Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (2nd nomination)

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 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason_Kottke

Previous VfD listed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (1st nomination)

Not notable, vanity/advertisement. This guy is a blogger, made a font, is his "Lifetime Achievement Award" some kind of plea for his notability? Skrewler 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• NN blogcruft, delete. ComCat 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep. notable web celebrity. innovative designer and blog coder. first non-corporate professional blogger. the lifetime achievement award mentioned is for the Bloggies. go read the 1st nomination which failed by a landslide: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (1st nomination). --Quiddity 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO. 1.8 million Google results for Jason Kottke [1] Covered in Newsweek see [2]. In WP:BIO, being published in a newspaper or journal is sufficient to get you a guernsey. Why is a person who gets 25,000 visits a day on a website not considered notable? We need a coverage in WP:WEB to cover bloggers similar to Webcomics. This nonsense of people winning lifetime achievement awards being nominated for deletion has got to end.Capitalistroadster 02:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable 65.34.232.136 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Femmina 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Useless Blog Garbage -- G0sp-hell 09:27, 15 November 2005
• Keep most bloggers pages I would vote to delete, but Kottke is rather well known. I don't see this as a vanity page, and it is rather NPOV. I also don't see what has changed since the last vfd. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 04:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I usually vote delete for bloggers, but it only takes a little research to see that kottke.org is pretty notable. Jasmol 04:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Technorati calls him the 11th most popular blog. Article seems a little puffy, though. --William Pietri 06:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep this article please it is about a very famous blogger erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 06:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster and previous nomination. Someone who's covered by Newsweek can hardly be not-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Worthless vanity page. I don't give a flying shit about this Jason Kottke person. --86.2.56.178 12:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons given in the first listing. No reason to relist. Angela. 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blogging + Search Engines, what's the use? SEO doesn't make something notable. --Depakote 12:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Remarkably notable. -- Plutor 14:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: important as a relatively early blogger and for his "micropatron"-sponsored professional career. --rbrwr^± 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: very notable blogger. - squibix 15:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd seen many references to kottke.org before this, but assumed it was a Leo Kottke fan site. Oops. Anyway, it does look like this blog is notable enough to keep - but shouldn't the main article be about the site, not its creator? Perodicticus 16:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Jason has created several award-winning sites and is probably notable more as a person who has created these sites than via one site alone. He's won web awards, been written up in Newsweek and the New Yorker and was one of the early consistent bloggers. His article stands on WP:BIO merits alone. Jessamyn 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, please research your nominations before making them.Gateman1997 22:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Preaky 14:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as before. Stop trolling. Rhobite 03:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Go back under your bridge. —RaD Man (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Quiddity, echo Gateman1997s comment. Radman and Rhobite, please try and be more civil, eh? Take a look at WP:COOL, calm down, remember that even if someone is a troll, feeding them doesn't solve the problem. Blackcap (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the inclusion criteria established at WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 [[User talk:DS1953|^talk]] 02:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. __earth 06:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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.