Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad

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 keep. Maxim_(talk) 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Conrad

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

Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete, per nom Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Three-to-one could barely be considered consensus. WP:SNOW doesn't apply here. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeh. Make it three-to-two. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote. You need to have a valid reason to keep the article. Epbr123 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep PER JEH. I agree with Jeh. My reason is the same as his. There is also PLENTY of notability established for this user. Do not tell me I don't have a valid reason when I do. It is insulting and demonstrates the fact that you are more intent on making sure these articles get deleted than on discussing the issues at hand. I have assumed good faith as much as possible, but it appears that you're out to delete, regardless of anything or anyone in your way. --Cheeser1 03:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in multiple independent sources so passes notability test. Gandalf61 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - You're talking about me; should I get an article? Have you read the notability guidelines? Epbr123 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
Keep - irritating, yes, but notable and referenced and verifyable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreliable sources. Epbr123 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usenet and web site sources related to Usenet are reliable sources for events that have happened on Usenet. Usenet is not a reliable source for events happening outside Usenet. This is established Wikipedia precedent. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um ... so how is it an independent source then? Epbr123 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's like saying "So how are newspapers independent sources for discussing other newspapers?" Georgewilliamherbert 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't quite see what that's got to do with anything. Usenet can't be used as an indepndent source for Usenet users. Epbr123 01:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, the precedent is that Usenet is a reliable source for Usenet users and events. It's known and acknowledged that it's not "an independent type of media". Usenet is a transmission medium and set of groups and the contents of all those groups. Usenet as a primary source for Usenet's own events is a reliable source, per existing WP discussion and precedent. Newspapers may be reliable sources for events in the newspaper industry, and books for other books, and so forth. Usenet is considered a reliable source only to that extent, though, not for other topic areas outside itself. Georgewilliamherbert 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sure it can. Just as, for example, newspapers in Austria could be used as a reliable source for information about Austrians. And the fact that those Austrians were never mentioned in U.S. media would not detract from their notability. How is Usenet an independent source? It's independent of Ed Conrad. We can't use Usenet postings by Ed Conrad to establish his notability, but we can use postings by other people. Jeh 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Plus I think you are unfamiliar with the precedents surrounding Usenet pages because, rather than discuss notability or verifiability of these pages with their active editors, or even tagging it and waiting for a response, you swamped the AfD with these pages. If you're not familiar with this stuff, don't take it upon yourself to translate a possible WP:RS problem into a WP:N problem into a delete. --Cheeser1 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unreliable sources are NOT an excuse to go on a deletion rampage. If an article lacks reliable sources, you're supposed to tag it as unreferenced (or as poorly referenced). Notability and verifiability are NOT dependent on having the most reliable of sources. I've explained this to you several times now. WP:N and WP:RS are separate policies. Only one provides for deletion. --Cheeser1 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough sources for this one. Not great sourcing, but sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It looks like a fine article to me. DxMxD 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we want to adequately cover Usenet and its culture on Wikipedia, people like ED Conrad (or the others nominated for deletion) belong here. --Martin Wisse 10:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Jeh. Xihr 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as annoying as Ed is when dealing with him, I believe that notability is established by his significant presence, how well he's known across Usenet communities, his notoriety being what it is, of course, the fact that he has an alt.fan.* newsgroup created, and has a number of web sites dedicated to his kookery. - Nascentatheist 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.