[WikiEN-l] You're magically made an admin. What do you do?

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 9 May 2007, 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.

Web comics are on the web, and that also means they get *covered* on the web.
Our policy on sources prohibits using most of the coverage that web comics
receive.  That is a flaw with our policy, not with the webcomic articles.