Harsh, but well deserving of it ;3
I'm really not for persecution or anything, but the CAD wiki article was a disgrace. It was ran by a fan of Buckley, and practically the only way of avoiding any bad rap to the webcomic was to put almost no information at all. Seriously, there was like one sentence for each subtitle. The guy was so paranoid about trolling that he never bothered to put any useful (or third-party-sourced) information, so it was a waste.
I wonder if I could get 2K's one deleted…
I don't think so. They take better care of it than the CAD one. Though nobody would die if they gave it a nicer format. It could use a couple of bullet points or subtitles. And they better start hunting for some reliable sources, or they be deleted for lack of notability.
And they better start hunting for some reliable sources, or they be deleted for lack of notability.
I fragged Imsy's one with that, why shouldn't work it here?
I don't think most of these webcomics deserve Wikipedia articles at all if truth be told. I mean, most only have relevance on the Internet, with only a few (Penny Arcade specifically) being notable enough to regularly show up off the Internet.
Then again, they mentioned the Bad Webcomics Wiki under "trolling", so I guess it doesn't take much notoriety to get a mention in a Wikipedia article.
I can see award winning webcomics getting articles and ones written by notable artists
They would have to be actual awards, though. None of those "HURR TIHS IS MY AWARD FOR BEST WEBOMICS EVARRRR" bullshit ones that a lot of webcomicists seem to think are legitimate.