Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Robinson

Jim Robinson

Ok, we've been having a bit of a dispute about this one; you may (or may not, since most of it is not about the merits of the article, but about the fact that I tried to merge it) want to visit the [[Talk:Jim Robinson|talk page] to see some history of the debate. Jim is notable only, as far as I can tell, for his website Free Republic, and I feel most of the information on this page (e.g. allegations that money donated to Free Republic was used improperly) really belongs on that page. As we have been unable to discuss this effectively up to this point, I'm putting it on VfD, so that a) we can get more eyes looking at it, and b) perhaps we can have a real discussion about the merits of the article, rather than the politics surrounding my abortive attempt at merging it.

Actually JC, the "dispute" on this one is largely a unilateral creation of your own activity. You have been asked many times by both myself and others on the discussion page of this article at Talk:Jim Robinson to argue your case for the merging you seek. Rather than responding, your activity thus far has centered around your personal disputes with another wikipedia editor and unnecessarily combative rants about how you believe that editor to have wronged you in some way. As may be also seen from that discussion, not only have you resisted those requests to make your case, preferring instead to pursue your combative personal disputes with other editors, you have also largely ignored and neglected the views of other participants in that discussion who have made a case AGAINST your unilaterally exercised decision to merge the two articles. As of the last count, participants in that discussion who opposed your merging outnumbered those who supported it. Rangerdude 04:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Rangerdude, dammit, will you please stop trying to make the discussion center around me and the oh-so-evil unilateral merge I did when I tried to be bold rather than the merits of the article? I brough the dispute here because you couldn't help repeatedly attacking me on the talk page, hoping that perhaps you might see that this is the VfD page, and discussion here should be about whether articles should be deleted/merged/kept.

Thankyou. To the rest of you, my apologies for the outburst. --Jonathan Christensen 04:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JC - Whether you admit it or not, both of your merges were indeed unilateral and the second was made AFTER the first was reverted and you were asked by several people to justify your desire to change it. Furthermore, your "bold" action came barely even half an hour after the article's creation, meaning most people did not even have the time to see it before you went about changing it. I gave you several opportunities to make your case as did others. You refused them all. Pointing that fact out is not "attacking" you, JC, even though it is criticizing you for failing to work with others on a proposed change and failing to even acknowledge the fact that most of the people who weighed in on the talk page were against your position. You are also wrong that the VfD page should include discussions about whether articles should be merged. Wikipedia's VfD policy EXPLICITLY says that VfD's are NOT the way to handle merge requests. This has also been pointed out to you both here and on the talk page of the Jim Robinson article, but just like you ignored everybody else's request that you justify your two unilateral mergings, you've also chosen to ignore the fact that you posted a VfD tag in conflict with wikipedia policy over what you seek to do. You complain that the discussion has turned to you now, but did you have any reason to expect that it wouldn't? The discussion turned to you because you are the only one editing the Jim Robinson page who refuses to participate in it as a collaborative consensus-based effort and basically ignores everybody else there. Instead you just plow ahead with whatever you damn well please even when standing objections have been raised against your actions. You need to learn to work with other people, JC. That is my point. Rangerdude 05:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So please, chime in. For the time being, I vote merge: the information is good, but most of it belongs on the other page. --Jonathan Christensen 06:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As User:Rangerdude is all huffed that my use of VfD in this case is inappropriate because I voted merge, I hereby officially change my vote to delete. Careful what you wish for, my fine friend. --Jonathan Christensen 04:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That being the case, then you need to delete this article, reformulate a completely NEW VfD request in compliance with the Wikipedia VfD Guide, and post it with the new tag and your vote. Changing the question on the ballot midway through the discussion necessarily corrupts the results. I anticipate and hope you will politely comply with this in short order. Otherwise others will have to do it for you. Rangerdude 05:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Free Republic. The site is notable, he is only notable because of the site. The controversy stuff is interesting, but is about the site as much as the man. --bainer 06:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - no on merge and redirect. As I noted on Talk:Jim_Robinson where this discussion should be taking place per wikipedia policy, there is extensive precedent for having two different articles for well known political website owners and their websites/blogs etc. Among the many examples are:

• The Daily Kos blog and owner Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
• The Drudge Report and owner Matt Drudge
• The Little Green Footballs blog and owner Charles Johnson
• Power Line (blog) and its owners John_H._Hinderaker and Scott_W._Johnson

• So long as this is done on other similar websites no valid reason exists to treat this one any differently. Rangerdude 17:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This request is a VfD Abuse

In reviewing the wikipedia VfD policy, I am of the belief that this entire exercise is an abuse of VfD. As I understand it,, the Wikipedia VfD Guide clearly states:

Before nominating an article please check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion, consider whether you are actually wanting the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of VFD

Furthermore, this request conflicts with the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, which SPECIFICALLY lists proposed merging among its table of problems that DO NOT require a deletion and should not be resolved via VfD. In light of this and pending no other good reason to continue this process, the VfD tag placed on this article needs to be removed in compliance with the VfD process. The merge that JC apparently seeks, but which the majority of editors on that discussion page to date have opposed, should be debated there. Rangerdude 04:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll be glad to change my vote to delete, then. Problem solved! --Jonathan Christensen 04:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. This man is only notable for the Website he runs; I therefore see no reason for there to be two separate articles. As to Daily Kos et al, I feel that he and his Website are not as familiar to most folks as the others. Although, for that matter, I'm not entirely sure that their webmasters need their own article either. As to the VfD, it's true that merging is not usually a reason to list on VfD, but considering that the redirecter and the person who keeps reverting the redirects have been unable to come to an agreement, it is appropriate, I think, to put the matter to the general populace. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • Katefan0 - at least three separate people have attempted to get the individual who desires a merger to even discuss the matter without devolving into him taking personal shots at some other editor on the Free Republic article. They include myself, User:Wakeforest, and User:Casito. A fourth, User:ObsidianOrder also stated his concurrence with keeping a separate article. As I noted to you previously on the discussion page of this article, there has been no deficit in the "general populace" on that discussion page and in fact the only impasse seems to be generated by user:Jonathan Christensern, who inappropriately started this whole VfD thing because he wasn't getting his way over on the article itself. The way I see it, this entire exercise is neither in compliance with wikipedia policy for merges (which entails placing a separate and distinct merge tag in the event that one is desired - not a VfD, which is ONLY for articles to be deleted) nor necessary given that the article itself has attracted a full and thorough field of participating editors, among whom only ONE exercises anything that could even reasonably be described as an impasse, and that only because at least four other people have opposed his decision to unilaterally merge the two articles without any discussion, which he still BTW refuses to participate in. Rangerdude 20:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, just as I am mine. I don't have much else to say so I'll just refer to my comments above. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • • It's fine to have opinions, Katefan, but it doesn't justify a VfD request that's in violation of wikipedia procedures. If JC wants to make his proposed changes he needs to take them up on the talk page and, if necessary, put a merge tag on rather than VfD. IF upon following that process it is decided by consensus of the participants on the talk page that the two should be merged, it can then be done. If not, JC needs to respect the consensus to leave it as it is. That consensus was present on the talk page when he put up this VfD tag, with a solid majority there supporting the decision to make the articles separate. Not liking the outcome of an editing discussion is no basis to paste frivolous and improperly placed tags on an article. Rangerdude 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Founder of Free Republic makes him notable enough in my book. That is where the discrepancies in the documents in the Sixty Minutes II story on George W. Bush's alleged problems with the Texas National Guard. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)