Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete. Gamaliel 20:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Claybourn[edit]

A blogger whom a blogger magazine thinks is in the "top 200" bloggers. Notable? Oh, and he has a home page. Uncle G 19:20, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

  • Delete. This blog isn't particularly noteworthy, and its author appears to have no other notable achievements. Shimeru 23:32, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reluctance about this one. Thryduulf 01:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, attempt at a blog ad. Wyss 04:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't want to reply or give a reason, but apparently an anonymous comment has caused me to speak out. The only evidence of notability, apparently, is in article in Evansville Courier & Press, IN on Dec 28, 2004. Is he notable locally? Yes. Does that warrant his inclusion into the Wikipedia? No. Has he been Slashdotted? No. My answer still remains the same. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • AllyUnion, you really didn't do your homework. How about full feature spreads in the Dall Morning News and the Indianapolis Star? What about regular articles in World magazine and National Review? The Evansville paper is one of the most insignificant of his pieces. And he's been Slahdotted too. --Anon 09:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment from 68.20.131.2
          • Does my library get every major newspaper? No. Do I live in Midwest? No. Show me a link to a nationally read newspaper that is commonly sent across the United States for people to read. More people pick up a local copy of the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times than the Indianapolis Star... since the LA Times is the second largest metropolian newspaper in the United States and the New York Times is the first in the United States. If I wanted a Midwest paper, I'd pick up the Chicago Tribune. If you were on TV on your local television station, even if it was Southern California, I would not claim notability for you. If you were on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle, maybe. And I doubt that Joshua Claybourn's material was front page material on the Indianapolis Star. Now, if you made an ass of yourself on national television, like say... William Hung then somehow got famous, I'd claim for notability.
            I am going to show my google search work in regards to Slashdot: Google Search for "Joshua Claybourn site:slashdot.org" Google Search for "link:www.joshclaybourn.com slashdot" Google Search for "link:www.intheagora.com slashdot". All these turn no results. The first one is searching for his name on slashdot. Nothing. The second one is finding if the word 'slashdot' occurs in any of the sites linking to www.joshclaybourn.com. Also nothing. The third one is finding if the word 'slashdot' occurs of any pages currently linking to his current blog. Again... nothing. A search on Slashdot itself under "Stories" does not show any definate hits, all of them are "0.1"; I still see no reason why to keep this. I did my homework, stop deluding yourself. The way you write seems like you're a rabid obessed fan who wants nothing more for more publicity for Mr. Claybourn. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A reasonably well-known blogger although not in the top echelon. Has written for other publications including National Review Online. Change my vote from weak delete to KeepCapitalistroadster 11:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite keep as it stands now. I recognize his name, and I spend as little time as possible on right-wing blogs. "joshua claybourn" OR "josh claybourn" yields 104,000 Google hits, for heaven's sake. Samaritan 10:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • We all know (or should know) that bloggers and blogging manipulate the Google page ranking mechanism. Moreover, my (real) name has thousands of Google hits and is recognized by people, too. Yet I don't have, nor expect, an encyclopaedia entry solely on that basis. Wikipedia isn't Google by another name, nor is it a repository of currucula vitae. What makes Joshua Claybourn notable? Uncle G 13:37, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
      • similarly my real name gets lots of hits on google - a sizeable number because of me (although I do share a name with an Australian rugby league player and a Canadian academic), as I have had an internet presence since about 1998, and my site gets top spot on two or three different google searches, and on the first page in a couple more. I've also had a few poems published in different anthologies. That doesn't make me notable, and so there isn't a Wikipedia article about me (or my namesakes for that matter - both of whom (imho) are more deserving of one than me (at this moment in time certainly). What makes one of the top 200 bloggers notable? Do we have articles on any of the others?. Thryduulf 16:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • There are 51 articles so far in Category:Bloggers. Claybourn fits comfortably into this category. I've wikified the article, by the way. Samaritan 19:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • That there are 51 articles in that category doesn't say anything about whether Joshua Claybourn should be added to it. Indeed, picking six articles from that category at random, I discover in each case there is something significant about the person that can be pointed to aside from a mundane curriculum vitae of going to school, writing for newspapers, running a web-log, being in the "top 200", and having a home page. There's nothing, despite your edits, that makes Joshua Claybourne stand out in similar fashion. I'll ask again the question that you have failed to answer: What makes Joshua Claybourn notable? I'm in the top 200 of some things. May I have my curriculum vitae published on Wikipedia, too? Uncle G 20:29, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
            • His opinions on politics, religion and society are widely discussed across a wide swath of the blogosphere. He also meets the print published author test from Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. It is not formatted as or nearly as extensive as a CV would be. It has room for expansion discussing these opinions and how he presents them, and putting this into context. Samaritan 00:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • widely discussed across a wide swath of the blogosphere — But not anywhere else, such as on Google Groups. He gets a mere 10 hits, yielding only 4 distinct references. As I pointed out above, bloggers and blogging manipulate the Google page ranking mechanism. However, as has been recently pointed out elsewhere on VfD, they don't manipulate Google Groups, and the Google Groups Test seems to be, currently, an effective tool for blowing away the blogger-created fog. I get nearly 1000 times as many Google Groups hits as Joshua Claybourn does. May I have my curriculum vitae published on Wikipedia, too? Uncle G 20:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
              • It is not formatted as or nearly as extensive as a CV would be. — but reads exactly like one, nonetheless. How helpful has this Wikipedia listing been for his job applications, do you think? Uncle G 20:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  • Keep as it stands now. Blogger Joshua Claybourn is certainly in the top echelon of well-known bloggers for his hand in numerous blogs. He's not "one of the top 200 bloggers" but "one of the 200 most influential authors on the web", which is significantly more different. "joshua claybourn" isn't a common name and the Google hits are his alone. The entry should stay.
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the top 50 bloggers in the world and one of the top 200 writer on the Net. Besides, as others noted here, it's in keeping with other blogger profiles. Sammy 21:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • "most influential authors on the web", when written in a blogging magazine with a target readership of bloggers, translates into English as "bloggers". Moreover, "top 10/20/100/200" lists in magazines are rarely backed up with hard data. (Oftentimes they are constructed by the editor and a group of mates in the pub.) And even when they are, those data should be treated with suspicion by encylopaedists. ("top 10/20/100/200" lists derived from reader polls are self-selected and usually more topical than true. A readers poll of "influential authors" in a blogging magazine is going to yield more than the appropriate share of other bloggers.) Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • One of the top 50 bloggers in the world — The article has never said that. Where's your reference for that? Are you using Samaritan's inclusion of Joshua Claybourn in Category:Bloggers as the evidence for this? That's circular. Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • as others noted here, it's in keeping with other blogger profiles — I've noted here that it is not in keeping with the other blogger biographies. The other biographies all mention at least one thing about the person that makes them stand out from the "went to school X, wrote for newspaper Y, runs a web-log, has a home page" crowd. So far, nothing of that ilk has been put forward for Joshua Claybourn. If you have actual evidence that he is notable, please put it in the article. Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • Vote actually from 68.20.131.2, who is author of the article and also deleted my vote. Gamaliel 07:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Falls on the wrong side of how I read the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete unless further evidence of accomplishments or notoriety are presented. Rossami (talk) 00:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant blogger. Gamaliel 18:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • NOTE: The article is almost word for word a copy of this. Gamaliel 22:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Copyvio. Well spotted. The original article, before wikification, was an exact copy of that. And there's a definite non-GFDL-compatible copyright on that page. I've put up a {{copyvio}}. Would that I had spotted that straight off! Uncle G 20:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep. This guy is frequently published in some of the most influential magazines and newspapers in America. He also happens to blog, and that blog is one of the most well-known in the country. He fits the description for biographies because of his extensive publications and for his fame in blogging. Anyone who is remotely familiar with blogging knows about the guy. Jimmy 18:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote actually from 172.172.44.207. First edit.
  • Sorry, I haven't been at this for too long. My name's Jimmy but I guess I need to set up an official user name first.
  • Keep the blogs4God bio -it's mine and he has my permission to use it. My name is Dean Peters[1]. I own and operate blogs4God[2]. Josh was extremely instrumental in helping me establish the metablog/directory. Joshua Claybourn has ALWAYS had both my written[3] and verbal permission to use any and all blogs4God materials infitum.
  • Comment from 24.163.124.186
  • btw - in the future, perhaps there should be a mechanism to contact copyright holders first, e.g. email? I would think false, or at least not completely researched accusations of copyright violation could be just as damaging to the WikiPedia as the act infringement.
  • btw - he can't be all that 'unotable' if he's on Glenn Reynolds' blogroll[4] (and has been so through several revisions and purges).
  • question - is this really an issue of politics I'm seeing here? Meaning people who disagree with Josh's right-leaning idiology seek to censor[5] him in the form of subjective opinions about his significance? As a solution, could someone propose some axiomatic semantics[6] and/or quantifiable metrics[7] we can apply to either confirm or deny the claims of the detractors ... and apply to other similar situations?
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 01:56, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Keep, extremely well-known blogger. --Camsmith 01:56, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Vote from 4.5.240.97
  • Delete. Navel-gazing vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I imagine a few bloggers could be notable - if they were caught up in historical events for example. I can't see anything that makes this one notable - not even close on the professor test. We might as well have bio articles on the top 100 Wikipedians. - Solipsist 08:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • good idea - I for one would be very interested in both a top 100 Wikipedians[8], perhaps the metric being contributions in combination w/bandwidth to said articles ... and similarly for the top 100 bloggers[9], as this form of new media is causing some Rather[10] interesting ripples in the political landscape. Mean Dean
  • Delete. Not notable enough for my blood, even with the direct e-mail appeal. Merely posting to a blog does not make one notable, unless the blog is itself a unique perspective (Salam Pax, Wonkette). While we're at it, though, are we also going to delete Josh Claybourn? - jredmond 15:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record, I too received a direct email appeal. As for Josh Claybourn, I suggest a redirect to Joshua Claybourn, and the same (if any) action taken against that page as against this. Thryduulf 15:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anon 16:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, but heavily cleanup. When I got a email from him, I was tempted to vote to delete because I don't really like the tactic. But upon further reflection, it seems like this guy is fairly well-known within the world of blogs and has written some articles for some widely-known publications. This seems to be a very borderline case. However, the page right now sounds like more of a publicity bio rather than a real NPOV article. Someone who is familiar with the blogosphere should rework the article, maybe with some criticisms of his opinions. Also, this whole debate seems to be a good justification for a policy against autobiography.-Clipdude 00:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. How long will this discussion go on before a decision is made? -YHoshua 15:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first and only edit.
  • How long this will go on for is a good question actually. Most VfDs last 5 days, this one was started on the 10th... Thryduulf 20:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Claybourn&oldid=1166418373"