User talk:Millennium Cowboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Moving forwards

Thanks for the note. On your points:

• I'll see what I can do - if you compare and contrast what you have there with the other website articles like Comic Book Resources and Newsarama you'll see that they both not only have awards but have other reliable sources (like big name magazines, Universities, etc.) recommending them as good sources and they have also been examined in the Comic Journal. No one element is going to clinch it (and sourcing and nailing things down has been a long process for those two examples0 but once you start ticking a number of boxes then things start to look a lot more solid. Remember that they do have to be reliable sources and non-trivial mentions - WP:WEB is strict and we have lost a lot of webcomics in a nasty purge recently so it will take work. If you don't mind me editing your sandbox I can do a quick clean up and drop in anything I come across (as I'll keep my eye open for things).

• This is tricky because once there is a WP:COI tripped you will find these things automatically removed. Keep trying with HU12 as they are reasonable and do respond. In the meantime you'll have to follow the guidelines on WP:COI and if there is a good link then drop a note into the page's talk page and other editors can check it over and if they think it is a good source then they can add it in. It will be slower but it will help move things forward.

• If the article meets WP:N (specifically WP:FICT for fiction and WP:WEB for webcomics) then it should be fairly safe. As I say you can still get the link added to the page by going via the talk page but if it hinges on just the one link it isn't going to meet the notability broader concerns. You will need multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources or it will be in danger of being deleted but that goes for everything. I wind the Comic Book DB, Grand Comics Database and Big Comic Book DataBase as relatively reliable sources which should at least allow you to bolt down verifiability (and I made 2 templates to help drop links in: {{comicbookdb}} and {{gcd}}). I'd suggest looking to Comic Book Resources, Newsarama and Comics Bulletin for further material (and Broken Frontier can be handy too) because the key is too avoid excessive plot and focus on the reception (reviews can be good here as is any mainstream press) and other general background and inspiration (for which the interviews can be very good and sometimes blogs can be used here, the exception to the "no blogs as sources" rule). I think a good sign the entry is needed is if there are a lot of links pointing to it (click "what links here") although there is nothing wrong with starting an article on a more obscure comic or creator if you can find a lot of material to support it.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks Emperor, I really appreciate your help and no, I wouldn't mind you editing my Sandbox page. I'll check out the other sites and things you mentioned.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK cool. Make sure to read through the big policy pages too - familiarity with the guidelines can help everyone avoid the main pitfalls.

On the needed front I redlinked Misadventures from Ape Entertainment and added a good interview there too (I often add things like that to the publisher page as it makes it easier for people to grab up the information when they start the page) and I think that could certainly be a viable article. I keep an eye on the main sites for news, reviews or interviews but they are all searchable and have deep archives so you can often find plenty of good material there which really helps flesh out an entry. (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid that listing the reviews (and interviews) is not going to help. You need to look at Newsarama and Comic Book Resources - WP:WEB is strict and real worked context is vital, including awards received (not given), being recommended by an independent third-party source, etc. and I see none of that yet. A long list of who they've reviewed and interviewed will get rapidly deleted.

Also it wasn't nominated for an Eagle Award, as explained in the AfD anyone can suggest anything for any category in the first stage of the voting (I could have nominated myself or my dog). The equivalent to other awards nominations is the shortlist from which the winner is picked - they are listed here: Eagle Awards#2007 (the fact that you have to use a web cached link is a sign on how disposable the suggestions are - they only ever keep a list of the actual nominations - the short list). If anyone tried to add such a "nomination" to an article it would be removed.

I hope that helps give you an idea of the direction you should be heading in. (Emperor (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

The Technorati page is for this which is a blog entry by SLG mentioning a review by Project Fanboy. Blogs almost always fail WP:RS (and often [{WP:EL]]) and a publisher pointing out a review is a good idea for them from a promotional point of view but is no help in proving WP:N. So not only would it not help but it'd probably be automatically removed. What you need are non-trivial mentions by reliable sources. (Emperor (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the continued efforts on this - the article looks a lot more solid and reads well. It'd make a good core of an article. What it still needs is evidence of its notability - if you look at the examples I give above they have prestigious awards and recommendations from leading publications, universities and academia - that kind of thing. Anyway it is certainly moving in the right direction. (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid not - even if they were notable enough for a Wikipedia entry you'd need more. It might be OK backing up more notable mentions but then if you had those you wouldn't need that. (Emperor (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC))