Don't misinterpret what I'm saying, I dislike Wikipedia's methodology and I refuse to donate to suppor them, but...
They have a clearly established set of community guidelines, and after reviewing all of the referenced guidelines, I'd have to say that TWB is not qualified to have it's own Wiki page. A reference on a page talking about paintball, polar bears, or webcomics, sure.
What really chafes me about the site is actually the fact that they are not an encyclopedia of general public information like people would like to believe they are. Simply put, if a tree fell, Wikipedia wouldn't hear it unless the rest of the world did, which is an unfortunate gaping hole, as many have argued when discussing deletion of articles. There is a wealth of information that cannot exist of Wikipedia simply because there is no logical way by the guidelines to classify and present that data.
If I wanted to write an article with in depth details about how the Army converts three M35A2 trucks into two M35A3 trucks in overhaul, I could write it and even source my references to Army publications and public information. But that article would eventually be canned, NOT for lack of information, but for lack of publication references in current publications. Never mind the fact that it happened, and has valid mechanical information and historical value.
The simple fact is that Wikipedia is more of a "Topics of Interest" medium rather than a true encyclopedia of knowledge.