using primary sources, that these types of interviews are primary sources. Then, we can move on from there. If we are still at the point where some editors believe it is just craziness to suggest that anyone would think these types of interviews are primary sources, then we need to have a different discussion. So, Doniago and Elonka, are we all in agreement that under the generally accepted (outside of wikipedia at least) definition of primary sources, and according to off-wikipedia experts in using primary sources, these types of interviews are primary sources? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

...I guess, though I'm not sure how it's pertinent unless you're planning to start a discussion at the appropriate area to have the notability guidelines revised...I'm a little worried about saying anything in fact, lest my (tentative) agreement be taken out of context. For instance, whatever my feelings may be regarding the article's notability based on off-WP standards, by WP standards I (weakly) believe the article now meets notability guidelines. Doniago (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so Doniago, you agree that under the generally accepted (outside of wikipedia at least) definition of primary sources, and according to off-wikipedia experts in using primary sources, that these types of interviews are primary sources. Elonka, do you agree with that? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharks, your last few comments have had nothing to do with the notability tag, and are looking a lot like a filibuster. See also Wikipedia:Consensus. "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." You keep asking about the definition of primary sources, but I have already commented multiple times, saying that interviews are primary sources, which may be contained within secondary sources.[32][33][34] I think that answering the same question four times is plenty. So now, could we please return to the specific topic, that of the notability tag? We have discussed it for weeks. Sources have been added, discussed, and commented on by both us and other uninvolved editors. With the exception of one editor (Sharks), we seem to have a general consensus that the Lackadaisy article meets notability standards, and that the tag should be removed. Sharks' objections have been listened to with great patience, considered, and debated, but have not changed the consensus. So, would someone like to do the honors and remove the tag? --Elonka 22:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Give it 48 hours in case there's anyone lurking who wishes to chime in (unlikely, but possible)...if nobody speaks up you're welcome to ask me to do it and I will. Given that I was one of the editors initially concerned with the removal, I think it's fitting that I handle the removal. Or someone else can do it, whichever. (smile) Doniago (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK Elonka, I'l take that as a "no," even though I provided you with a half dozen separate sources that show these types of interviews are primary sources, you are sticking with your previously stated, unsupported by any references, mistaken belief that they are instead secondary sources. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharks, I'm admittedly a bit confused as to what you're trying to achieve and how it relates to the presence of the notability tag. While the wider world may apply the term "primary source" to these interviews, per WP guidelines they appear to qualify as "secondary sources", and WP guidelines are the only ones that are pertinent to this discussion. If other editors also feel that the notability tag should be retained I'm willing to reconsider, but we've really turned this molehill into a mountain, and it seems as though the recent discussion isn't even relevant to the question of whether to keep or delete the tag. If you'd like to discuss this further could you please clarify your concerns regarding the article? In a worst-case scenario you could always re-nominate the article for deletion, but I'd certainly recommend less severe measures. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy -- as I said at the very beginning of this conversation -- supports the widespread understanding that these types of sources are primary sources. As I've previously stated, Wikipedia:Notability says "Sources for notability purposes, should be secondary sources." Wikipedia:No original research says "Primary sources are very close to an event ... examples include ... interviews ... University of Nevada, Reno Libraries ... offer as examples ... interviews ... Duke University, Libraries offers this definition ... Primary sources may include ... interviews ..." The Ithaca College Library reference I've provided recently (the one that says "An interview in the Rolling Stone with Chris Robinson of the Black Crowes would be a primary source") is used as a source in our WP:PRIMARY policy. So, my position is that these types of interviews are considered to be primary sources all over the world and also within wikipedia policy. Doniago, your belief seems to be that they are considered primary sources all over the word, but considered secondary sources on wikipedia. You haven't provided any evidence to back up that idea, so I continue to think you are mistaken. Elonka seems to believe that these are considered secondary sources to the world at large as well as by wikipedia policy, but she has provided no references other than her own opinions posted to talk pages to back up her position, so I continue to believe she is mistaken. Does that clear things up? These types of interviews, per Wikipedia policy and and the half dozen outside references I've provide, are primary sources. Therefore they are not a justification for removing a tag asking for secondary sources. But, hey, whatever. If making up our own sourcing standards and creating our own definitions for words let's us keep this article, then I'm happy. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have added another (hardcopy, non-interview) ref to the article. An article in the hardcopy Riverfront Times, entitled "Comic Genius". Doniago, I believe you offered to remove the notability tag? (Or anyone can do it, really). If no one else does it, I'll go ahead and remove it tomorrow. --Elonka 12:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done If anyone still feels there are concerns they can re-add the tag, but I would hope for very clear and explicit explanations as to why the article may not be meeting GNG at this point. An unindent would also be nice (smile). Doniago (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Artist bio

There is sufficient information in the sources to expand the Wikipedia info about the artist herself, such as to include her birthplace, schooling, influences, etc. I am mulling whether this would be better as a section of the Lackadaisy article, or whether a separate bio article might be more appropriate. Anyone have an opinion on this? --Elonka 16:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's going to be enough material to merit its own section, then AFAIC it's enough material to merit its own article rather than taking this article off-topic. Plus, if this article is to be deleted again, giving the artist her own page will protect that material. Doniago (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing how there is sufficient information for this article. The previous deletion discussion held that there was insufficient sources for this article. So, no, I don't see that there is information and sources for two articles. So, you should definitely add any additional sources and information it to this article (maybe it would help with everyones' sourcing concerns?). Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, without knowing what information Elonka plans to put together regarding the artist I can't really comment as to whether they have sufficient information to merit an independent article. (smile) Doniago (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I am considering, as a paragraph for the Lackadaisy article:

==Artist bio==

Tracy Butler was born in 1980 in Springfield, Massachusetts. Her interest in art started at a young age, as she doodled and created characters while sitting in class in high school. She then studied biology for a year at Our Lady of the Elms College in Massachusetts, before returning to her first love, art. While in school she had created a website with her art which drew some attention, and this led to a job offer from a Missouri game development company. Butler was hired to do illustration and graphic design, then moving into doing 3D work, including character design and animation. After living in St. Louis for some time, she purchased a 100-year-old house, and began researching its history, as well as that of the local neighborhood, and then eventually the history of St. Louis itself. Combined with her interest in jazz music, and the characters she had designed as a teenager, these all combined into what became the Lackadaisy webcomic in July 2006. This then evolved into an Italian print version in 2008, and an English version in 2009.

Thoughts? --Elonka 21:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with source #1...it may run afoul of WP:PRIMARY. I hate to be pedantic, but I'd recommend tighter sourcing. There are sentences without sourcing that I'd put a CN tag on...if they're all sourced to Draw magazine, then that needs to be more clear (i.e., put in the ref after all appropriate sentences). A "website which drew some attention" is horribly vague, IMO. If that's exactly what the source says, I'd make sure it's written as a quote. What's the name of the game development company? I'd also suggest some wording/grammar tweaks, but those are relatively minor compared to the other concerns I've raised. If this is what we're going to work with I think a section probably is more appropriate than a separate article...and it can always be moved later in any case. Doniago (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it another pass, but please be aware that a certain amount of primary sources are okay for bios. See WP:SELFPUB. --Elonka 12:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it may run afoul of WP:PRIMARY. I'm not drawing a conclusion either way at this point. It's a good start overall, I just think some tweaking and clarification is needed. Doniago (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about this?

Tracy Butler was born in 1980 in Springfield, Massachusetts. Her interest in art started at a young age, as she doodled and created characters while sitting in class in high school. She then studied biology for a year at Our Lady of the Elms College in Massachusetts, before returning to her first love, art. She created a website with some of her work, and this led to a job offer from a Missouri game development company, Simutronics. Butler was hired to do illustration and graphic design, then moving into doing 3D work, including character design and animation. After living in St. Louis for some time, she purchased a 100-year-old house, and began researching its history, as well as that of the local neighborhood, and then eventually the history of St. Louis itself. Combined with her interest in jazz music, and the characters she had designed as a teenager, these all combined into what became the Lackadaisy webcomic in July 2006. This then evolved into an Italian print version in 2008, and an English version in 2009.

The bulk of the paragraph is sourced to Draw!, so I don't think adding additional cites that point to the same source would be helpful. Per WP:INCITE, one citation at the end of the paragaph is sufficient. As for grammar, if you'd like to rewrite anything further, feel free! --Elonka 18:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I prefer per-sentence citations especially when dealing with BLP-related text, but it's your call and I won't argue it based on my reading of the policy. Suggested revised text follows-

Tracy Butler was born in 1980 in Springfield, Massachusetts. In high school she would doodle and create characters while sitting in class. She studied biology for a year at Our Lady of the Elms College in Massachusetts, before returning to her art. She created a website with some of her work, which led to a job offer from Simutronics, a Missouri game development company. Butler performed illustration and graphic design work before moving into 3D character design and animation. After living in St. Louis for some time, she purchased a 100-year-old house, and began researching its history, as well as that of the local neighborhood, and ultimately the history of St. Louis itself. Butler utilized her research along with an interest in jazz music and the characters she had designed to begin developing Lackadaisy in July 2006. An Italian print version was released in 2008, and an English version in 2009.

I think there's still a number of vagaries in this text-

• • What website did she create? Was it a comic site, or did it have another purpose?
  • What kinds of games? Computer games? Console games?
  • How long did she live in St. Louis for? "Some time" is problematic.
  • What was the local neighborhood?
  • I wasn't exactly clear on July 2006...was that when the comic first appeared online? When Butler began real development of it?

I do apologize if I sound like I'm picking nits...it's certainly possible that some of this can be improved later; it doesn't have to be perfect on the first go-round. That being said, I'd hope to get the input of at least one more editor before adding it to the article. It's very cool that you're putting so much effort into this. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good questions, but the source doesn't answer many of them. Doesn't say which site. The games are computer games.[35] She's been in St. Louis for about 10 years, but there's not a specific date mentioned in the article. The source doesn't say which neighborhood. July 2006 is when the webcomic first appeared. And the source doesn't say that she had an "interest in jazz music", it said she was listening to it when working on the webcomic, so it helped inspire the comic's creation. The rest of your text looks fine, I'd say let's move it into the article and then we can tweak from there! --Elonka 01:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

External links

The external link to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Lackadaisy?from=Main.LackadaisyCats appears to be an open wiki. Per Links normally to be avoided, "one should generally avoid (12) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Does TV Tropes qualify? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See section below for reply. --Elonka 20:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Open Wikis have no place as references or as external links

Some editors have repeatedly added links to open wikis to this article, as references and as external links. Open Wikis have no place here, as either references or as external links. See WP:RELIABLE which says "self-published media ... open wikis ... are largely not acceptable" and WP:LINKSTOAVOID which says "one should generally avoid ... Links to open wikis." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start a section of my very own now, but I'll just say that I don't believe TVTropes passes the WP:ELNO guidelines (#12 in particular). That being said, if there's precedent (link(s) please), I'm certainly willing to reconsider my opinion. Doniago (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TV Tropes has its own Wikipedia article, and meets the WP:ELNO standard of "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". --Elonka 20:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for that? (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The site is clearly notable, as indicated by the fact that it has a Wikipedia article about it, and has gone through two AfDs and a Deletion Review. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 15. It meets WP:WEB. --Elonka 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether TV Tropes is notable, but whether it can be shown to have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" per WP:ELNO no.12. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you review the AfDs, the DRV, and the linked sources, that will answer your question for you. It's a very stable site with a large number of editors, and not one of those wikis that pops up, has 2 or 3 editors who halfheartedly post something, and then it fades into obscurity. For one example of in-depth coverage of TV Tropes, try reading this.[36] --Elonka 22:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you guys are debating the wrong issue. Whether or not TV Tropes is notable is irrelevant (for the record, it's notable). Instead, you should be asking whether it's a suitable EL. It's not because it doesn't fall under any of the criteria at WP:ELYES, not being an official site or even remotely affiliated with the webcomic. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about linking the main TV Tropes page, but linking this page in the External links section.[37] Which would seem to be covered under WP:ELNO #12, since it is a stable page with a substantial number of editors, and has information of interest which is directly related to the Lackadaisy topic. --Elonka 05:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you're familiar with the the AfDs, the DRV, and the linked sources that answer the question, could you help by posting the links or diffs that support this assertion please? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I still fail to see how this article's TV Tropes entry constitutes an official site, regardless of how stable the wiki is. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a disagreement about this, we should probably bring it up at the external links noticeboard. I took a look through their archives and it doesn't look like TV Tropes has been discussed there yet, so it might be worth having a larger discussion about it? --Elonka 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)