Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scaryduck

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. Majorly (hot!) 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scaryduck

First time author, not otherwise notable, article seems to have been written solely by subject and associates. 81.178.80.196 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable BBC journalist and blogger. IMO a blogger award is not enough. Anyway a big clean-up (and removing non encyclopedic facts) should be done after this AfD. Cate |_Talk 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it ironic that an internet entity like Wikpedia doesn't hold internet writers who have thousands of readers in the same regard as book authors with far smaller readerships? It's the same argument old encyclopeadias use against Wikipedia in a way. Why are book awards notable and blogger awards not? I'm not an associate of Scaryduck but bloggers are ever more important and deleting them is turning one's back on the future Wikipedia is supposed to exemplify. Most articles start off in a ramshackle way and gradually imporve, that's the whole idea. The category of bloggers is going to do the same thing. Nick mallory 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should check carefully Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are an huge number of blogger and an big number of popular blog, so notability must not depends on popular blog. Notability doesn't mean that if you publish a real books, you can have a wikipedia article, nor it is about numbers (Notability_is_not_popularity). For awards, see examples in Wikipedia:Notability (people): it depend on the type (and importance) of award. As an example, check some important movie awards and you will see that not all people have an article. And as third (and probably not a wikipolicy), an internet phenomena needs is less important to wikipedia: a simple search will give you the needed information (but it doesn't happen with a lot more article). Cate |_Talk 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are 240,000 results for Scaryduck on Google. --Dreaded Walrus 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Guardian is a major broadsheet newspaper in Britain, it's hardly a trivial source. If it gives a website an award then it's a notable award. Popularity is not notability but someone with 240,000 Google hits is going to get looked up on Wikipedia, and if this article is deleted then those surfers won't find anything. On a wider point, Wikipedia is successful because it gives people the information they want and when it ceases to do that, and becomes an end in itself run by editors for themselves, then it will die as quickly as it has arisen. An internet entity which does not respond to the needs of its users is doomed. 203.108.239.12 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the subject of the article, I support its deletion. I was embarrassed about it being there in the first place as I felt I did not rise to selection criteria. I'm rather offended at being termed a non-notable journalist, mind you. Duckorange 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of secondary sources. It looks like the book is essentially self-published as well, casting doubts about it's validity as a source. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever other than he has a blog and has written what looks like a self-published book. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as it looks like this is something of increasing notability. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And has since been blocked. --Dreaded Walrus 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis of the high quality of the content of the blog. I agree with nick mallory, that our standards for blogs are not attuned to reality. Unfortunately, I have no firm idea what we should use instead. I am reluctant to do it by ghits, because it is not the number of mentions that count, it is where the mentions are. There are various proposed webometrics of greater subtlety, but none that are generally accepted and available. But still f we need to distinguish in some way between blogs suitable for WP articles and those not suitable for WP articles (I avoid the word "notable" )

We can preserve the appearance of continuity by appropriately defining "reliable" and "published." Further, I note that WP:WEB says "the content itself [must] has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." This means not the blog itself--nobody need have said anything about it as a blog, but the content published on the blog. As a first approximation, interesting blogs will have content discussed elsewhere. (To be refined further for discussion) : DGG 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I guess then, seeing as how content from the author has been linked to by both B3ta and the BBC, both of which have wikipedia entries, that this counts as multiple non-trivial sources. Russ 20:32, 15 April 2007 (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.