Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (1st nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
*'''Delete'''. Maybe I should put STRONG DELETE since that would make my vote count twice as much, maybe? 15 minutes of fame does not make one notable. [[User:Wagiles|Wagiles]] 01:11, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Maybe I should put STRONG DELETE since that would make my vote count twice as much, maybe? 15 minutes of fame does not make one notable. [[User:Wagiles|Wagiles]] 01:11, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) |
||
* keep [[User:ComCat|ComCat]] 01:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
* keep [[User:ComCat|ComCat]] 01:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
||
* '''Delete'''. The man has no redeeming qualities. |
* '''Delete'''. The man has no redeeming qualities. And his blog is mediocre at best. |
||
Revision as of 02:09, 10 February 2005
The summary of this thing is already on Slashdot trolling phenomena. An article whose existence essentially reflects the systemic bias of wikipedia. Non-notable.
- Delete- The person does not create any content except some mediocre css/xhtml design (for internet) some photo collections and other daily content, but nothing notable and special. I check this site often for links to other sites and interesting articles. The design which is represented on this page reflecting this period (2001 - 2006->)
- Keep - a frontman in blogging. One of the most notable bloggers on the web. Also, its helpful to be able to look him up if you dont know who he is.
- Vote left by IP 132.236.117.156. Please log in for your vote to be fully counted. —RaD Man (talk) 19:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No notability established. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)Revisions have established notability. Changing vote to Keep. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)- Keep, notable blogger. Deletion isn't a valid response to systemic bias, either. Rhobite 01:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable - 200,000+ Google hits, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm voting cleanup for the moment. Surely one offhand comment about copying a file isn't truly his greatest accomplishment?! If he is notable, this article utterly fails to establish that.
If nothing more worthwhile can be added during the course of this VfD, I'll change my vote to DeleteUPDATE: Additional details added by Capitalistroadster show notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) - I have heard this guy's name somewhere before. I guess that means he must have some sort of notability. Expand and keep.--ZayZayEM 02:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable within the blogger community. JoaoRicardo 02:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Utterly devoid of notability. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As a rule we should answer systemic bias by adding, not by tearing down. Keep and expand. Samaritan 04:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I partially agree, but if a subject is notable only in a small subculture which happens to be disproportionately represented among Wikipedia users, we should be aware of this and not make it an exception to our policies regarding notability. The original VfD and the state of the article at the time of the VfD made it seem like the only people Kottke was "well-known" to were those who write or read trolling posts on Slashdot. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Have added to article added details about his blog including winning a Lifetime Achievement Award in the Bloffie awards. Designed the Silkscreen font in 1999 which is widely used and on the advisory board for the SXSW board since 2000. Capitalistroadster 08:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. Who has not heard of this person? GRider\talk 22:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? It's some blogger. Seems completely non-notable. Delete. Everyking 23:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Will wonders never cease? An article that Everyking thinks should be deleted and which I think should be kept! I normally don't add "me-too" keep votes. (Believe it or not, if I did, there would be quite a few.) But I cannot resist. Blogging has become a very significant phenomenon on the Internet, and Kottke won the Bloggie Lifetime Achievement Award in, IIRC, 2002, which is about as notable as you can get as a blogger. You can quibble about the Bloggies, since sometimes the results seem kind of stacked (kind of like Wikipedia), and some types of blogs, such as political blogs, are under-represented and under-appreciated, though they have a wider significance than blogs that receive a lot of Bloggie votes. But that doesn't prevent the Bloggies from being used as a strong, although not exclusive, indicator of the notability of bloggers. Having said that, it can't be true that the quote about the Mac is his most "famous" quote. It's a dorky quote and it is hard to believe that he hasn't said anything more interesting than that to win the Bloggie. --BM 01:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep. This person is equally as notable as paniq is within his own field. —RaD Man (talk) 08:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, all this guy is "notable" for—and I have a very liberal interpretation of notability—is winning some award that sounds like an honor roughly equivalent to The Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence, and he designed some font or some such thing. And some trolls quote him saying something incomprehensible. What? We delete articles less notable than that every other day. It actually seems like there's an exception being made here for "nerdcruft", which doesn't seem terribly fair to me. Everyking 08:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Here's a violin. —RaD Man (talk) 10:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There is some similarity between the paniq case and this one, which I thought about when I voted. There is the hazard of narcisism for Wikipedia to have articles about Internet phenomena, I would agree. However, blogging is a much bigger Internet phenom than the demoscene, and Kottke has more clearly established himself as notable within it than paniq has within the demoscene. But I'm impressed that you are paying attention. --BM 14:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Since you spoke up again, Everyking: I'm dumbfounded. I hate to bring the Ashlee Simpson thing into this, but it's hard to ignore the hypocrisy of your statements. You're writing off the blog community as "nerdcruft". It's hard not to notice the similarities between your argument, and the mindset which you've railed against for wanting to scale down the Ashlee Simpson coverage. Kottke is without a doubt significant in the weblog community, and Simpson is an unquestionably notable in pop music. Well, you're accusing the blog community itself of being insignificant and using that as an excuse to delete an article about a notable blogger. Hey, does that type of closed-minded bias remind you of anything? Such as people who argue that pop singers are inherently less notable than classic rock acts? Rhobite 21:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The difference, of course, is the number of people affected. How many people read this guy's blog, or consider his work significant? If it's more than a few thousand, I'll vote keep. But my suspicion is that the number is pretty damn small, and he's receiving magnified attention due to the general tendency of Wikipedia's contributors to be especially interested in topics relating to technology and computers. Ashlee and her music, on the other hand, are known and important to millions, so I see little grounds for comparison. Everyking 07:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I can't find a more authoritative number, but his Alexa trafic rank is 23,502. This isn't some guy with a blog, it's some guy with a reallly popular blog. If it were any other sort of web site, people would be all over it with keep votes due to Alexa's number alone. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As someone who formerly had root on his webserver, I can speak from experience about the levels of traffic reaching kottke.org. I'm not sure Jason would care for me divulging specifics, but his hit counts are into the millions per month and there are over 100k unique IPs hitting the site every month. I believe the blogging community is a significant modern sociological phenomenon and within that community Kottke is one of the major players. He carries something akin to celebrity status within the weblog community, and the intersection between Wikipedia usership and weblog audiences is significant. Mouser 18:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- All right, you and Cyrius have convinced me, he seems sufficiently notable after all. My vote can be considered a keep. Everyking 22:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The difference, of course, is the number of people affected. How many people read this guy's blog, or consider his work significant? If it's more than a few thousand, I'll vote keep. But my suspicion is that the number is pretty damn small, and he's receiving magnified attention due to the general tendency of Wikipedia's contributors to be especially interested in topics relating to technology and computers. Ashlee and her music, on the other hand, are known and important to millions, so I see little grounds for comparison. Everyking 07:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, all this guy is "notable" for—and I have a very liberal interpretation of notability—is winning some award that sounds like an honor roughly equivalent to The Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence, and he designed some font or some such thing. And some trolls quote him saying something incomprehensible. What? We delete articles less notable than that every other day. It actually seems like there's an exception being made here for "nerdcruft", which doesn't seem terribly fair to me. Everyking 08:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Blogcruft, blogpromo. Blogger navel gazing. Hey, let's set up Jason Kottke and Ashlee Simpson on a blind date. We can have a TV show, and then write a Wikipedia article about it. It's just crazy enough to work. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Blogging is almost a household word (Many reporters and columnists no longer feel the need to define what "blogging" or a "weblog" is anymore when they mention it), and Jason kottke is one of the most, if not the most, well-known of all bloggers. He is also mentioned in at least three books that I could find with Amazon's search inside this book feature (probably many more). Milquetoast 18:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs to be cleaned up/expanded, as does Anil Dash. On the other hand, Wikipedia's getting too big - someone should start a Blogopedia, a PopCultoPedia, etc. Also, Kottke voted for deletion for the article in its current form. Salasks 21:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep and cleanup. Kottke is one of the foremost in blogging these days- numerous websites link to him. ral315 22:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Kottke is very notable, in my opinion. --OntarioQuizzer 23:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Maybe I should put STRONG DELETE since that would make my vote count twice as much, maybe? 15 minutes of fame does not make one notable. Wagiles 01:11, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- keep ComCat 01:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The man has no redeeming qualities. And his blog is mediocre at best.