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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)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.
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.