Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:41, 22 January 2018

Joshua Claybourn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see enough evidence of notability here. Legal work is not notable. Book on Lincoln is not yet published. Citations mostly appear to be articles by the subject, or in one case a non-reliable source, the three-sentence Hewitt post. Was AfDed in 2005, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn, and decision was delete. Not sure whether it was in fact deleted and reinstated later. Tacyarg (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The events in 2016 as a delegate justify notability (and occurred after the 2005 discussion), in addition to recent publication contract with a major university press.--IndyNotes (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the events of 2016 are not enough to establish notability. Being a delegate to a party convention is not grounds for notability, resigning as a delegate for a party convention, is even less a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment IndyNotes notified around 30 users who had nothing to do with editing or working on this article or the previous AfD (from thirteen years ago) of this nom; I don't know if this is a WP:CANVASS or a bot gone wrong or what it is; please explain IndyNotes. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain on your talk page. At some point you had commented and/or edited an article relating to the "Never Trump" movement and thus I thought you might be able to add input to the discussion. My apologies if I was in error.--IndyNotes (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I agree with John Pack Lambert that being a delegate to a party convention is not grounds for notability, but I think that resigning as a delegate for a party convention can be, depending on the circumstances. Resigning due to illness or a some low-level personal scandal, for example would obviously not cut it. Resigning in public protest of the nominee of your party, I would say, is a far more likely indicator of notability. bd2412 T 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, as for bd2412, because of resigning in protest over Biff. Also note that I'm unimpressed by the obvious CANVASSing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being summoned here by a template that is meant to be used for the article creator.^diff This subject is vaguely of interest to me and the article creator is anonymous. I am inclined to recommend it being kept, because there are sources, and the political aspect of this subject is minor and not the main claim for significance. But I won't put this in bold because of the WP:CANVASS policy. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why I was notified, but this clearly looks like a vanity page on a not-really-notable individual. john k (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think his historical work is sufficient to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Aside from Mr. Claybourn's published work, status as a Delegate, and his other notable characteristics, Josh was a key figure in the early Blogosphere. His main weblog was one of the most influential, read, and commented at, and he was also a major contributor to other weblogs. He had a major role in the Blogosphere, almost from its beginning. He has since achieved success, in many other ways. Pacificus (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article's deficiency lies with its weak introduction. That needs to be fleshed out more. The authorship history is of minor significance but when take together with the notable and high profile resignation as a delegate (covered extensively in the New York Times and CNN, among others), it makes this an easy determination.--YHoshua (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 * '''Delete''' -- I do not think his historical work is sufficient to make him notable. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * '''Strong keep''': Aside from Mr. Claybourn's published work, status as a Delegate, and his other notable characteristics, Josh was a key figure in the early [[Blogosphere]]. His main weblog was one of the most influential, read, and commented at, and he was also a major contributor to other weblogs. He had a major role in the Blogosphere, almost from its beginning. He has since achieved success, in many other ways. [[User:Pacificus|Pacificus]] ([[User talk:Pacificus|talk]]) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''': This article's deficiency lies with its weak introduction. That needs to be fleshed out more. The authorship history is of minor significance but when take together with the notable and high profile resignation as a delegate (covered extensively in the New York Times and CNN, among others), it makes this an easy determination.--[[User:YHoshua|YHoshua]] ([[User talk:YHoshua|talk]]) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)