A few days ago I posted a request for comment on wikipedia's efforts to convert more readers into editors. In one of the comments, alicebentley brought my attention to this post, expressing frustration that an article for the comic Wapsi Square, had reappeared after an earlier deletion and was almost immediately nominated for deletion again. (note: the author seemed equally unhappy about both the re-creation and the proposed deletion of the article).
Against the expressed wishes of that post, I found myself defending the article's importance on the wikipedia discussion of whether or not to delete the page. Then I went to look at the behavior of the wikipedia editor who had nominated it to be deleted, Guest9999. He had also nominated another webcomic article to be deleted, about The Suburban Jungle. That one didn't seem *as* significant as Wapsi Square, but it's a Furry webcomic and they don't get a lot of media attention. That doesn't mean they aren't as significant as, say, a specific episode or character of a major TV show, many of which have their own wikipedia pages.
Later, however, I noticed that Guest9999 had also proposed the page for Plan 9 Publishing for deletion. Again without bothering to tag the page for lack of citations. I joined the debate on that deletion with a will; I have books on my shelves from Plan 9 publishing, and know from interactions with Pete Abrams at Michigan cons years ago how influential that company (the original publisher of Sluggy Freelance paperbacks) was. However, I've also noted from another comment on my request for comments that webcomics are an area not strongly supported on wikipedia, since a series of past conflicts about material being deleted discouraged people from trying. So I don't know how many active editors would actually be willing to join the debate, which basically stems from Guest9999's inability to find 'independent, reliable sources' to verify the article.
Which is really just another side of the 'Notability' debate, but with a new way of arguing that not being covered in traditional media means something doesn't deserve to have an article.