Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 8 September 2007

Ed Conrad

Ed Conrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - 12:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 14 footnotes and not a reliable source among them. The only one that looked promising, the CNN search, does not actually return any results. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete delete, per nom Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The snowball deletes at this AfD shows why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Three-to-one could barely be considered consensus. WP:SNOW doesn't apply here. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeh. Make it three-to-two. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. You need to have a valid reason to keep the article. Epbr123 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - significant coverage in multiple independent sources so passes notability test. Gandalf61 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I notice you didn't say reliable. The blogs, forums and personal sites linked in the article aren't reliable sources. Epbr123 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that the standards for reliability for a claim of "notability" are a bit different (lower) than those for matters of, say, scientific fact. How reliable do you need for "people are talking about him"? Jeh 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You're talking about me; should I get an article? Have you read the notability guidelines? Epbr123 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • You have an article, it's called your User page. As for the notability guidelines, yes, I've read them, in particular this part. Did you try any of those other steps before your AfD? From the history on this page it would not appear so. Jeh 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Epbr - You don't seem to get it. The notability test establishes notability (see WP:N), regardless of reliability of sources (see WP:RS). These are separate policies. The article passes the notability test and should be FILLED OUT with reliable sources, content, links, etc. It should not be summarily deleted because no one has gotten around to cleaning it up yet. That's not how things work. --Cheeser1 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Epbr - Regarding the notability guidelines, I call your attention in particular to "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." That would be Notable Usenet personalities, of course. But you've posted an AfD for that article too! "Hmmm." Jeh 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This is my final word on the matter; WP:N states, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Epbr123 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:N also clearly states that you should attempt to improve the article, or ask others to improve it by adding appropriate tags. If that fails, you should merge it into a "broader article providing context." Only after all of these steps does it mention AfD as a next step. Jeh 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It also doesn't say "...and must be presumed not-notable if not significantly covered in reliable sources...". And your assertions regarding what Usenet related sources are reliable are not particularly reliable right at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - irritating, yes, but notable and referenced and verifyable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Unreliable sources. Epbr123 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates