Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex wrekk

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex wrekk

Vanity/non-notable Drdisque 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. read [this entry http://www.livejournal.com/users/alanlastufka/29817.html]

Her last book sold almost 3,000 copies. Whether she thought it would be cool to have a page or not, her work is worth noting. -Alan

• I agree with Dr. Disque, to clarify that: delete. I know people who sold more pamphlets than that, but they're not notable outside a narrow and geographical group. 00:09, 11 December 2005 Iinag

Delete per nom. PJM 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The zine and DIY communities are a lot more vital and important than you seem to realize, linag. Wrekk's contributions to these are quite far-reaching both through her own projects and through her involvement with Microcosm Publishing. Any DIY book as popular as Stolen Sharpie Revolution is a force to be reckoned with. Jim 07:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Mm, I am a big fan of the independent media, Jim; but, we don't even have articles for everyone in the mainstream media: what sort of road would we be going down, as an encyclopædia, to just list everyone who has blogged and had some 'influence.' Under such a thing, you would have a page, as would I; although it might sound nice, it would be rather absurd, since it does not take that much to get a circle. The concensus here seems to be that unless someone is noted in their field, or has had their work catapulted into public conciousness, or their work linked notably to a major event, they don't cut the mustard, so to speak. 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Iinag

• so like we can totally get away with [1][Aaron Cometbus' Page] but Alex cant even get away with like a paragraph without some dudes who dont know shit about zines jumping down our throats? Sounds busted to me. I donno but girl selling out of 3 press runs of her zine sounds pretty fucking influential in these days of 'blogs' and 'e-zines' A girl who put a lot of herself into such awesome, well known, and vital projects such as Portland Zine Symposium and Independent Publishing Resource Center, and one of like 5 people in the world who can call zines a paid career. This isn't just some random kid with a 100 press run zine that people are into for 5 minutes. Pollyvomit 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And what did your confrontational commentary achieve? PJM 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Right, i have cleaned up and wikified the article, but i vote delete, as per everyone else. If Stolen Sharpie Revolution is so significant and popular, then why is it a red link? In fact, the only subject specific blue link is Microcosm Publishing, which is a bad, jumbled article that i am not sure is encyclopaedic itself. Furthermore, Alex wrekk (which should be moved to Alex Wrekk) is an orphan page, which doesn't convince me of its importance. Merge to Microcosm Publishing if anyone else deems any of this info notable, i guess. Jdcooper 14:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.