Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Batts: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Hopsyturvy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Roodhouse1 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Delete''' She seems to be noted mainly because of one single incident, which itself does not really merit an independent article either (although it might merit mention in article on copyright and Internet, for example). --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' She seems to be noted mainly because of one single incident, which itself does not really merit an independent article either (although it might merit mention in article on copyright and Internet, for example). --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''no vote''' I should declare that although I nominated this, I could be said to have some tangential conflict of interest as a Wiley employee (although the incident actually had nothing to do with Wiley - the incident is described more accurately [[John_Wiley_%26_Sons#Notable|here]]). I nominated the article solely for notability, and because it had previously been put up for [[WP:PROD]]. But to keep things neutral, I won't participate in the debate. Thanks for your understanding, guys - stick a note on my talk page if you want to comment on this. [[User:Hopsyturvy|Hopsyturvy]] ([[User talk:Hopsyturvy|talk]]) 09:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
*'''no vote''' I should declare that although I nominated this, I could be said to have some tangential conflict of interest as a Wiley employee (although the incident actually had nothing to do with Wiley - the incident is described more accurately [[John_Wiley_%26_Sons#Notable|here]]). I nominated the article solely for notability, and because it had previously been put up for [[WP:PROD]]. But to keep things neutral, I won't participate in the debate. Thanks for your understanding, guys - stick a note on my talk page if you want to comment on this. [[User:Hopsyturvy|Hopsyturvy]] ([[User talk:Hopsyturvy|talk]]) 09:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''weak keep''' I think she is notable for the controversy surrounding her. I realize that the blogosphere is often not taken seriously by some people, but she appears to be notable in her field of blogging. However, perhaps this would be best suited if it were added to a section about controversy on a blog related article? I was watching Democracynow and they discussed how traditional media is trying to place a stranglehold on bloggers, so this might be good content for an article involving those issues. ([[User:Roodhouse1|Roodhouse1]] ([[User talk:Roodhouse1|talk]]) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)) |
|||
Revision as of 16:22, 31 July 2008
AfDs for this article:
- Shelley_Batts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not a notable blogger; practically nothing on google outside blogs/academic websites; no wikilinks to this page
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete She seems to be noted mainly because of one single incident, which itself does not really merit an independent article either (although it might merit mention in article on copyright and Internet, for example). --Crusio (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- no vote I should declare that although I nominated this, I could be said to have some tangential conflict of interest as a Wiley employee (although the incident actually had nothing to do with Wiley - the incident is described more accurately here). I nominated the article solely for notability, and because it had previously been put up for WP:PROD. But to keep things neutral, I won't participate in the debate. Thanks for your understanding, guys - stick a note on my talk page if you want to comment on this. Hopsyturvy (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
weak keep I think she is notable for the controversy surrounding her. I realize that the blogosphere is often not taken seriously by some people, but she appears to be notable in her field of blogging. However, perhaps this would be best suited if it were added to a section about controversy on a blog related article? I was watching Democracynow and they discussed how traditional media is trying to place a stranglehold on bloggers, so this might be good content for an article involving those issues. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC))