On 5/9/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From what I saw, most of those the webcomic articles
-were- crud, and
that includes many that got kept. Most of them were trivially, if at
all, mentioned in any secondary reliable sources, they were full of
original research (effectively unfixable, due to that lack of
secondary sources), and the main arguments for keeping were ILIKEIT
from fans. If some webcomic is genuinely going to be of long-lasting,
truly encyclopedic value, it'll get covered by secondary sources, and
we can have an article. Until then, we don't need articles about
passing web fads.
I don't really disagree with any of that. But an article can be full
of original research, and be about a comic which isn't mentioned in
any secondary reliable sources, but still be useful.
It wouldn't be useful for Wikipedia, but still something I'd like to
have access to. It's actually a good example of the reason I'd like
to be able to access deleted articles. Useless in Wikipedia doesn't
mean useless altogether.
Anthony