Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.D. Lasica

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 of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Lasica[edit]

Not notable, does every blogger need their own wiki article? Skrewler 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Delete as NN. ComCat 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HAHAHAHA PLEASE stop making useless not notable non-encyclopediac articales on wikipedia. remember what wikipedia is not okay? 65.34.232.136 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 03:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Will someone stop nominating notable people as per WP:BIO. Had book published by Reed Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation published earlier this year which was reviewed by notable publications. Eight Google News references see [1] and 861,000 Google references. [2]. WP:WEB needs its own bloggers section. Capitalistroadster 03:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stong. An author listed on amazon. A google search gets 944,000 hits. -- 24.68.132.132 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I'm typically quick to hit the delete button on bloggers, this one is notable enough. Jasmol 04:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. Durova 05:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This particular person is not known as a blogger, so Skrewler's question should be answered with "no, bloggers are not very notable." However, this particular person is a frequent commentator and a flavor of the year on DRM issues. He has been the flavor for long enough, too, that I think he's a stable presence. Geogre 10:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster and the anon commenting after he did. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthless. Just another shitty blogger who thinks they are more important than anyone else. This is clearly not the case, unless we are going by the colour of their shit. --86.2.56.178 12:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known author (>100,000 Google hits for darknet+Lasica), and founder of Ourmedia which already has an Alexa rank of 19,000 despite launching only 8 months ago. (disclaimer: I'm probably biased since I'm on the advisory board of Ourmedia). Angela . 12:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Perhaps worth noting on a page about "authors with blogs", but currently isn't notable enough for an article of her own. --Depakote 12:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable author, grey literature researcher. Are the people who are putting up these AFDs even reading who the people are, or just searching for the word 'blog' in the articles. Jessamyn 17:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is exactly what is going on. Check out the nominator's user page. Turnstep 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author who passes WP:BIO. Gateman1997 22:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author, blogging irrelevant. Turnstep 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preaky 14:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and establish blogger inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB to prevent these type of systematic nominations from happening in the future. Hall Monitor 22:38, 18 November 2005 (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.