Welcome to "the robot is being worked on, so I'm writing essays on webcomics at work while waiting for it to come back online".
I haven't checked lately, but I thought the capital-V vanity pages get deleted relativly quickly. Hm, as a random selectionâ€¦ let's look at the letter L:
. . . on Keenspot and active is good enough for me . . .
The criteria for notable websites, discussed some in the talk page, are that the webcomic not just be "On Keenspot and active" -- it has to be notable. Published elsewhere. Widely recognized. When I went through the list cataloguing comics by Alexa rank, I didn't see a whole lot of Keenspot, but I was startled by the huge number of comics with an Alexa rank way down in the hundred thousands or millions ("Alexa rank of below than 100,000 or 250,000" was mentioned as a possible disqualifier, problematic because it made it hard to evaluate Keenspot comics).
See some discussion here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_webcomics#list_concerns
Notably, the writer thinks that most Keenspot comics don't merit encyclopedia articles, and mentions some way of judging popularity. The notability criteria for websites mention that it's notable if it's "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." But I'm not sure if collectives like Keenspot qualify, especially when they get really big. They might, but it would lead to a lot of Wikipedia articles about comics very few people have read.
I found it interesting that there are about 20 comics with an Alexa rank above the total for Keenspot itself. Hate to look at bad Alexa data so much, but it's the only game in town.
Here's my list of the top comics by Alexa rank, as of a couple weeks ago:
1. Penny Arcade
4. User Friendly
5. VG Cats
6. Questionable Content
8. Sluggy Freelance
9. Least I Could Do
10. 8-Bit Theater
I only covered about a third of the list while building my stats, but very rarely did I find a comic I hadn't heard of that made it near the top 10, so I think that's a reasonably good estimate. Below the top 50 or so (of which xkcd is probably one), there are still another 50+ webcomics with a traffic rank above 250,000, and a good chunk of the comics on that list fall far below THEM.
Of course, traffic alone can't be a disqualifier for Wikipedia inclusion, but it gives some hints when you're not sure what else to go on. They speicifically mention in the discussion that a comic that has around 500 readers isn't really notable, and ditto for a comic being a patron to a small community. I think a lot of the comics on that list don't really get much past that. Compare to something like Dinosaur Comics's or Toothpaste for Dinner's tens of thousands of regular readers, hundreds of thousands of uniques a month, Alexa ranks of 20k-10k, LJ feeds with over a thousand subscribers, etc. And those two aren't even in the top 10. For comparison, xkcd has somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 regular readers, about 750 LJ subscribers, and an Alexa rank of about 40k (probably going up now with the recent Boingboinging/JWZ-ing). But yeah, influence and impact is a big part of it, which is hard for me to judge for comics I'm not too familiar with.
I'm just thinking it would be neat to have a few more pages that came up when you googled 'xkcd' that weren't the 10,000 blog posts saying "check out this webcomic it iz hot", and actually gave you some more context for the comic.
[Using Wikipedia to check comics out] Makes sense, altho it doesn't really take all that much time to actually check it out yourself instead.
Well, I mean aside from the site itself. Wikipedia articles are nice for getting context, finding out if there's anything big you're missing, and generally just getting a perspective. Plus, you learn trivia the author didn't intend to put on their own site. I know I like reading Wikipedia articles about comics/things I know about/read regularly. And a lot of the time people are bad about making assumptions about what you're gonna understand or what will seem obvious or understandable about a site/project, just 'cause they're so familiar with it, and checking out the site itself doesn't always give you a good feel for what it's all about.