Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ugly Hill

~I just signed up for a wikipedia account tonight, the same night that news first reached me that the wiki entry for "ugly hill" was teetering on the cusp of deletion. the actual discussion page has been semiprotected, so i cannot express my two cents there for another four days, and by then the page may have been deleted. may i just say that, if i understand things properly, wikipedia has a policy stating that to retain an article ugly hill must be recognized by outside media. but that stands in opposition to the primary reason i come to wikipedia. if an enterprise was well documented in other media then i would have little need to look it up here, there would be countless of other sources to go to. as a user built forum it lends itself to containing factoids that lean to the fringes of media. i don't mean to say that i feel wikipedia should be a vast supercomputer, filled with every conceivable bit of information that ever was. i'd rather read about webcomics in a magazine, but since i don't have that option i come here to research. you may not care much, but i think that your policy is faulty, and may benefit from some careful revision. Nicholas cox 09:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)nicholas cox

~Merge I am a fan of this comic, yes. I don't believe this comic is notable enough to have it's own chapter in the annals of history. Any knowledge to be gained from a wiki-article about this comic can be summed up in one sentence and a link to the actual web page. However, I do believe it notable enough to deserve at least a footnote in those annals of history. Some webcomics have and are making history in their medium. This one, while enjoyable and of immensely high quality has necissarily evolved the medium. It has however helped increase the standard of quality of that medium. Mkahmvet 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)-