Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closetspace

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 was delete per WP:WEB and the original concerns of the nominator not being addressed. --Coredesat 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closetspace

Closetspace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nominating in a package deal along with A Wish for Wings. Both are non-notable webcomics by the same author. Articles have existed for over three years (!) without ever being sourced. SubSeven 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weal delete as per my comment on the Wish for Wings debate. J Milburn 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are several situations where the notability rules are inappropriate and are causing large amounts of valuable information to be deleted. Bands and webcomics are the ones I am most familiar with. There are also repeated allegations by some that this author is being singled out over a disagreement over her past contributions to Texas highways. -- Strangelv 15:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I know for a fact that this comic is pretty big in TG circles - so I'm fairly certain that there is sourcing for this somewhere. I don't have the time to look for it, though. Incidentally, I also suggest that this might be related to the highway fiasco, given the suspicious timing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.202 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete. I don't want them here, you don't want them here. Get them the hell off Wikipedia so I can be done with this place. Jenn Dolari 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. - Notable and encyclopedic - Alison^✍ 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If she doesn't want it here, I don't want it here. Krisorey 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete at Author's Request. Hey, like Jenn said, this less mention of her, the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.152.12.78 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete at Author's Request. Once again, the cliques and Wikimobs are grabbing their torches and trying to burn down the webcomics section. This is one webcomic you won't be able to burn down again. --JBladen 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No matter that author agrees to deletion, in a fit of pique no doubt, at the deletion of her personal article. Jenn is no less noteworthy than many, and CS and WFW deserve being present... or WP would not be of encyclopedic comprehensiveness. plus, WTF do you want sourcing for that kind of stuff? What do you expect "quotable sources" to have to tell about webcomics and their authors? Or is wikipedia reserved to stuff that is already massively covered elsewhere so actually there is no real reason to consult it because you can easily look elsewhere? --Svartalf 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:WEB is the applicable guideline. SubSeven 20:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I find WP:WEB to be an excellent example of mass-market industrial age thinking that has no place on something as Internet oriented and community driven as Wikipedia (or for that matter, the 21st Century). -- Strangelv 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reiterated: Delete at Author's Request - Let's not have this page as yet another foothold for grudges. Deletion of Ms. Dolari's page would remove an important link from this page. Also, Ms. Dolari is weary of elitism and would prefer this article be gone. As a reader, I agree; a wiki cannot be all-inclusive, as that would require a level of self-management not possible in a human organization. If it is not being properly managed, I can see why she'd want to leave. Doc Mackie 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Understandable bitterness over inappropriate actions is not a good reason for more inappropriate actions. I for one do not share Dolari's wish to drive a stake into the heart of Wikipedia, especially with no shortage of people who are working so diligently at doing just that already, deliberately or otherwise. Wikipedia HAS demonstrated an ability to manage an impressive amount of inclusiveness. If you want an RIAA, MPAA, et c. centric list of notability, you have no shortage of alternate sources. Trying to turn Wikipedia into just another one is akin to torching the Library of Alexandria. -- Strangelv 18:47, 29 January 2007 (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.