| Revision as of 13:48, 5 December 2006 editCipherswarm (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers176 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:50, 5 December 2006 edit undoYandman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,709 edits →[]: ad-homNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| *'''Delete''' Blogging is not notable, inventing a word is not notable, delete. more vanity blogcruft ] 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Blogging is not notable, inventing a word is not notable, delete. more vanity blogcruft ] 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Blogging is indeed notable. Despite attempts to vandalize Misplaced Pages, the nominatee has been banned indefinitely. Notable pages about notable people should not be kept on the chopping block. ] 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Blogging is indeed notable. Despite attempts to vandalize Misplaced Pages, the nominatee has been banned indefinitely. Notable pages about notable people should not be kept on the chopping block. ] 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't think he's been blocked ''depite'' attempts to vandalise Misplaced Pages... That's ad-hominem, by the way. ] 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:50, 5 December 2006
Tony Pierce
- Tony Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This AfD is the result of the first, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce being restarted due to being unsalvagable by trolls. As such, I must (regrettably) sprotect this page for the duration. --Deskana talk 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO hard. Vanity and self-promotion. Apparently this guy did nothing in his life except writing in blogs. Femmina 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete User is non-notable sufferer of chronic blogharrea. Recomend speedy deletion followed by all of us making a very minor effort to forget he ever existed .d2america
- Delete Please see my reasons from the first page. --lesalle 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- For clarity, Lysol, I request that you dig up the reasons and write them on this page. --Deskana talk 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I don't want to toot my own horn here, but I'm a pretty notable blogger--I don't want to mention my name just in case these trolls decide to screw with my shit, but this guy just isn't notable. He's a nobody hack. I've never even heard of him before today. --lesalle 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- For clarity, Lysol, I request that you dig up the reasons and write them on this page. --Deskana talk 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article needs to be rewritten, but its subject is notable, and, contrary to several comments above, does meet WP:BIO (even though this is not a requirement to keep the article). He has been the subject of published works, such as this article in the New York Times. He has won awards in his field, which is notable.
It should be noted that there appear to be an extraordinary number of suspicious votes (WP:SOCK);it should also be noted that there is a concentrated effort to delete all blogging-related articles, without regard for notability or for following Misplaced Pages's guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) - Keep - First it should be noted that before the nominator was blocked indefinitely for being a troll, they demonstrated an extreme bias against blogs. . Now to duplicate my original comment: As bloggers go, he appears popular, popular enough that G4tv interviewed him . --Oakshade 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Though they may not be definitive tests, neither nor Special:Whatlinkshere/Tony_Pierce suggest Tony Pierce is notable enough to justify having a wikipedia article. TerraFrost 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- For clarity, TerraFrost, I request that you dig up the reasons and write them on this page. --Deskana talk 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - 1) This AFD appears to be part of a concentrated and definitely NPOV effort to remove blogging related pages from Misplaced Pages. 2) Tony Pierce meets the Misplaced Pages qualifications as an award winning and notable figure within his field, as a published writer and as the subject of media interest. 3) The article does need a re-write - which this process should have began with, in the first place. Glowimperial 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As per my previous comments, nothing in Mr, Pierce's missive on the other page is notable. Many people have shelves full of minor awards. Many people have contributed on the editorial staff of some small school or local periodical. Many people have kept diaries and influenced others to do the same. Many people have been interviewed by mid-market media for insights on their niche interests. None of the above, even in combination, is notable, and as such neither is Mr. Pierce's bio. Tfg 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep His blog meets WP:WEB given the number of other sources talking about him. JoshuaZ 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:WEB is not a set of guidelines for the notability of people (including bloggers), but a set of guidelines for the notability of web content (including blogs). It should have no bearing on the discussion.
- If his blog is notable then we should have an article about his blog. What do you know? This would do nicely for it. Whether we have the article at his name or at his blog is a matter of semantics and not a reason to keep or delete. In either case the content should stay. What to call the article can be addressed after the AfD. JoshuaZ 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- This wouldn't do nicely for it; this article is about the blogger, not the blog, and I think the article fails WP:BIO, the guideline most apropos for this article, in every way. I would argue that by WP:WEB, his blog is not notable, either, but that, again, is not relevant to the discussion. We're not discussing an article about his blog. Tfg 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If his blog is notable then we should have an article about his blog. What do you know? This would do nicely for it. Whether we have the article at his name or at his blog is a matter of semantics and not a reason to keep or delete. In either case the content should stay. What to call the article can be addressed after the AfD. JoshuaZ 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:WEB is not a set of guidelines for the notability of people (including bloggers), but a set of guidelines for the notability of web content (including blogs). It should have no bearing on the discussion.
- Delete After reading the article, I'm not convinced that this deserves its own Wiki entry. Having inspired others to create their own blogs is not sufficient. Perhaps when Tony truly does something substantial for humanity I will feel differently. Mattucd 04:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per Mattucd; clearly not-notable. Jmax- 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He is a well known editor and writer who happens to use the blog form. In Los Angeles he is very well known.Metrofeed
- And he's well known, too! Mattucd 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- In what way is he well-known in LA? BCoates 11:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- And he's well known, too! Mattucd 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or at least rewrite. The article reads like a resume with very little that can be verified. If the notability of the person is from awards and external sources, then they should be cited. Jaydjenkins 04:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's notable within his field, which just happens to be blogging. That blogging is considered a niche by some - or is unpopular with a select group - is not grounds for deletion. --Sprhodes 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But how is he notable? That is what the article is missing. If I were to replace blogging with knitting does he deserve an entry? If he has inspired people to blog, who are they and how has he inspired them? Are they notable? Jaydjenkins 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The ways in which he's notable have been mentioned repeatedly here... From my perspective your question argues for a re-write and the addition of citations, but not for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprhodes (talk • contribs)
- Comment I would certainly agree with a rewrite if there could be some notability (not to be confused with notariety) from independent sources. Articles linked to in the discussion and in the article only mention Mr. Pierce in passing. One could receive as much mention being interviewed in line for a PS3 (no offense intended). Jaydjenkins 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The ways in which he's notable have been mentioned repeatedly here... From my perspective your question argues for a re-write and the addition of citations, but not for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprhodes (talk • contribs)
- Comment But how is he notable? That is what the article is missing. If I were to replace blogging with knitting does he deserve an entry? If he has inspired people to blog, who are they and how has he inspired them? Are they notable? Jaydjenkins 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mikemill 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and enough reasons have already been stated. I also do not appriciate that the front page of Digg implies that anyone who votes delete on this article is a troll. - Abscissa 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Wil Wheaton lost a lot of my respect when I read that. Tfg 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP Same reasons as last time, same reservations as well. Sean Bonner 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- And those would be? Jmax- 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Same ones I listed the first time I voted on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce Sean Bonner 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Blook, which nobody has proposed be deleted... if that's encyclopedic, then surely Tony Pierce's
connection to the origin of that term makes him notable enough for inclusion? At worst maybe it suggest merging the Tony Pierce stuff into the Blook entry? --Sprhodes 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Just because there have been no discussion on a related article's relevancy does not affect the discussion here. Jmax- 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Most bloggers are not notable. Some are and he is not one of them. --Ineffable3000
- Keep He has been the subject of multiple "non-trivial" works. Further, the article is informative. --Falcorian 06:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - g4tv has also mentioned GNAA, and that was chosen to be deleted. Therefore, I believe a precedence has been set that being the subject of a non-trivial work, does not make one notable. Jmax- 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. --Jeff 06:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable. Awards have been from very minor sources and publications. Viscid 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable and vanity. Self-proclaimed 'blogfather', never had a job and never achieved anything except a passing reference for some of his blog-related activities. --timecop 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Individual made no notable innovation in the field, nor was the first to blog. Article is mere vanity fluff, and the efforts of the noted individual to keep the page up is only further proof of his desperation for fame and noteriety. LordFate 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - For one thing, a lot of people end up on G4TV and do not belong on here. My friend, Brian has appeared on G4 before, and he is certainly not notable to end up on Misplaced Pages, save for a piece of software he wrote. There is nothing notable about this particular individual. :: Colin Keigher (Talk)
08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. yandman 09:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this mix of original research, puffery and resume padding. Note: books available form Cafepress are self-published. This is almost certainly vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly, the blog as a media format is not going to be going away any time soon. As a blogger prominent enough to have won a Bloggie Award at SXSW, this article should be kept. No doubt that in years future, there will be numerous wikipedia cross-links for articles on Bloggy Award winners in various years and categories. In fact, there already is an entry for the Bloggie Awards. --Barneyg 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As a blog is, and always will be, self produced original content involving only oneself, most bloggers will probably always fail Misplaced Pages's notability reqs, unless there's something really special about it like Matt Drudge. I could go start the Jeffy awards and give myself an award; does that entitle me to a wikipedia article? --Jeff 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO and smacks of vanity and self-promotion. Eusebeus 11:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VSCA. Don't see any good reason why such a person deserves an article here on Misplaced Pages. Terence Ong 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Blogging is not notable, inventing a word is not notable, delete. more vanity blogcruft Adamn 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Blogging is indeed notable. Despite attempts to vandalize Misplaced Pages, the nominatee has been banned indefinitely. Notable pages about notable people should not be kept on the chopping block. Cipherswarm 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think he's been blocked depite attempts to vandalise Misplaced Pages... That's ad-hominem, by the way. yandman 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)