Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard

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 notability sufficiently demonstrated; keep. DS 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gilliard[edit]

Writing in really big letters certainly helps add gravitas to your argument. Nick mallory 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are quite important to the discussion. If he gets a NYT Obit, there should be no argument about the article's existence. --One Salient Oversight 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And, actually, the mention in the NYT blogs is more than sufficient. "[H]e was a blogger’s blogger who had the attention of some of the most influential on the scene, and he was also considered to be one of its most important black voices." What exactly was the thinking process of Naconkantari that made him reflexively deem him un-notable? This is contrary to policy. Please see my "Request for comments" at the bottom.  ∴ Therefore  talk   04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable blogger Naconkantari 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • New York Times obituary coming later this week. Now how do you like those apples? 4.243.173.101 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely delete. This guy never publshed anything of note in any kind of reputable publication. He was a mere blogger though well-liked by many. He had a following on the Daily Kos and parlayed that into a blog which had some following. However, EVERYBODY who has a blog with more than a few hits a day should be included by that standard.--Susan Nunes 3 June 2007
    • — 66.53.125.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Don't let Biruitorul's tactics discourage you. New users are welcome to participate in Wikipedia as well. Biruitorul likes to wave around his flags as if he is enforcing rules. Let's be clear on one thing: There is no rule against new users participating in Wikipedia, and the effect of Biruitorul's campaign of discouragement is to reduce participation and attack the motives of other people, in what is little more than a direct attack on the community spirit of Wikipedia. Ankles 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4.243.173.101 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It is irrelevent if this user has "few or no other edits." Wikipedia is open to everyone, including newcomers. Every user started somewhere, and if this is the last article this user ever touches, her opinion still counts as much as yours. -asx- 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment : 1) then why does the template exist? 2) "irrelevent" is not an English word. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Spelling flames? Really? Come on. And the template exists because some people think it should, which doesn't make it an official policy. Cromis 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made plenty of edits, just not from that IP. What bizarre over-scrutiny. 4.243.173.101 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Relevant points from AFD etiquette:
          • Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
          • Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.
        • As new and first-time editors may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and use inappropriate arguments for retention or deletion, and because AFD has a history of attempts to use sockpuppets or canvass external to the site, the template exists to remind editors of this context. --Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a perfectly valid concern, and it's what preserves the integrity of Wikipedia. And there is a correct way to deal with new users: inform them of the guidelines and policies that apply. What we cannot do is block their participation. New users are allowed to participate in Wikipedia. Ankles 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gilliard was a major force in the blogosphere when he fell ill in February, and was a major force in the blogosphere from the early days of political blogging. He was influential in setting the tone and the message of the liberal web community. -asx- 07:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A major blogger has written about Gilliard's life as a blogger, [4].
Comment When a slew of right of centre blogs were recently nominated in AfD [5] [6] etc I was kept busy finding sources for them in the New York Times and Washington Post etc because thousands of mentions of them on the net or in other blogs were not deemed sufficient for notability by certain editors. Is there a Wikipedia standard for what counts towards notability on blogs? If mentions by other bloggers on the Daily Kos or Huffington Post etc are sufficient for notability in this AfD then this should be made clear for future AfDs, of all political leanings. Nick mallory 10:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blogs are not sufficient to demonstrate notability by themselves, although they may be used as sources in limited fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why would someone want to delete this? Whoever suggested this should be banned from Wikipedia! Jonesy702 13:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mhh, I think you should see the banning policy, the user who nominated this is an experienced user of Wikipedia, please try to assume good faith in the future. The Sunshine Man 13:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Assume good faith" is a fine starting point. But there is no requirement to pretend to be a complete idiot and assume good faith when bad faith is plainly in evidence, nor is it helpful to condescendingly tell people that since the initiator is an "experienced user" we must disclaim our own opinions about possible malicious intent. Cromis 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an actual rationale, other than WP:ILIKEIT? Biruitorul 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thin edge of what wedge? What's teh differerence between blogger and about.com? What the difference between blogger and Wikipedia? Not much.
  • Keep: One of the earliest bloggers on DailyKos, one of the first two frontpage bloggers on DailyKos, and an important commentor. Obviously every blogger won't be important. Or worth remembering. But we continue to remember and celebrate important journalists and writers in newspapers who influenced the discussions of their time. Steve Gilliard was someone who greatly influenced the liberal blogging scene in its earliest days. His greatest impact was creating the no-nonsense take-no-prisoners approach to blogging that defines much of blogging on the left today. -denniswine — 71.212.83.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is irrelevent if this user has "few or no other edits." Wikipedia is open to everyone, including newcomers. Every user started somewhere, and if this is the last article this user ever touches, her opinion still counts as much as yours. -asx- 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment : 1) then why does the template exist? 2) "irrelevent" is not an English word. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment to Biruitorul: Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV and act accordingly. --Milton 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a notable contributing editor of one of the biggest political blogs, and as per the other reasons already noted above. --Viridian {Talk} 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! The right wing is trying to obliterate this man's memory now? What has this country come to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.78.211 (talk • contribs) — 68.36.78.211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - "What has this country come to?" is not a valid keep rationale. And no one is trying to obliterate his memory - surely his memory can live on outside Wikipedia. Biruitorul 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - "Surely his memory can live on outside Wikipedia" is not a valid delete rationale. -asx- 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I've provided my own rationale in my vote. Let's face it: 68.36.78.211, with a mere 16 edits to his name, likely doesn't know much about Wikipedia deletion process, and "What has this country come to?" is in fact not a valid keep rationale. And as I've said, no one is trying to "obliterate" his memory - we're merely trying to uphold Wikipedia policy here. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On that note, let's definitely uphold Wikipedia policies WP:CIV and WP:NPA. --Milton 04:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, his [A Fighting Liberal [8]] alone was an insightful (and inciteful) piece of Web and political writing lauriemann. — lauriemann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I think tagging comments from people you disagree with as "single purpose account" is quite petty. I don't contribute that much to Wikipedia, but saying I have a "single purpose account" is silly. lauriemann[reply]
    • You've made 16 edits since September, 25% of them on this page. Not single-purpose, but quite close. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - a slippery slope. By that standard, anyone who writes a three-page online essay you find "insightful" deserves an article. Biruitorul 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Steve Gilliard's contribution to the liberal blogosphere was enormous, and his influence extended into traditional media as well. This entry should not be deleted! Rogneid.
  • Delete per WP:WEB and failure to show a presence in "multiple non-trivial published works". Biruitorul 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is defined as "non-trivial published works"? Gilliard's writing was widely spread across the spectrum of liberal blogs for a sustained 4-year period. Are large, high-traffic blogs like Firedoglake and Daily Kos "trivial"? Robert cruickshank 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to keep quoting WP:WEB. Read the criteria in their totality, and you'll see Gilliard fails the test. Biruitorul 18:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think he does fail the test. WP:WEB is concerned mainly with web content. This article is about the person of Steve Gilliard, not the News Blog. Yes he was a blogger, but his influence can be felt in the popular political blogosphere, as well as in newspaper reports. We're not talking about his blog, but Gilliard as a person and his influence, which was substantial. --One Salient Oversight 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a fair point, but then let's take a look at WP:BIO. I'm still unsure about the published source criterion. However, it's quite possible notability on that score will develop in the coming days, in which case I would change my vote. Biruitorul 01:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gilliard was a very important figure in the development of the liberal wing of the political blogosphere and remained a major voice in that milieu for nearly four years. His influence may not have reached the US mainstream but that does not mean he is not notable. Robert cruickshank 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Robert cruickshank (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is irrelevent if this user has "few or no other edits." Wikipedia is open to everyone, including newcomers. Every user started somewhere, and if this is the last article this user ever touches, her opinion still counts as much as yours. -asx- 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment : 1) then why does the template exist? 2) "irrelevent" is not an English word. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Gilliard's blog was influential and reached a wide audience. His grasp of military history and colonialism was assuredly non-trivial in that the scenarios he painted vis-a-vis the Iraq Conquest and Occupation were spot-on.
Ah, let me quote the full line in WP:WEB that I was alluding to: "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". So we still lack evidence of notability. Biruitorul 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep: Had a decisive impact on the liberal politics of his times, through his early and close involvement with Daily Kos. --Peripatetic 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSteve Gilliard was influential in both substance and style for at least 2 major blogs, DailyKos and Firedoglake, as the founders of both readily admit. His use of British colonial history to highlight the Iraq war--even before it started was pioneering.Bwthemoose 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Bwthemoose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is irrelevent if this user has "few or no other edits." Wikipedia is open to everyone, including newcomers. Every user started somewhere, and if this is the last article this user ever touches, her opinion still counts as much as yours. -asx- 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Gilliard was one of the first "guest" posters at Kos and helped build that site to the behemoth it is today. Previous to that, he was a popular writer for the seminal "Netslaves" site. In addition to his continual citation across the blogosphere, he was frequently quoted by Vanity Fair writer James Wolcott on Wolcott's Vanity Fair site. Excluding Gilliard, who in terms of influence and popularity, was the equal of Kos and Atrios, both of whom have extensive Wikipedia entries, from Wikipedia would not be conducive to a fair representation of the state of Internet political commenting. — Dave1021 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is irrelevent if this user has "few or no other edits." Wikipedia is open to everyone, including newcomers. Every user started somewhere, and if this is the last article this user ever touches, her opinion still counts as much as yours. -asx- 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment : 1) then why does the template exist? 2) "irrelevent" is not an English word. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm not going to repeat everyone else's arguments, but I agree to most of them. The article isn't much more than a stub, but that's not in itself reason for deletion. Let it evolve. Wefa 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A nobrainer. Gilliard played a pivotal role in the left-political blogosphere in the US. --86.80.117.11 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: This was me, actually. --Martin Wisse 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There has been a blantantly obvious attempt to flood this discussion by single-purpose accounts; am tagging all such comments now. Lipsticked Pig 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put the template at the top of the page, but seeing it cause me to look, and the first three editors I looked at were [9] [10] and [11] ...with the other anon user edits, I think its pretty blatant.Lipsticked Pig 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stupidly, I somehow didn't check to see how new the article was, so, given it hasn't been given enough time to prove its notablility, I feel like leaning towards Keep Lipsticked Pig 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the above user assumes malice where this is not in evidence. --Martin Wisse 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would seem obvious. Steve Gilliard was one of the founding fathers of the left blogosphere and of what is now the largest political blog community, the Daily Kos. While his independent blog was not as popular as Kos or Atrios or some others, I was under the impression that popularity of a subject was not the deciding factor for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article does need serious editing, however. zeke L 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is actually 69.120.22.64 (talk · contribs), who has only edited this page in the past few months. Naconkantari 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Irrelevent One need not have edited with any particular degree of regularity to have an opinion and be able to participate in this or any other decision concerning Wikipedia. The effect of your malice is to discourage newcomers, and many of them will assume that there are rules they are violating because you are acting like they are doing something wrong. They are not; you are. -asx- 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment : 1) OK, but the hint of impropriety remains. Contributions from single-purpose accounts, as the existence of the template indicates, are looked down upon. 2) "irrelevent" is not an English word. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. I have to strongly question the timing of this AfD: why did you decide to propose it within hours of the announcement of his death? Wouldn't it make sense to wait for a month or two to see if his notability (which can't help but be in flux at the moment) will change? Often people become more notable after they die, and often an individual who may have only received limited news coverage will receive significant news coverage shortly after death. Many of the articles we have on notable individuals exist because online references from independent reliable sources became easier to find once the obituaries, tributes, and other articles were published. --Charlene 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already stated today that this article should be deleted as the notability of bloggers is extremely suspect. Of course as I was the first person to state this viewpoint someone deleted my post. Freedom of speech huh? VonBlade 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored your earlier vote, which may have been removed accidentally. For the record, notions of "freedom of speech" are misplaced here - you don't own Wikipedia, so it's not your right to comment here. Same goes for me and all but the owners of the site. We're here as guests; we have no legal right to edit here. Biruitorul 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • VonBlade and everyone else, even those without accounts and no history, have exactly the same rights to edit as you do, Biruitorul. You can act like your opinion is more important than everyone else's, but in fact, it's not. -asx- 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where exactly did I "act like [my] opinion is more important than everyone else's"? I merely pointed out that "freedom of speech" is not at issue here. Please do not make false accusations against me. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gilliard deserves continued inclusion on Wikipedia based on "notability" criteria in both the "web" and "people" sections, specifically

Web: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations;

People: Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Additionally, I note the presence of the following "bloggers" and their rather extensive entries in Wikipedia: Atrios, Kos, Mary Scot O'Connor, Little Green Footballs, Protein Wisdom, and Captain's Quarters.

Finally, I note I have been tagged with the "single user" label. I have made minor edits and contributions over the past few years, mainly to Music and Comics sites (specifically, I recall adding to posts on Brian Wilson and Jack Kirby). I only signed up for an account because I thought it was necessary to comment on this matter. Ironically, if I had maintained my anonimity, my commenting status would have been overlooked. I apologize for identifying myself. Dave1021 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leary because he's a blogger, but if he started the Daily Kos, that's a good sign. Weak keep per charlene. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He didn't start Daily Kos. Skarioffszky 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... noted. vote changed to Delete then. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the article as it stands should probably try to concentrate more on his influence than on the reaction to his death. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I agree with Silly Dan that the article should focus more on influence. He was a popular blogger, and considering that this article could fit roughly 250 times on a 3 1/4 floppy, it's not like the servers are going to overheat. He was quite well-known in the blogosphere, and should be treated accordingly. --Milton 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Daily Kos is a massive thing, and considering his work with it, strengthens his notability. --Milton 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is clearly notable, and this is in staggeringly poor taste. I can't even conceive of the kind of person who would choose to initiate this now. Cromis 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - where are the multiple, non-trivial published sources? This is not about callousness; it's about process. Not every individual who dies, no matter how nice a person he was, deserves a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we should keep emotionalism out of the discussion. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As soon as I created the article I realised that, since Steve was a blogger, the article would be up for an afd. At no point did I think that this afd is somehow political in motivation, nor is it in "poor taste" and nor do I believe that Biruitorul is somehow trying to be political by voting to delete it. I do wish, however, that Biruitorul and other pro-deletionists would do some off-site research into Steve's notability by looking into the histories of Daily Kos and other political blogs that have Wikipedia entries. There is enough references to Steve in the mainstream media by columnists like Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Jacoby to show that his influence impacted upon US political discourse. The point is not whether The News Blog was popular or published by the mainstream media, but whether Steve Gilliard can actually be described as notable. Please look at the external links provided both here and at the article itself. --One Salient Oversight 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for that measured response, One Salient Oversight. I don't discount the possibility that Gilliard was notable (I myself heard of him a couple of years ago), and indeed I hold no malice toward his person (despite his having branded Black Republicans as race traitors). I think this AfD would have been much more appropriate in a couple of months, too, when the dust will have settled a little. I will keep looking into the matter of his notability, though. My main concern remains the slippery slope one, because I really don't want to open us up to a flood of blogger articles, though of course it's possible for a blogger to achieve notability. Biruitorul 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Fair enough, I didn't notice that the article was very recently created. Nonetheless I think there's something kind of warped in nominating even a newly-created article for deletion the day the subject dies, especially in a case where the odds are pretty good that he is notable. Assuming good faith is one thing, but one should also try to avoid even the appearance of trying to use process to make a political point. Wikipedia will not be hurt by having an article on him for a week or two. In fact, given that virtually all the high-profile left-wing blogs mentioned his death, more actual people are likely to be finding actual value in reading this article right now than at any point in the past or future. So a dispassionate viewpoint with regard to process is one thing, but given that the process of deciding whether to delete is one involving actual human beings and their opinions, waiting a few weeks (which would, as someone else pointed out, also give time to wait for media coverage) wouldn't actually hurt. And, just to be clear, I would say the exact same thing if a midlist right-wing blogger died. Cromis 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cromis, please note that the article itself did not exist until June 2.[12] Newly-created articles or articles on newly-deceased persons have no special exemption from AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he contributed to notable blogs --Philip Laurence 00:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - a very slippery slope, if all contributors (including commenters?) to notable blogs are to be given articles. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm unimpressed by the 'slippery slope' argument, and believe he's notable enough even if "only a blogger" to be included. That someone is a blogger, or is known primarily as a blogger, strikes me as a poor rationale for deletion. He's known by name to a substantial number of Wikipedia's users (at least those users who have a similar interest to mine in terms of the intersection of politics and the Web); those users deserve to have access to a Wikipedia article on the guy. -- John Callender 01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the subject is notable, the article needs more work, but will presumably get it. 75.131.167.31 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Holgate 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please delete that comment, Biruitoru: I was not logged in at the time, nor have I edited that particular page, although I intend to do so right now. Holgate 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Biruitorul 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I'll now change to Keep given that further biographical material and references have been added. Gilliard's notability goes back to Netslaves and the dot-com bubble. Holgate 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please forming daily kos and other contributions look like notable things yuckfoo 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reform AfD Sockpuppets hijacked this one, I say we restart it. Whsitchy 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment while i recognize that this comment will be spa'ed, (and therefore am not voting on this afd) since i have previously only corrected spelling and grammatical errors (which i don't believe necessitate the registration of an account), i would still like to make the claim that steve gilliard has been quoted on several "notable" weblogs, and hence it would be reasonable to give some background for users interested in finding out information about the man whose words they read. along these lines, i also believe the article should be listed for heavy revision, as it should give more information such as steve gilliard's education, upbringing, etc. Keonhp 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he had an important role in the early days of the netroots, a movement that everyone now agrees has dramatically changed democratic politics, has been analyzed by many, and has been unsuccessfully cloned (and mocked) by the right. Strong keep, and strong sanctions for jerks using this page as their place to wage some sort of political war and mask it with wikipedia policies.71.39.78.68 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, no personal attacks and assume good faith. As I've said, I hold no brief against the man - de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Biruitorul 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume good faith. But empirical evidence overrides assumptions. And when I see a delete contest occur so soon after the article appears, after the man has died, I can draw the legitimate conclusion.
        • Some trigger-happy admins delete articles within minutes of their creation. It actually happened with this article and I had to contact the admin to bring it back. Putting an afd notice on the article was always going to happen. It is not because of bias, but because of Wikipedia's self-regulating editors and admins. I don't blame them for putting the notice there at all. This entire afd discussion has been important in the article's creation and future existence. I do not see any ulterior motives at all by those who support deletion. --One Salient Oversight 06:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News Archives comes up with 50 references. [13]. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a lot of political bloggers on Wikipedia on the right, the left, and the center. Most have been significant, quoted, and talked about in the mainstream media as well as the blogosphere. He's been a contributor to other, better known blogs, which have been noted here, and he has been criticized publicly by newspapers like the Boston Globe, and right-leaning political bloggers, most notably Jonah Goldberg. I'm not questioning Goldberg's credentials or even how far he has gotten in the media (I know his mother and her friends helped a lot in that aspect), but aside from writing a book about the 100 people "ruining" America which essentially had a page which only had one word in describing Courtney Love ("Ho."), what has he done differently that Mr. Gillard didn't do? Strongly keep the article. Nemalki 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable blogger with influence. I recommend quick removal of the afd notice on the article page out of some deserved respect.  ∴ Therefore  talk   04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to defend a few editor's motivations in this heated debate...
    • I didn't know Naconkantari before this, but a look at his talk pages show this editor to be experienced and respected admin(?). I truly believe that, whether or not you agree with his decision, his motivation for this AfD nomination wasn't due to right-wing political beliefs or anything like that; a political blogger dies, suddenly an article is created, yeah, there are reasons to suspect it's somewhat of a memorial. My cursory search when this AfD first went up, before there were any comments, didn't lead me to vote one way or the other.
    • One Salient Oversight created the Steve Gilliard article; he then posted on this site an invitation for people to come over an edit it. He wrote "I've just created this article. Please feel free to add to it. Remember to keep the language neutral and back up all facts with external links." So I don't think he was vote-canvassing. If there is one good thing to come of this, we have a bunch of new people here who can now contribute (welcome peeps!)
    • Biruitorul saw a bunch of brand new accounts expressing opinions here in this AfD. The Wikipedia system is easy to "game"; I think all of us would like to know when there is the appearance of impropriety, and to weigh the opinions expressed accordingly. That doesn't mean that the opinions of new editors are irelevant or unwelcome; but I think Biruitorul's actions were appropriate. When a corresponding right-wing blogger dies, I hope someone like Biruitorul is around to tag potential single-purpose accounts in an AfD as well.
      • When that happens, I'd be glad to. Biruitorul 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short, its not hard at all to assume good faith for these editors, and so I'd ask you all to do so. Lipsticked Pig 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A LexisNexis search shows dozens of references to Steve Gilliard in major newspapers, magazines, wire stories, and television transcripts. Google Book Search shows references to him in a shelf's worth of real dead-tree books. This one's a no-brainer. —phh (t/c) 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would tend to agree more with Lipsticked Pig's assessment of Biruitorul's actions as appropriate if the user had additionally tagged the prominent delete of SPA 66.53.125.90 aka "Susan Nunes" and the delete of Vonblade with 2 edits to its name. Inconsistency, at best. This matter is an embarrassment and serves only to delegitimize Gilliard.  ∴ Therefore  talk   06:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was wrong of me, and I apologize for it. They too have now been tagged. Biruitorul 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I have read so far of those who are proposing deletion, none appear to be doing it from political motives. As the original creator of the article and a supporter of the article's existence, I am certain that the only reasons some are voting for deletion is because they are not aware of Steve's notability and/or are rightly concerned about minor blogs and bloggers getting articles on Wikipedia that don't deserve it. I ask that all supporters of the article find as much information on the internet as possible about Steve and add it to the article, thus showing his notability. I am certain that those voting for deletion will change their minds when presented with hard evidence. --One Salient Oversight 06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. And finding "as much information on the internet as possible about Steve and add it to the article", as One Salient Oversight proposes, will not necessarily show notability; we need reliable sources and self-published sources (e.g. blog posts) aren't good enough. Skarioffszky 10:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if Wikipedia wants to remain relevant, it needs to get over its bias against some sources like blogs. In this case, the fact that Steve Gilliard was widely cited and respected in a certain part of the blogosphere you will only find on blogs.--Martin Wisse 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it's understandable that a high-traffic personal blog can diminish the motivation to create an entry, and equally understandable that the author's death would raise that motivation. Holgate 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable, Google agrees, he is referenced by other sources. Aristoi 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is easy. Steve Gilliard was a top blogger and a major player in the formation of the netroots. Ankles 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion To me it seems strange and inappropriate that a person's death can effectively trigger a notability dispute on Wikipedia. Maybe it's too late for this article, since so many opinions have already been contributed, but in the future, I think it would be a good idea (in this kind of situation) to wait for a week or two before starting an AfD page. -- 18.252.6.55 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, I repeat, the article did not exist until June 2. If people are unwilling to have a notability discussion about a recently deceased person, then waiting to create the article in the first place is the advice to give. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do believe the original AFD proposer was acting in good faith, but failed to do the proper research before deciding this was a worthless subject. Unfortunately, whatever the truth here, their actions here created the impression of Wikipedia and its editors as callous, heartless brutes, deletion happy and snooty about what is and isn't noticable. --Martin Wisse 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Naconkantari is not a new user -- in fact, according to Lipsticked Pig, is an admins. As a matter of policy, I assume his intentions were done in good faith. His actions, on the other hand, are open to commentary. Lacking apparent due diligence to research the matter properly, Naconkantari first deleted the article out of existence, and then, upon complaint, nominated it for AfD. The user's willingness (rf: User talk:Naconkantari#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard) to close this AfD with "no consensus possible" with an immediate re-run of this AfD with autoconfirmed protection, indicates an antipathy to the subject that strikes me as on-going. Why hasn't this matter been resolved by now? Clearly this was, at best, an error in judgment.  ∴ Therefore  talk   17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO is satisfied by his widespread notability and influence. He gets 1,020,000 Google hits, and editors above have noted there are dozens of print articles about his work found in searches of Google News and LexisNexus. Thus there is a basis for writing a substantial article based on independent substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, satisfying WP:N. He appears to have had an especially notable web presence and influence on DailyKos. Edison 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guy had more readers than hundreds (if not thousands) of community newspapers. It was one of the top 5000 blogs in the world (and Technorati ranking was hurt by being split between two different URLs). Like it or not, Daily Kos is a historically important site, and its founding members are as significant as the early cast of The Real World or the founders of Wikipedia. --The Cunctator 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just before he went into the hospital, at the peak of his career, his blog was ranked 1539 among all blogs on the internet. That's around the top 1/10000th of 1% of all bloggers. Pretty notable if you ask me.
    • Search for "1539" on this page: http://www.thenewsblog.net/2007_02_01_archive.html (formatting currently screwed up by black background) Ankles 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why are people surprised that an article was created for him after his death? I personally think it's long-overdue. As for allegations that this article is mere fancruft (dunno if that's a real term or not), I propose that every article on Wikipedia was created by fans. --Milton 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Including those on Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung... ? Biruitorul 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're being obtuse. There are fans of history, fans of WWII, fans of Korea, or Cambodia. Those are the people who are attracted to and interested in articles about Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung. It doesn't mean they are fans of the men, but of the area of study. Ankles 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course he's being obtuse. Biruitorul's strategy is to tightly shut both eyes to make it easier to blindly challenge other users' viewpoint. And thanks, Ankles, for understanding the point I was making. --Milton 01:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep: No reason to delete just because an article was created after his death. It's not the first time this has happened after all. --86.40.194.134 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There were several articles written referencing his role in sinking Michael Steele run for governor. Drewish 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of notability: His new blog address, which had only been active for a couple of months, is linked from 6,530 other web sites. His old blog address, still active, is linked from 12,000 other websites. Technorati ranking was 1539, putting him well above 99.999% of blogs. This is significant evidence of notability. [1] [2]
  • Definite Keep: The man clearly had a notable gift for stirring up controversy, as evidenced on this page. He was also a very influential blogger who was startlingly prescient on how and why the Iraq war would be a disaster, basing his rationale on a deep knowledge of military history. Wrote pithy commentary on the popular Netslaves site on the rise and fall dotcom empires and their sundry IPOs. Also known for the extraordinary range of topics he wrote knowledegably on. Deirdremcglynn 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those citing WP:WEB are looking at the wrong policy for determining Gilliard's suitability for an article. As WP:WEB states:

This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. emphasis added - fnv

So it is a set of standards for whether a web site, web page, blog post or some such should have an article. Thus, if this was a discussion of whether The News Blog itself should have a page, then WP:WEB would be relevant. It is not, as the article is about Gilliard, a person, whose notability is a seperate topic from the notability of his primary blog. WP:BIO is the pertinent basis of discussion I believe. --FNV 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are so many reasons to keep this article, not limited to: 1) Gilliard was a major left-wing blogger, and he influenced Daily Kos, considered by many to be the top political blog in the U.S., as well as certain electoral races. 2) Gilliard was notable enough for the New York Times to profile him after his death. 3) It is in horrendously poor taste for this article to be considered for deletion at this time (for what should be extremely obvious reasons). I don't care if "poor taste" is not a reason to keep an article. Online or not, common decency always applies.B1oody8romance7 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on point 3: for all we know, the AfD initiator holds no brief against Gilliard, and mourns his death. That doesn't indicate poor taste, but rather a desire to uphold standards, which aren't suspended after someone dies. Plus, for the record, Gilliard himself was no stranger to horrendously poor taste, as his infamous Sambo post demonstrates. Biruitorul 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for comment May I be so bold as to suggest that this AfD end early.
Given its clear notability viz-a-viz the New York Times and my suggestion that Naconkantari did not follow proper policy, which I quote:

[Before nomination of AfD,] first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Lacking said demonstration and the skipping of the proper step of tagging the article with the notability template, I recommend that this the AfD tag be removed from the article in order to rectify this error as soon as possible  ∴ Therefore  talk   03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second. --Milton 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.B1oody8romance7 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ankles 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, brother. Peripatetic 10:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. FWIW. --One Salient Oversight 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. --Milton 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say no to a Speedy Keep. There are obviously a few good faith delete !votes here which would rule out a speedy. This should run the full 5 days, if only to see if some consensus can be formed here... early closure either way will likely just lead to a WP:DRV. It might also be beneficial for someone to contact Daily Kos per the link below and ask them nicely not to show up and ballot-stuff; it's not going to influence this AFD either way and will just obfuscate the !votes with actual policy/guideline reasoning behind them.--Isotope23 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for giving that link, Toast. I am a member of the Daily Kos community (albeit very new) and I have posted a message on that comments thread that explains the situation. I'm trying to defuse the annoyance that some people might feel. On one level, you can understand their angst - a beloved blogger has died and they see the afd and see red. On another level, they don't fully understand the Wikipedia process. I've pointed out to them that the result of this afd will be a high quality article since it forces editors to prove his notability. --One Salient Oversight 13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There does seem to be some level of mainstream media attention here, and not just because of his death; some of his Photoshop work was controversial enough to be discussed in The Washington Post. (See [14].) If a blogger receives a non-trivial reference in a major newspaper of record, that is enough notability in my opinion. There aren't all that many bloggers who meet that standard, and all of them who do should have articles, since WP:NOT paper. *** Crotalus *** 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crotalus + two other Washington Post mentions: [15], [16]. Unquestionably notable. --Tkynerd 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most bloggers aren't notable, but Gillard was one of the exceptions. His work was significant enough to garner secondary coverage in major mainstream media sources, and the article's fairly well-sourced and cited. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While personally I think this chap seems quite non-notable, you can't argue with the multiple significant mainstream media sources. Also suggest invoking WP:SNOW for a speedy keep. Vizjim 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He needs to be kept on. There is also the incident of him facing down Rosie O'Donnel's lawyers.Msaroff
  • Keep. If you delete Gilliard, you might as well delete my entry and that of Daily Kos. Daily Kos wouldn't be what it is today without Gilliard's work. Still, I suspect the NY Times obit later this week (for which I was interviewed, so I know it's coming) will make this whole discussion moot -- Markos Moulitsas, Dailykos 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was not aware that one had to rise to some level of "worthiness" to warrant an entry in Wiki. Steve Gilliard was a real person, and while his writings and accomplishments may offend some, they are far more real than those of Batman, Superman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which have Wiki entries that are not targeted for deletion. -- John Craft, --76.17.124.206 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, subjects simply have to demonstrate a level of notability. Also note that we don't do comparative notability and you are comparing a real blogger to fictional characters (2 of whom are ridiculously recognizable icons I might add). A better line of reasoning would be to assert how the subject meets notability requirements as some others have done above.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, the issue here is the ambiguous notability requirements vis à vis bloggers. This is essentially a clash of online cultures, with a tendency among some editors to guard the barriers in an overzealous fashion against the perceived influence of bloggers on content. This isn't to impute bad faith on recommendations for deletion, but instead to suggest that WP:BIO currently lacks the kind of guidelines hashed out in this AfD thread, and that this lack can be mis-perceived as an invitation to rush into the AfD process. Holgate 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree Holgate, I think WP:BIO is not ambiguous and is rather fair in this case; if external news sources take notice then he meets WP:BIO. If not, then he doesn't meet the guidelines. At least a couple of editors above have framed strong arguments for retention based on WP:BIO and provided sources for their arguments (even as some others have relied on more dubious lines of reasoning like external linkages and vague concepts of importance to a certain website or set of fellow bloggers).--Isotope23 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Steve Gilliard was one of the few black/African American political bloggers of note in what is known as the left blogosphere. Many readers both before and after his death, were suprised to learn that Gilliard was black. Gilliard's critical writing style and depth and breadth of knowledge gives the lie to observations that brilliant writing has no crossover; that people will tend to stay within their own 'ghettoes' when it comes to expertise. Had he lived, I have no doubt that Gilliard would have been asked to become mainsream. Until his untimely death, I visited his blog daily for four years--gtdanyelz gab 19:31, 5 June 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.
  1. ^ [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-42%2CGGLJ%3Aen&q=link%3Astevegilliard.blogspot.com 12,000 Web Sites Link to stevegilliard.blogspot.com
  2. ^ [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en&q=link%3awww%2ethenewsblog%2enet%2f 5,000 Web Sites Link to www.thenewsblog.net
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Gilliard&oldid=1141948570"