Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Scoble (2nd 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 keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Scoble

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Robert_Scoble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Starting this up again. He has no primary sources, is an noisemaker and self-promoter. His sources are primarily from other blogs who trade links and some crusty tech sites here and there. It's tempting for WP editors to focus on web 2.0 culture and weigh it a bit too much.

If he wants to make himself known, he can go in the real world and be a genius. Sitting at your computer adding friends on myspace/twitter or "blogging" is of questionable notability. We can't add every 20 year old girl with 4000 (or 50,000) friends on myspace (and yes, there are many).

See First AfD, Talk:Robert_Scoble and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. So far every claim that this guy is, obviously, vanity, has been ignored. --Drinkadrink (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This appears to be a bad-faith nomination, given the raft of derogatory statements made about the subject, as well as pretty much completely emptying the article -- removing all sources in the process -- prior to nominating it for deletion and declaring the subject to be a "narcissist", "self-aggrandizing" and having "a thin CV". The AfD in 2005 was nearly unanimous in its "keep" vote; don't see any reason why this would have changed in the intervening years. Warren -talk- 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "We can't add every 20 year old girl with 4000 (or 50,000) friends on myspace" .. I think you will find that Wikipedia hasn't nominated every 20 year old girl here... Robert Scoble is a well known Internet celebrity in the blogosphere. He also reports on technology related matters. He has helped gain attention to many web2.0 sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed, as well as attending as a journalist at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The nominator Drinkadrink appears to have done this AfD in bad faith. Jez t e C 11:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allegations of me not liking praising fanboys who puff up articles? Talk:Robert_Scoble chatter has a scattered people who yelp out he's some chum, other people just don't care. The problem is he really hasn't changed anything, he just gets a few hits and has sycophants. This is textbook blogcruft. --Drinkadrink (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is factual consise and is easy referenced to other sources. I do not see any reason to remove the article. Robert Scoble is a know voice on Social media and has a vast following. abruton 07:46, 25 January 2009 (SAST)
  • Keep The article subject has received press from the BBC, Australian IT, Forbes and The Economist. All notable independent publications. Since the nominator removed these on purpose prior to AFD, I suspect the nomination was in bad faith - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person's web logging activities are documented on pages 143–144 of ISBN 9780750684163, and the whole of chapter 10 of ISBN 9780470197394, the first two pages of which are a potted biography, is devoted to xem. Xyr web log is a case study in ISBN 9780764584572, on pages 303–304. Supporting biographical material on the subject can be found in places such as ISBN 9780787984878 (pages 46, 116, and 174), ISBN 9780749450854 (page 159), and this piece in The Guardian. Ironically, several of these sources support much of the very content that was blanked by the nominator just prior to nomination. Indeed, some of that content already had reliable and independent sources cited within it, such as BBC News. And those are far from the only sources that exist. There is ample reliable and independent source material on this subject for a biographical article to be written. The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied.

    The actions of Drinkadrink in blanking the article, xyr ad hominem arguments and personal attacks on Warren above, and xyr general attacks on all other editors at Talk:Robert Scoble/Archives/2012#Cleaning up Scoble's blogcruft for being "fanboys" are reprehensible, incidentally. Assume good faith! Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (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/Robert_Scoble_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1070209563"