Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Wolf

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 delete. --bainer (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Wolf

This was deleted speedily but I am recreating it and placing it up for deletion Mineralè 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Mineralè 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blogger. — Apr. 2, '06 [02:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
  • Comment: If he had not been in a legal fight with the FBI I would have agreed, but please look at the cbs article and the bay article. Not to mention the press release. Mineralè 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable blog fails WP:WEB--Dakota ~ ° 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bio. Royboycrashfan 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - before voting please read this article: http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/03/30/n/HeadlineNews/GRAND-JURY-SUBPOENA/resources_bcn_html
  • I read the link... Bay Area police reports, what of it? — Apr. 2, '06 [03:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Comment I'm not voting yet. Asking: Google test? How notable is this person? DyslexicEditor 04:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This guy is essentially fighting a subpoena from the fbi to release footage. He is not notable but his "fight" is. His case has been picked up by the National Lawyers Guild pro bono. Essentially the fight is: is a "blogger" considered a reporter? If yes then the law stipulates that he does not have to release the footage under the Reporter Shield Law. Mineralè 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You asked for google, here it is 63,300 for "Joshua Wolf", but the top hits clearly refer to people named "Joshua Wolf Shenk" and "Joshua Wolf Coleman", so I refined the search further to avoid false positives: 942 for "Joshua Wolf" +blog, but then I notice Mr. "Wolf Shenk" also happens to be a blogger and appears at the top of this list also, hence step 3, eliminating the non-applicable surnames: 51 for "Joshua Wolf" +blog -shenk -coleman. Non-notable. — Apr. 2, '06 [17:32] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
    • Personally, I think then the measure is: Has this person been mentioned on television and how much? DyslexicEditor 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you realize how many people, including myself, don't watch television? — Apr. 2, '06 [18:14] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If it does not warrant its own article (and I don't see anyone else convinced it is), the information belongs somewhere on wikipedia. DyslexicEditor 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Merge somewhere. Maybe something on law or blogs. DyslexicEditor 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This has the potential to be a significant free-expression case, in which case the principal litigant is notable, but the case is still at a very early stage, and there has not been wide public or media notice, and the case may be settled in a manner that does not provide case law. On balance I'd keep it and improve the article. MCB 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "potential" =/= "encyclopedic". --Calton | Talk 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely weak keep. He does seem to be vaguely notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to Delete. A bit too vague. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Getting mentioned by Boing Boing doesn't make you famous, notable, or encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What about CBS? Or getting picked up by the National Lawyers Guild? Mineralè 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope. Nope. Any other questions? --Calton | Talk 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More wikinews than wikipedia, Once it's settled, and if the result is notable, then yes, but until then I am somewhat concerned about an article about an ongoing court case. Cases such as Google_and_privacy_issues are a different scale, where a wiki article may not make difference, but a case regarding one person where the sources would be more limited is a different matter. MartinRe 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he's notable for involvement in one event, hence the event should have a page (if notable enough in its own right) and he should be mentioned there. There is no assertion here that the individual is notable for excellence or achievement in his field. Deizio 16:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MCB. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only one source is from verifiable media, and that just 3 days ago. WP is not a crystal ball; this could be the defining case for bloggers as journalist or Wolf could quietly cave. If this case does turn out to be pivotal, then recreate. Thatcher131 00:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 'If' this fellow becomes notable, 'then' an article is warranted about him. One isn't warranted on the premise that he might become notable in the future. RGTraynor 19:17, 3 April 2006 (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.