Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce (second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Luna Santin 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Pierce

[edit]
Tony Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This AfD is the result of the first, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce being restarted due to being unsalvagable by trolls. As such, I must (regrettably) sprotect this page for the duration. --Deskana talk 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There appear to be a lot of sleeper accounts being used here, though curiously, they don't seem to all express the same opinion as one might expect. --Deskana talk 13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO hard. Vanity and self-promotion. Apparently this guy did nothing in his life except writing in blogs. Femmina 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Please see my reasons from the first page. --lesalle 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity, Lysol, I request that you dig up the reasons and write them on this page. --Deskana talk 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I don't want to toot my own horn here, but I'm a pretty notable blogger--I don't want to mention my name just in case these trolls decide to screw with my shit, but this guy just isn't notable. He's a nobody hack. I've never even heard of him before today. --lesalle 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be rewritten, but its subject is notable, and, contrary to several comments above, does meet WP:BIO (even though this is not a requirement to keep the article). He has been the subject of published works, such as this article in the New York Times. He has won awards in his field, which is notable. It should be noted that there appear to be an extraordinary number of suspicious votes (WP:SOCK); it should also be noted that there is a concentrated effort to delete all blogging-related articles, without regard for notability or for following Wikipedia's guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First it should be noted that before the nominator was blocked indefinitely [1] for being a troll, they demonstrated an extreme bias against blogs. [2]. Now to duplicate my original comment: As bloggers go, he appears popular, popular enough that G4tv interviewed him [3]. --Oakshade 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though they may not be definitive tests, neither [4] nor Special:Whatlinkshere/Tony_Pierce suggest Tony Pierce is notable enough to justify having a wikipedia article. TerraFrost 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1) This AFD appears to be part of a concentrated and definitely NPOV effort to remove blogging related pages from Wikipedia. 2) Tony Pierce meets the Wikipedia qualifications as an award winning and notable figure within his field, as a published writer and as the subject of media interest. 3) The article does need a re-write - which this process should have began with, in the first place. Glowimperial 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - He is not a 'published writer'. He has some self-published books on cafepress. Those don't count. --timecop 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - He is a published writer - aside from his self-published works, he is paid to blog by Gothamist and his writing is published by them on a daily basis. While his individual posts may not be Gravity's Rainbow or anything, the body of his professional work is published online. I really don't see the difference between his gig and that of a magazine or newspaper writer. Glowimperial 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Are you suggesting that every magazine or newspaper writer in the world get their own Wikipedia article? cacophony 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I am not. I would think it appropriate for writers who are pioneering in their field or those who have won the field's major awards be considered to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I still lean towards a "Weak Keep" on this on the basis of notability. Glowimperial 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - And what, praytell, official blogging institute gave him this "major award"? What? It's just some random guy? Okay. cacophony 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - He's been the recipient of a "bloggy" award as part of the SXSW Interactive conference for his widely distributed post "How to Blog". That's the closest thing the blogging community really has to a major award right now (that I can think of) - as I've stated before it's a new, developing field. 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
further comment - for reference, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry regarding blog awards. According to Wikipedia, "The best known set of blog awards are the Bloggies". Glowimperial 04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per my previous comments, nothing in Mr, Pierce's missive on the other page is notable. Many people have shelves full of minor awards. Many people have contributed on the editorial staff of some small school or local periodical. Many people have kept diaries and influenced others to do the same. Many people have been interviewed by mid-market media for insights on their niche interests. None of the above, even in combination, is notable, and as such neither is Mr. Pierce's bio. Tfg 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His blog meets WP:WEB given the number of other sources talking about him. JoshuaZ 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:WEB is not a set of guidelines for the notability of people (including bloggers), but a set of guidelines for the notability of web content (including blogs). It should have no bearing on the discussion.
      • If his blog is notable then we should have an article about his blog. What do you know? This would do nicely for it. Whether we have the article at his name or at his blog is a matter of semantics and not a reason to keep or delete. In either case the content should stay. What to call the article can be addressed after the AfD. JoshuaZ 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This wouldn't do nicely for it; this article is about the blogger, not the blog, and I think the article fails WP:BIO, the guideline most apropos for this article, in every way. I would argue that by WP:WEB, his blog is not notable, either, but that, again, is not relevant to the discussion. We're not discussing an article about his blog. Tfg 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading the article, I'm not convinced that this deserves its own Wiki entry. Having inspired others to create their own blogs is not sufficient. Perhaps when Tony truly does something substantial for humanity I will feel differently. Mattucd 04:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Mattucd; clearly not-notable. Jmax- 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a well known editor and writer who happens to use the blog form. In Los Angeles he is very well known.Metrofeed
  • Delete or at least rewrite. The article reads like a resume with very little that can be verified. If the notability of the person is from awards and external sources, then they should be cited. Jaydjenkins 04:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    — Possible single purpose account: Jaydjenkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs) Jaydjenkins 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable within his field, which just happens to be blogging. That blogging is considered a niche by some - or is unpopular with a select group - is not grounds for deletion. --Sprhodes 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But how is he notable? That is what the article is missing. If I were to replace blogging with knitting does he deserve an entry? If he has inspired people to blog, who are they and how has he inspired them? Are they notable? Jaydjenkins 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The ways in which he's notable have been mentioned repeatedly here... From my perspective your question argues for a re-write and the addition of citations, but not for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprhodes (talk • contribs)
        • Comment I would certainly agree with a rewrite if there could be some notability (not to be confused with notariety) from independent sources. Articles linked to in the discussion and in the article only mention Mr. Pierce in passing. One could receive as much mention being interviewed in line for a PS3 (no offense intended). Jaydjenkins 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mikemill 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and enough reasons have already been stated. I also do not appriciate that the front page of Digg implies that anyone who votes delete on this article is a troll. - Abscissa 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Same reasons as last time, same reservations as well. Sean Bonner 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

connection to the origin of that term makes him notable enough for inclusion? At worst maybe it suggest merging the Tony Pierce stuff into the Blook entry? --Sprhodes 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - g4tv has also mentioned GNAA, and that was chosen to be deleted. Therefore, I believe a precedence has been set that being the subject of a non-trivial work, does not make one notable. Jmax- 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Jeff 06:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Awards have been from very minor sources and publications. Viscid 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and vanity. Maintains a personal blog which contributes little value to the internet as a whole. alexa ranking in 350,000s, clearly showing non-notability (no, alexa test IS valid here because ACTUAL NOTABLE BLOGS have a MUCH LOWER alexa ranking. Every 'news source' (which are mostly blogs) mentioning Tony do not have anything more than a passing reference about some of his blog-related activities. Spams his blog to other sites repeatedly (no need to prove this, I hope), and begs for money from his very few readers. All in all, non-notable, personal, vanity, irrelevant for encyclopedia, etc. --timecop 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As Mr. Pierce does not have an account and cannot post here to defend himself since this AfD is protected, he has indicated to me and others that this statement is an outright libelous lie, and due to this lie and an easy link path to this AfD from this article about this AfD in Digg, already people he knows in real life are asking him about his job record. This user tried to post a hacked link (they might try again) to an old resumé of Mr. Pierce's dated from 2000 as alleged "evidence" of this claim. The resumé ironically indicates Mr. Pierce held several jobs more than a year. This kind of behavior is extremely inappropriate to say the least. --Oakshade 06:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - I just noticed this. Hacked link? Its a file off his own site! If he wanted it gone so bad, why not just delete it from the webserver?... >_< confused. --timecop 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly, the blog as a media format is not going to be going away any time soon. As a blogger prominent enough to have won a Bloggie Award at SXSW, this article should be kept. No doubt that in years future, there will be numerous wikipedia cross-links for articles on Bloggy Award winners in various years and categories. In fact, there already is an entry for the Bloggie Awards. --Barneyg 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a blog is, and always will be, self produced original content involving only oneself, most bloggers will probably always fail Wikipedia's notability reqs, unless there's something really special about it like Matt Drudge. I could go start the Jeffy awards and give myself an award; does that entitle me to a wikipedia article? --Jeff 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the vast majority of the thousands (millions?) of bloggers out there would most certainly fail such a notability requirement. However, as an artist with a large following and recognized numerous times by multiple major media sources, Tony Pierce is an obvious exception. As to your Jeffy Award, keep in mind that most artistic awards—such as the Oscars (a.k.a. the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards) and the Bloggies—are given by organizations representing the artistic community producing same said art. While your Jeffy Award might not offer much credibility in terms of representing the larger community, a Bloggie Award IMHO would. --Barneyg 13:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's been blocked depite attempts to vandalise Wikipedia... That's ad-hominem, by the way. yandman 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom 凸 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in his field; many press mentions. Certainly far more worthy of inclusion than, say, the ridiculously extensive Wikipedia articles on the extended Star Wars universe. Note that opposition to the entry seems to be driven mostly by an irrational animus towards bloggers. As noted elsewhere, charges of vanity and self-promotion seem too be inaccurate, as TP isn't the author of the article. Pfrankenstein 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This type of rubbish, if left to contaminate wikipedia unchecked, will result in even more useless content.--Impi.za 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — Impi.za (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per JoshuaZTfg--Trödel 15:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The non-trivial sources I have examined make mention to Mr. Pierce as "a blogger" and are not interviewing him explicitly. All of the articles content would remain primarily unchanged if another (I will say popular) blogger were substituted. Wikipedia is not a directory of people who have been interviewed by newspapers. Mr. Pierce does seem to be popular within the blogging community, but it is unclear what he has "contributed" to it outside the existence of his own blog posts. I think perhaps in retrospect, historically, we will be able to determine if he has had an "impact" on some industry. However, being listed as a contemporary, I do not think it is obvious that Mr. Pierce is notable, instead of just popular; thus I vote deleted. There's also the matter that notable people should not mention, and especially not get personally involved in their own listing in an encyclopedia; and while being singularly not evidence of anything, along with other things it slants my opinion in the direction that this is a vanity entry being supported by Pierce and friends. Xiphoris 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article starting with “$SUBJECT is a blogger who…” is strong indication of weak notability. Sam Hocevar 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bbatsell. I think we're going down a slippery slope here when we start deleting even prominent bloggers from WP. The fact is that bloggers are notable in the year 2006, and deleting a subject simply because he/she is a blogger is a very bad idea (I think I hear some people using this argument). These people make major contributions to the web. What, are we going to be deleting bloggers who are getting 100000 hits a day on their blog because they're non-notable? And I really doubt that anyone will appreciate us putting up a WP:WEB article about them later (though their site fits the criteria). This is all a very very bad idea IMHO. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question isn't whether or not bloggers are notable; it's whether or not this blogger is. I think I speak for many of the editors here when I say that if there were a discussion of deleting an article of a blogger as notable as, say, rms, then we would probably have different opinions. Jmax- 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Denis Paradis. Just the fact that this discussion is ongoing here is enough to mark him as being "Notable".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis Paradis (talk • contribs) JoshuaZ 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Under that logic whenever we have socks and junk flooding us from other websites that somehow makes them notable? JoshuaZ 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should the article on the GNAA be recreated, then, since it's being nominated for deletion ten times surely must constitute notability, in your eyes?
I agree with above. Meta-discussion does not constitute notability. I am here because I noticed it in the Digg.com article, and that constitutes popularity. Xiphoris 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if meta discussions such as this constitute notability, then surely the Jordanhill railway station should mention the fact that it was the one millionth article within its article? Atleast in your eyes? TerraFrost 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Per Capitalistroadster excellent research, 2 new stories on the subject have been added to the article. One from the PC Magazine and the other from the LA Weekly. [6][7]. --Oakshade 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:BIO states as a criterion for inclusion: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." It continues, "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles..." etc. Pierce meets that criterion. A quick search of the Dow Jones/Reuters Factiva service shows Pierce has been the subject of articles from the New York Times (27 May 2004) (followed by an echo to the Times-owned Int'l Herald Tribune on 29 May); Reuters (10 July 2004); Straits Times (Singapore) (5 March 2006); Reforma (Mexico City) (2 April 2006); EL PAIS (Madrid) (20 April 2006); Los Angeles Times (16 October 2003, 27 Feb 2003, 12 July 2004, others); Le Monde (25 June 2005); and others. The search string was (Tony Pierce AND blog). Factiva is a proprietary service, and thus articles in it cannot be pointed to easily. Re the argument that these appearances are "trivial", to maintain that you also have to implicitly maintain that all the reporters involved, in different countries, continents, and languages, all just happened to stumble upon the same "non-notable" source by random chance. While not impossible, Occam's Razor suggests the simpler explanation -- that Pierce is known worldwide as an expert on blogging, and worth getting a quote from -- seems more likely. Re the argument, "But I've never heard of him" -- neither had I, prior to this discussion. I am modest enough, though, to regard my own limited knowledge as not the end-all and be-all. Re the observation I may be a sock puppet -- I've been on Wikipedia since January 2005, and have over 100 edits. If I'm a sock puppet, it seems I may well pass the Turing test. Hal 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to say that based on the articles cited here in this section, I have to say that I think he meets the criteria for inclusion, certainly well above that used for bit-characters in Looney Tunes cartoons. wraithe 12/5/06 16:39:22 PM (UTC) — wraithe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jmax- 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You underestimate the fact that Looney Tunes has been watched by millions, while Tony is still as non-notable as it gets. --timecop 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I thought quite a bit about this, and I think there is more of a slippery-slope danger in letting the article stay than in deleting it. There are a gazillion blogs out there and each one claims a gazillion readers who will gladly come to wikipedia and create an article on it and then vote a gazillion times to keep it. I think we have to use a stricter rubric with these kinds of things, and in the absence of WP:BLOGGERS, I think the notability guidelines have to be applied ruthlessly. Having been quoted in this or that newspaper, having won an award for knitting given by a community of knitters who do nothing but sit and knit ALL day, this is not the stuff of notability.--Dmz5 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey look, a knitter in Wikipedia! Pierce is surely more notable than Mrs. Pearl-McPhee. She did write several books about knitting but Pierce wrote several books about blogging. Oh, and according to her article, "Pearl-McPhee’s writing and work is best known through her blog." Actually, the reason we're having this discussion is because Tony is notable, there are many less notable people in Wikipedia, no one would know or care if Pearl-McPhee's page was deleted. PermanentE 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — PermanentE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I defend myself of this spurious charge below. PermanentE 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would seem you are not a single-purpose account; However, Your comment leads me to believe that you feel that the existance of one article is enough proof to keep another. That is simply not true. That is to say, this discussion is for the notability of this article, and has no relation to that article whatsoever (which is actually of a somewhat-notable person) Jmax- 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, Being in Wikipedia is not in itself a sign that an article actually meets Wikipedia's notabaility standards. Secondly, Pearl-McPhee is vastly more notable than Pierce; I type her surname into Amazon and get a list of books written by her, one of them with #686 sales rank despite being a special-interest book released 9 months ago. I put in "Tony Pierce" and get... one book by him that they don't even sell, with no sign of his blogging book at all. Pearl-McPhee vs. Pierce is a perfect example of how web-fame and the ability to throw readers at Wikipedia in realtime causes people to vastly overstate the notability of full-time bloggers compared to people who are known for something else, and may or may not have a website. BCoates 09:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Considering the New York Times, LA Weekly, G4TV, and Washington Post have all used him in their pieces on blogging, that SXSW has invited him to speak about blogging, that the country of Amsterdam handpicked him among twenty other bloggers to visit and write about their country, would all indicate that he is, indeed, notable in his field. Timecop and others fail to distinguish the difference between FAME and NOTABLITY. Arguing that someone is not notable because you haven't heard of them defies all logic. A "random article" click on Wikipedia will likely turnup someone or something you've never heard of - this doesn't mean the piece should be excluded. Moreover, Wikipedia isn't catalog of things everyone knows, as Timecop and Deskana seem to be in favor of. --LADude 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — LADude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment An awful lot of "keep" votes are coming from spa's or people who haven't edited wikipedia in months (LADude's last edit was in June, and PermanentE's was in September), leaving me to believe that this is due to pierce complaining about his deletion here. yandman 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you're right, this is getting a little fishy. However, there's a good chance he's written about it on his blog, and his fans are coming back to comment. I think it's time for an anonafd tag. I'm going to put an spa tag for the sake of the closing admins, simply because I believe this qualifies as meatpuppetry, even if it's WP:AGF meatpuppetry. Still, that point by LADude is an awful good one. Patstuarttalk|edits 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If Pierce writing about it on his blog matters, so should the fact that this and other of timescop's desired deletions are discussed on the GNAA chatroom that encourages members to vote en masse. --LADude 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why does the fact that I haven't edited since September make mine a Single Purpose Account? I'm sure there are administrators that don't edit for longer periods. I have been a minor contributor for almost 3 years on diverse topics and have always tried to be respectful of Wikipedia. It just so happens that I read Pierce's blog and I've had a long standing Wikipedia account, I think that qualifies me perfectly to participate in this discussion. What is suspicious about that? You are assuming I'm operating in bad faith just because I have a different opinion than you. PermanentE 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self publication on Cafepress does not count as publication. An award on blogging by some random guy does not count as an official award. This is completely non-notable. What is notable is that this article was started by a user named Shakey Bear, who has no edit history whatsoever other than on this article, and even uploaded a picture of Tony Pierce before it was successfully deleted. Because of the lack of preexisting edit history, because of the creation of the article by such an amateur account (which doesn't even have a talk page, indicating that it was created for the sole purpose of creating this article), because of the possession of a picture of Tony Pierce by said account, I can only conclude that THIS ARTICLE WAS CREATED BY NONE OTHER THAN TONY PIERCE HIMSELF, AND IS THUS DIRECTLY IN VIOLATION OF WP:Vanity. cacophony 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Certainly you can't know that for sure. It could be him or maybe not. I mean it could be a friend or just someone who reads his blogs -- who knows, its not very clear that its him and so push the vanity issue aside for the fact that is is nn and fails WP:Bio by very large margins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMacMan (talk • contribs)

***WHOA, EXCUSE ME, something suspicious is going on. The previous comment was NOT added by LADude, but by the contributer MrMacMan. LADude then came along and added the unsigned template claiming the comment was made by him, when MrMacMan was the one who wrote it. Is this a case of template misuse, or something far more sinister? cacophony 10:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I have to agree with LADude in this instance. It's extremely common for people to make new accounts, make a page, and have few other contributions. In fact, the good majority of the new pages created come from newly created accounts; and I can tell you, from personal experience, that most of them never return (try going through some of the Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. Besides, we're bound by policy that, unless it becomes obvious otherwise, we must assume good faith and assume it wasn't Tony; not the other way around (assume it was him until it's not obvious). Secondly, as noted above, he wasn't just on cafepress, he was on several major newspapers. Patstuarttalk|edits 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There's too many coincidences to not be true. If I may direct you to the original revision, you'll note several claims that couldn't have been made by just a friend or somebody who reads his blogs:
        • "His writing style is impromptu, frank, respectfully opinionated, humorous, and uniquely careless of capitalization."
        • "He is patriotic but politically critical, while at the same time charismatic and quite the ladies man."
        • "He has published much other material online including photo essays, podcasts, and photos. He has completed several books via cafe press including How to Blog in which he discloses some of his blogging secrets, and Stiff, a novella in which he travels to hell, to meet Kurt Cobain."
        • "He has also been known to converse with such celebrities as Howard Stern, and Matthew Good."
        • "He ... believes in writing straight from the heart, and encourages others to do the same.
So here we have somebody who knows about Tony's writing style, in great detail, knows about Tony's political views and behavior around women, his publication and the content of each publication, who he talks with, what he believes in, and what he does. If this were written by anybody other than him, then the police should get involved, as it would clearly be a case of stalking. Also notable is that this first revision is clearly devoid of any negative claims. Reguards, cacophony 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, pretty much all of these details you mention have specifically been covered in his blog postings over the years, many of them on numerous occasions. Any regular reader could easily have written this article. Barneyg 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have to assume good faith on this issue. Regardless of the final decision on Pierce's notability, it has been well established that he is a popular and well-known figure within his field. From my observation, it's highly likely that this article was started by an enthusiastic fan. The problem with this debate is that the irrelevant vanity issue (if vanity was the issue, but the subject is notable, we could do a re-write and be done with this) is muddling the more relevant notability issue. Glowimperial 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - His work is good, but I don't find him to be more notable than, say, editors of weekly alternative newspapers around the country. Norg 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has independent non-trivial mentions. This seems to pass. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What he has are just what you said - mentions - passing references - which are by their very nature, trivial. cacophony
  • Delete per Xiphoris. Tizio 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In terms of references, all I've seen are passing mentions in articles about blogging, or short interview blurbs used alongside many others. Is there anything specifically about this person? I can appreciate that he's been interviewed, but lots of people have been interviewed and it doesn't establish notability. I don't see references which would allow us to write more than "He is a blogger, he invented a word". I also don't see any evidence to support him being a blogging pioneer. Am I missing something here? Would there even be a debate if he operated a non-blog website? If I'm wrong about the references, please show me. shotwell 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly one of the most worthless articles I have ever seen. Time to send it to the great recycling bin in the sky. We must be avenging User:Timecop for great justice! The Mirror of the Sea 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - perhaps you could specify why you think this, as afd is a discussion, not a vote. -

Patstuarttalk|edits 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe that he is "a award winning and notable figure of media interest"? Slight mentions on the LA Weekly website, and the PC Magazine website do not make one award-winning or notable. They simply make you the basis of an article. Once, when I was about 17, I was in the local paper for breaking the county track record. I don't deserve a wikipedia article whatsoever, and am hardly notable in any respects. Jmax- 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:wraithe. He is more notable than most of the Loony Tunes bit characters. Tony Pierce has 592,000 Google hits. Bosko has 434,000 Google hits. Pussyfoot has 181,000 Google hits. Gossamer has 1,210,000 Google hits. Petunia Pig has 16,500 Google hits. Pete Puma has 9,750 Google hits. Slowpoke Rodriguez has 638 Google hits. Henery Hawk has 15,500 Google hits. He's even more notable than some Looney Tunes primary characters. Yosemite Sam has 307,000 Google hits. Tweety Bird has 449,000 Google hits. Elmer Fudd has 430,000 Google hits. Bugs Bunny has 1,210,000 Google hits. Daffy Duck has 746,000 Google hits. Pepé Le Pew has 138,000 Google hits. Porky Pig has 393,000 Google hits. Jecowa 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, right? First of all there are a number of other 'Tony Pierces', including an actor, a soccer coach and probably countless others, ALL of which are MORE notable than 'Tony Pierce the blogger'. Secondly, Loony Tunes have been watched probably by billions, as the cartoons have been around since 1930s. --timecop 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those criteria, Tony Pierce is more notable then James Garfield, William Taft, or Warran Harding (all US presidents). TerraFrost 06:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hal; the fact that the subject has received attention internationally carries some weight - if multiple well-thought-of sources solicit his opinion, its hard to imagine that he doesn't have some kind of prominence in his field. Blogs/bloggers don't lend themselves to our typical notability tests (yet), but its also a good sign that the blog can pass WP:WEB. Shell babelfish 06:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because he's non-noteable, simple as that. Self-published does not mean notable. Real publishers do. -Ich (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blogcruft. Being notable in the blog world means nothing in the real world. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While untrue, totally irrelevent, and surprsing coming from a user who spends a great deal of time editing articles on random episodes and characters of lesser known TV shows. Unless you can show otherwise, Wikipedia doesn't exclude "the blog world" from being a field that one can be notable in. --LADude 08:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That's Ad-Hominem. Please abide by WP:CIVIL by refraining from insulting other users and/or their contributions. cacophony 09:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Nothing I wrote even verges on being an insult - should I remind you of WP:AGF?? --LADude 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Directing your argument to Mr. Scott's editing history rather than to his argument is an ad hominem argument, which has repeatedly been shown to be a personal attack as per WP:CIVIL. No good faith argument can be made to refute this, I think, as you have repeatedly directed arguments against the person in this discussion. Tfg 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Reguarding your comment, being notable in an obscure "field" does not satisfy the notability requirements. One has to be notable in general. Otherwise people would demand an article on themselves, saying they are notable "in the field of eating lima beans" or "in the field of raising weasels" or "in the field of writing in blogs" cacophony 09:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Now you're changing the guidelines of Wikipedia itself, which asks for notability in a given field. And blogging is hardly obscure. --LADude 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I delete a lot of fancruft and non-notable crap from such articles. There is a lot of clean up to be done in these articles. And I would like to point out that I hate episode articles. You've made a very inaccurate assumption from my contributions, and I am very much insulted. You are basically suggesting that because I edit such articles that my opinion shouldn't matter. The irony of this is that more people probably know those fictional characters than those who know a real flesh-and-blood Tony Pierce. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Cacophony - If you're really serious in your analogy that "raising weasels" or "eating lima beans" are activities comparative in nature to writing blogs then you should probably recluse yourself from this discussion - your bias is showing. If you can't tackle the subject's notability/non-notability without expressing your personal disdain for his field of work, then maybe this isn't a disucssion you should be taking part in. Blogging is no longer an obscure field, it has certainly become a functional part of mass media - accept it. Glowimperial 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was interested in these "more popular than Loony Tunes" comments, so I did the search myself. I got a slightly different result after specifying that I was looking for Tony Pierce the blogger, rather than Tony Pierce the actor. He got fewer results than all the Loony Tunes characters. Of course, that's only half the equation. The other half is who actually searched. Intrigued, I decided to consult google trends to see who's been searching for Tony Pierce, compared to the Loony Tunes characters. The resultsweren't very surprising - all the characters are more popular than him. What was surprising was that, according to Google Trends, Nobody has ever searched for "Tony Pierce", except in mid-2006. I think that says something. cacophony 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hasn't it been established time and time again that the number of Google hits is irrelevent? Besides, your logic and evidence is flawed, as 1. Google trends is a Google labs product that only searched some news articles and doesn't give an actual count. 2. You assume that anyone searching for Tony Pierce "the blogger" would make the distinction in a search. 3. Comparing a living person to Looney Tunes characters and arguing notability? A true disservice to Wikipedia that the comparison keeps coming up, regardless of your feelings towards Pierce or the residents of Toon Town. --LADude 09:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, your notibility is the discussion at hand. I don't believe you are permitted to have a say in it. (If any editor would like to correct me, please feel free) Jmax- 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) -- I thought you were Tony Pierce -- My mistake. Jmax- 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it had ranked him higher, judging the importance of a blog by ghits is akin to judging the importance of a band by asking people at their concert. yandman 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, though, 600,000 ghits is a freaking truckload. I realize it's inflated because he's a blogger, but even if you remove some possible people with the same name and cut it into a tenth, you get 40,000, which is a heck of a lot. With a number that high, it's hard to dismiss.Patstuarttalk|edits 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to dismiss unless you check the true number of results, I have taken the liberty of removing some fairly obvious blog to blog traffic (blogspot,blogging.la,blogcritics,typepad.com,buzzmachine.com) and it comes back with only 58,500 results. Seems like a lot until you you look at the last page of that search and see that there are only 496 unsimilar results. Jaydjenkins 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Four hundred ninety six is a very high number of unsimilar results. For comparison Bugs Bunny has 829 unsimilar results. Jecowa 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you go through those 429 results I think you'll see that almost all are still blog sites. The removal of a few major blogging sites removed ~550,000 hits. This surely indicates the Google slanting for bloggers (you are searching in their medium). I am sure that if Bugs Bunny had a blog site that he would have a lot more hits and it would still be a foot note in the Bugs Bunny bio. Jaydjenkins 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy doesn't appear to have done anything worthy of an encyclopedia article (like most of humanity). I don't see how this material enhances Wikipedia in any way. Orpheus 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't accept that articles about a Wikipedia deletion debate contribute in any way to notability. They don't have anything whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, just the debate about it. You could apply the same reasoning to getting my cat his own Wikipedia article - I'm sure I could drum up some media attention if that was created and then nominated for deletion. Orpheus 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Logic compels me per nom. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone's doing it! Lunarctic 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we keep articles about self proclaimed "professional bloggers" we'll have to start writing articles about beggers on the streets also. --Baldur 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria in my opinion. I've seen exactly one reasonable and well thought out keep opinion here based on WP:BIO (by Hal) and I simply disagree with his conclusion that the published works he's referenced are non-trivial in nature in regards to their coverage of Mr. Pierce (all the piece I see that are directly about him are rather short blurbs). The rest of the keep votes seem to hinge on Google/Alexa hits (which is a worthless measure of "notability", misapplication of WP:WEB to a person, or attempts to establish comparative notability with other biographical articles here; none of which are very valid reasons for retention in my opinion. I just don't see a strong case for an article per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reviewing the history, the primary contributors to the article have few or no significant contributions to any other articles. While this isn't a certain indication of WP:SOCK, it is suspicious, and that it is likely a vanity page, as has already been mentioned. Regardless of his notability, I feel it's not unreasonable to expect contributions to be significantly from people that are not solely interested in contributing to a single article, whch is a biography of a living person. --Puellanivis 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and many other comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, Delete per nom. I'm not sure that winning a "bloggie" counts for much in the great scheme of things, and I don't care for the sensation that I'm reading someone's PR rather than a serious entry in an encyclopedia. WMMartin 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn vanity, self promotion, not notable. Skrewler 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do have to say nn in this case. If history proves otherwise, so be it, but as of now, WP is not a bloggers directory -- Tawker 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and vanity. Reading the article, there is really nothing of any significant substance - that he started some moderately successful blogs and that he can be searched in google isn't grounds for an encyclopedia entry. I honestly don't think that he's culturally or historically significant at all. Just because his achievements are based online, it doesn't make them any more important. James Pinnell 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing but vanity. --dj28 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I knew about {{SPA}} I just made normal written out notes, so I'll just do that. It should be noted that Dj28 has made very few edits outside of vandalism and "the war on blogs". [9] [10] [11] He seems to be in direct relation to the GNAA and Timecop. This does not invalidate his vote, but noting this might help others put this user's view into a better prospective. It could be vote stacking, or it could be completely valid. If you want to remove the SPA notes then just remove all of them, or move them to the talk page. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, but I agree that there are an awful lot of editors, on both sides, that are rather fishy to say the least. The closing admin would be well advised to take extra care when making the final deicision. yandman 08:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that DJ28 is associated with the GNAA? cacophony 08:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[12], [13] -- Ned Scott 08:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty explicit. yandman 09:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking there should be some community consensus for banning gnaa members on sight. Not only have they disrupted and used mass sockpuppetry in the past, but the stated aim of their organization is to be trolls. I see no need to pussy foot around with this; if someone says, "I'm a troll", ban him. Patstuarttalk|edits 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone's a member of a troll community doesn't mean all of their actions are trolling. Certainly members of GNAA have real lives and jobs; so certainly they don't spend 100% of their time trolling. It's possible a member of GNAA might troll other mediums, but not Wikipedia. Unless you have evidence that a user has trolled Wikipedia, it is not just to make such accusations. Please follow the wiki policy of assume good faith. For example, someone might be a member of the Klu Klux Klan and contribute positively to an article on blogging or electrical engineering. Being prejudiced or having an interest in trolling doesn't mean everything an individual does in his life is therefore trash. Xiphoris 20:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it says something that he publicly declared his membership with GNAA. If he really wanted to "troll"-style influence the process, wouldn't he have kept it secret? Xiphoris 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last point: if you started instituting a policy of banning things like that on sight, it seems like it would be far too easy to get people banned. I'll go start posting on troll forums with the username "Patstuart", then some other innocent Wiki admin will find you and insta-ban you for it. Too much potential for abuse. Ban people based on their actions, not your presumptions about how you think they might act. Xiphoris 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all about freedom of speech, but 1) he admitted he was a troll, 2) all people from his organization admit as much. That's not the same as a username mistake. Someone doesn't, by chance, end up stating their allegiance to GNAA, but actually they were mistaken with someone else. If someone goes around downtown New York city, and screams "I'm a member and the founder of al-Qaeda", or "I'm an active member of the local gang that's been guilty of constant murder" - then they would be arrested (especially if other gang members had done the same). Sorry, if you admit you're a troll, then, um, you're a troll. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about this user. However, I think you're wrong about people in general. Having trolled in the past or being a member of a troll organization does not mean someone is trolling currently. Admitting being a troll means what? Having trolled in the past? It doesn't mean anything about someone's current actions. That's what we judge them on. Or do you think people can never change? Xiphoris 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The world is not black and white. Someone can be a troll one place and also positively contribute some other place. As I mentioned previously, presumably some of these people have jobs, and it's unlikely they troll in real life. Someone might troll Slashdot but not Wikipedia. You can't make assumptions, nor can you characterize someone's entire personality by the word "troll". That's called prejudice, and it's unjustified. In the past it was used to say black people were stupid or that women shouldn't have the right to vote. Judge someone based on that person's actions, not on some one-word label! Xiphoris 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User DJ28 has since removed the GNAA logo from his user page: history of his user page, since users pointed it out here. This is probably evidence that he actually is trolling this process. I don't know a lot about Wikipedia policy, but I suggest the admins carefully look at this user for violation of Wikipedia policies. He has something to hide. Xiphoris 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure you read the dates correctly? By your own link, he removed the logo 10 months ago. cacophony 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right. It looks like I've confused myself. He did remove it months ago. I don't know how I got the dates mixed up. Xiphoris 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have to agree it's a bit of a sham that we're not keeping this guy. We have every single episode, character, and other nuance of the so-called Buffyverse on here (look a this travesty), which no one asks for deletion (as if they couldn't just create their own wiki). But then, when someone notable comes along, everyone wants to delete him. What a shame. -Patstuarttalk|edits 06:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide verifiable evidence that he's "a well established blogfather"? cacophony 07:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If being "a blogfather" is all that significant, maybe you should go create an article on it. As is, I don't see how his being "a blogfather" is notable when, right now, near as I can tell, the word, itself, isn't. Also, your "there isn't a blogger in the world who should be included [if Tony Pierce isn't]" argument makes it sound as though Tony Pierce is the most notable blogger to have ever lived. Is that what you think? TerraFrost 16:27, 9 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Pierce_(second_nomination)&oldid=1138878930"