David Gerard wrote:
"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/See what I mean about the dangers of reasoning from personal ignorance? Now I eagerly await objections that don't boil down to "but webcomics are worse for Wikipedia than Pokemon."
(Part of the webcomics debacle was an attempt to get Snowspinner excluded from webcomics deletion discussions because as an expert he was obviously biased on the subject. Not in any particular direction, but *by being an expert*.)
ImageText isn't a webcomics specific journal, and isn't the only comics journal out there, there's a lot of comics theory published in the Journal of Popular Culture and more importantly The International Journal of Comic Art, as well as The Comics Journal, which covers web comics. I fail to see what your point is David, and how it relates to the comments it purports to respond to. It seems to support them entirley, by arguing that such sources do exist which allow articles to be written.