Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenn Dolari (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. No arguments to keep. --Coredesat 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenn Dolari

Jenn Dolari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

No reliable sources, no verifiability and therefore not notable, too. The text of the article was written by Jenn Dolari herself (Previous nomination) bogdan 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Please don't VfD this article just because the person it's about may contribute to it, it was initially created by a fan in the first place (hence a demonstration of notability). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:58, 2005 September 2 (UTC)" [1] Krisorey 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete, no indication subject passes WP:BIO. Also appears webcomics mentioned in article may fail WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 14:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO unless we have multiple independent sources. Bucketsofg 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The less mention of me there is on a site I've grown to loathe, the happier I am. Y'all wanna AFD the comics, too? Be my guest. Jenn Dolari 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why the heck am I pushing so hard for deletion? Simple. If people are going to keep putting this stuff for deletion, I'm gonna make sure it gets done, and I'm going to make sure I kill it myself. Y'all started it, and I'm gonna get it finished. Jenn Dolari 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I vote this only because Jenn wants it that way, and because I agree with her belief that Wikipedia has grown too pretentious for its own good. JBladen 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If she doesn't want it here, I don't want it here. Krisorey 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I vote for this because Jenn is a good person, and if she wants her information removed, than dang it she should ahve every right to make it happen. Dred Lily 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete At Jenn Dolari's personal request to me, I am also voting to delete this. 24.238.161.111 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject is not particularly notable, so it's probably a judgement call, and since the subject (and partial author) thinks it should be deleted, I'm voting delete. --Strange but untrue 08:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete How can something written BY THE PERSON, HERSELF have 'no reliable sources and no verifiability'? I've known Jenn, in person, for ten years, and I can verify it all... and by the way, who 'verifies' me or my writing? If I'd've written this same article instead of her writing it herself, it *might* have been OK? So she and her WEBcomics are (naturally) only known for their WEB presence, and that's evidently not sufficient. This is as opposed to Wikipedia's 'presence'? At any rate, I VOTE (despite those who want all the 'power' for themselves, and who do not want to listen to the mere audience who READS the article) to have Jenn's article deleted because SHE wants it that way, NOT because there isn't demand and merit. Wikipedia may appear useful and objective on the surface, but ultimately, it is just another web community with the underlying motivation being a power trip for a few select people. So much for Wikipedia's credibility. Unfortunately for those people, whether you delete or keep the article... Jenn 'wins'. That's pretty remarkable, considering all she was trying to do was get her info out there for those who are interested in her and her work. ...My edit of the main entry was admittedly accidental, but I can't say that it bothers me much at this point. xoxo
  • Delete To hell with your "this is not a ballot." Jenn has requested her own deletion, and she's got legions of fans who will follow her to the ends of the earth. "Not notable," my arse.
  • Delete Reluctantly, at the request of the subject, but this is the only one I'm going to play along with. I really hate the deletionist mindset of too many on Wikipedia. This isn't a paper encyclopedia. It is uniquely situated to be a repository of a wide expanse of cultural phenomena that may prove all to ephemeral in nature, with future historians struggling to find information -- this is perhaps nowhere more pronounced than with bands, especially ones in countries that don't have an equivalent of the Billboard 100 (so you're in country X, therefore you're non-notable by definition and must be deleted? The feedback I've gotten from some seems to be an unapologetic and resounding 'yes'). [snip flaming rant. I'm staying here and can't start burning bridges I may need to revisit.] Can we please stop trying to destroy Wikipedia? --Strangelv 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it seems rather silly to say 'delete' here when I just added content to the article. Re-write -- Strangelv 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-write Just because the subject of the page wants it deleted, should it be? If Harrison Ford or Vladimir Putin wanted their pages deleted should they be? That would leave a gap from references in other pages that linked there. The page is linked to by at least 8 other content pages. Rather than being deleted, the page should perhaps be rewritten and updated by another wiki user. For example, the current version doesn't list the subject's organising of the Transgender Day of Remembrance Webcomics Project (and I have just added a link to this on that page. --Laura Seabrook 25 January 2007 2:57 (GMT +10:00)
  • Delete If you're so upset that she wrote the article, delete it as she's asked you to. Seems like a win-win situation to me.-SLP65.65.111.228 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If Ms. Dolari isn't a public figure, as some would seem to suggest, then she has a right to privacy which includes protection against publicity of her private life. If she is a public figure, then aren't some of you just a bunch of pompous asses for trying to delete a entry just because you aren't personally familiar with its subject. Ms. Dolari is well known in the web comic community and has made many convention appearances. If, however, she doesn't want to be associated with Wikipedia anymore, then you should respect her wishes. --Wiscesq 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-write What Laura Seabrook said. I'm sorry Jenn's feeling are hurt at the VfD, but it seems to be a bit of an over-reaction. (Can someone pull their permissions to any information from Britannica, actually? That's an interesting question...) Jenn's editing of her own page aside, she's notable and I'd say to keep her. I understand her feelings to pretty much flip wikipedia the bird (and on a personal level, support it entirely). On an editor level, though, I think the page should stay. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

delete - I am disapointed that this disscussion even came up. I go out to Jenn's pages more often than I come here. Jenn asked to be deleted. I think she is more than noteworthy enough to be listed, but you may not be noteworthy enough to do the listing. The first entry argues that her web comics MIGHT fail? How could such an argument be taken seriously based on your own guidlines? GChapman.

  • Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "Jenn sent me." Coolgamer 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "Lets just delete this article so that someone not affiliated with the author can write a new stub in a few days and make the objectors happy. Honestly, I think the idea here is to add information and correct incorrect information, not delete it. Hey its me first discussion :)" structured_spirits
  • Abstain If I had my way I'd vote for Keep because Webcomics articles on Wikipedia are deleted too zealously and the entire Notability procedure needs to be completely overhauled. Anyway, I've been through that argument before. I personally think Jenn's reasons for wanting the articles about her work deleted are wrong - Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be allowed to delete his article just because he didn't like its content or Wikipedia. On the other hand, I have to respect Jenn's wishes however wrong her reasons. Lee M 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Whoever's taking charge of this portion of the wiki seems to have it in for the person who was working on the Texas roads list. Such personal vendettas are unbecoming. A request on the individual's part to withdraw articles about her seems prudent; it keeps the article from becoming a place for slander until the caretakers themselves are fully investigated. This crusade against Texas highway detailing must end, even if this is the only way to do it. - Doc Mackie 19:00, 25 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.