Alright. In a later thread we're going to discuss a couple of the of the articles were recently destroyed. But before we do that, we want to lay down some first principles and basic points so people will know where I'm coming from. Most of you already know most of this, and we don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence; many people won't agree with some of this, or most of it; and it's lengthy, so you might wish to skip it, or, conversely, engage. We're just laying it down for what it is worth, as We're likely to refer to it later.

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

WP:ENC is the first of the Five Pillar of Wikipedia, and it opens with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. Wikipedia is freely available, and incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis added).

Specialized encyclopedias includes works covering many subjects -- motor vehicles, archeology, film, biographies, art, cuisine, and much else. Including comic books: I have one right in front of me, the Marvel Encyclopedia. It is in alphabetical order, with short entries on hundreds of subjects. If that is not a "specialized encyclopedia" we do not what would be.

Whether "incorporates" means "uses as sources" or "creates within itself" is up to the individual's interpretation. In point of fact the Wikipedia has within it a large number of specialized encyclopedias -- mini-encyclopedias of mountain passes in China, of American singer-songwriters, of Soviet Films, and very many others -- which were created by us rather than copied in from existing specialized encyclopedias. Being a "compendium of knowledge" without creating and incorporating all these mini-encyclopedias would be difficult and probably not popular.

2) Wikipedia is large

Whether the Wikipedia should be smaller, or bigger, or is just the right size now, is a matter of opinion that can't be proven "right" or "wrong". As a point of fact it continues to grow, and stopping that would take some political heavy lifting.

3) Comics are a big deal

In my local library for instance, there is a lot more shelf space devoted to comics than than to, for instance, France. A lot of these are comics (or manga, or graphic literature), but a fair amount are about comics --- history of Wonder Woman, the philosophy of Peanuts, Marvel encyclopedia, how to draw comics, etc. There's a good deal more stuff about comics than there is about say science fiction or [the discipline of] history and so on.

Whether comics should be a big deal is a matter of opinion. For good or ill they are, tho.

4), But, at the same time, comics are low culture trash

A lot of people think so anyway. They have a point, at least for some. There's quite a range, from art schooly graphic novels to badly written, poorly drawn crap from the 1940s. It's a matter of opinion how true that is and, if it is, how much it matters for our purposes.

"Is/is not a big deal" is supposed to be how we decide how to much to cover a subject rather than "is/is not low culture" or "does/does not have artistic merit". But, our experience is that there are a lot of bourgeois snobs working on the Wikipedia, so as a practical matter low-culture stuff tends to get shorter shrift. You do hear words like "cruft" and "fancruft" thrown around somewhat, and to be honest there's a degree of punching-down bullying based on these offensive, insulting, intimidating, and class-ridden terms.

One man's bourgeois snob is another man's person of taste and refinement. It's not a horrible thing to be. But it's something to be aware of, since it colors discussions about a lot of cultural stuff on the Wikipedia, in our experience.

One problem with all that is a lot of people seem not to be overly self-aware of their own ingrained biases regarding cultural norms. Another problem is that even if they are, they don't care. Another problem is that they have to disguise this, because openly saying "I don't allow the maid to bring comic books into the house, and I certainly won't have people bringing them into the Wikipedia" is too bluntly elitist to gain much traction. So, people have to use oblique arguments to reach their desired outcome, which makes honest discussion difficult. Happens a lot when politics in in play. But it's not ideal.

(One suggestion is that persons of, er, taste and refinement stay in their wheelhouse and concentrate on improving material on futurist composers or novels about chess or what have you rather than rampaging about in low-culture areas. But you know how bourgeois people are.)

5) The WP:GNG (general notability guideline) is used a lot.

The GNG is just a guideline, not a policy. But people respect it a fair amount. And they should. It's a reasonable guideline. "Does/does not meet the GNG", and demonstrations of this, is something you get a a lot in deletion discussions, and that's fine. It's an important data point, and it's a useful suggestion (guideline) to consider.

6) But a lot of Wikipedia articles do not meet the WP:GNG

They don't, apparently. I'm just laying this out as a fact (according to my data). How big of a problem that is or what it means (if anything) for this project is a matter of opinion. I base this on User:Herostratus/The Hundred where I looked at 100 random articles. About half our articles don't meet the GNG and can't be made to, at least without diffult effort. Maybe it's less than than half, maybe more, maybe a lot more. It depends on how you want to squint.

7) Many types of articles have standards -- either written down or just de facto -- that are different from the WP:GNG

Some of these are written down as WP:SNGs (special notability guidelines). Some SNGs are treated as de facto trumping the GNG. Some are treated as just a time saver to indicate that the article will probably meet the GNG, but if it doesn't the SNG offers no protection. It's mostly a political issue based on how popular the subject is (and that's OK; the Wikipedia is run by humans, so this is normal).

Occasionally the SNGs are stricter than the GNG and/or WP:RS. For instance, Wikipedia:MEDRES, which involves medical info here, is really strict, as is WP:BLP, particularly for fraught material.

Usually SNGs are more liberal, or just different. For WP:NBASEBALL the SNG is one single at bat in Major League Baseball. This is a pretty liberal rubric, and it means that several articles exist such as Jim Bilbrey, a permastub about a person about whom we know essentially nothing. How much that bothers one is up to the individual. The Wikipedian's Meditation describes our opinion, which some other editors may share.

Some subject standards are not SNGs but are essays: Wikipedia:NMILITARY for instance. It was never adopted as any kind of rule. It's just a guideline that that project uses.

Some subject standards are not even essays, but are merely de facto standards. We have (or could have) an article on every single biological genus, and woe betide the person who tries to delete them, even tho there's no written rule about this I don't think, and it means we have many articles exist such as Mitrulinia which are not great articles and don't come within 20 kilometers of meeting the GNG. Ditto for even the tiniest inhabited place, and some other stuff like that. Named geographical features. Every place on the America National Register of Historic Places (over one million properties), including places like American Sheet and Tin Mill Apartment Building. High schools. And so forth. Some of these are written down in various place, but mostly not.

8) Comics don't have an SNG, so the GNG is operative

WIKIPROJECT:COMICS doesn't have an SNG and it doesn't have to it editors don't want it. (In our opinion it should, but that's our opinion.) In which case it defaults to the GNG. That is the current guideline, we think: the GNG, since no alternative is specified.

So, the guideline is that articles that meet the GNG should be treated as assumed to probably be notable absent some cogent reason to hold otherwise. That'd be the minimum standard: meet the GNG, article is probably OK. Whether there should be a a more liberal standard, as many subjects have, is for later discussion.

(If for some reason WIKIPROJECT:COMICS wanted to have a higher standard than the GNG and/or WP:RS, it could do that also; but so far it hasn't, altho some editors appear to be operating on that principle. That is unusual and would put information about comics in a special category with medical advice and negative info on on living people as needing especial care and high standards. This would be appropriate if misinformation about comics would be especially harmful or dangerous to our readers compared to other subjects. Making that case would be heavy lifting we think, but maybe it can be done if editors want to try.)