Todd Allen 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.
Of course, never mind that our reliable source guideline is irresponsibly
tipped toward dead-tree media, and because of this, it allows for
arguments such as the one you've presented. As a result, we lose out on a
significant number of worthwhile articles, look like idiots when we speedy
an important webcomic, and lose a substantial amount of possible editors
who could a) improve our coverage in that topic area, and b) do things in
other subjects to improve things.
But sure, we can have it this way, too.
-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.