On 5/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've never refused to userfy a deleted article on request, if someone really thinks they can bring it up to snuff or wants a copy to use elsewhere. The only circumstances in which I could think that I would refuse would be if the deleted article were a copyvio or BLP issue, or if the person has a history of recreating deleted articles.