Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Domenech

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 was Keep — Caknuck 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Domenech

Ben Domenech (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person seems to only be notable as the co-founder of a website and for being asked to resign from his job. Steve Dufour 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - That Web site happens to be RedState, a major conservative blog, and that job was a blogging position with Washingtonpost.com. He was asked to resign after an investigation determined that he had plagiarized more than a dozen articles that were published under his byline in his college newspaper and in The National Review Online. Even without the plagiarism flap, he would be encyclopedic for the RedState founding. FCYTravis 03:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article contains almost no information on RedState. 90% of it is about his job with the Post. Steve Dufour 03:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Then... add information about it. Deletion is not a substitute for improvement. FCYTravis 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per FCYTravis. Robertissimo 03:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable on three counts: founderco-founder of a significant website, writing for a major national publication, center of a significant plagiarism scandal. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article says he was a co-founder of the site. He only held his job with the Post for 3 days. WP is not the news. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW the article on RedState only cites itself and two other blogs, except for the Washington Post story on their problems with Domenech. Steve Dufour 04:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP is not the news, but news coverage is a criteria we use to assess notablity. The reason he held his job for such a brief period was because of the scandal. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 04:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. The scandal and his resignation were just a news story. Steve Dufour 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And that news story is one of three reasons I'm voting keep as I feel it establishes sufficent notability. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per FCYTravis. Thanks. Maxamegalon2000 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Travis and Gamaliel. Guettarda 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lots of college students plagiarise. I'm glad that one got caught and hope he serves as an example to warn others. However he does not really have the kind of permanent notability that WP is looking for. Redddogg 13:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am not arguing for deletions based on policy, but rather, (a) this person is utterly unimportant, (b) the controversy around him so minor, and (c) the individual's minimal accomplishments -- even if he has received press coverage in the past. A good analogy would be high school sports figures, who do in fact receive press coverage but are also utterly unimportant. Quatloo 02:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Purported United States journalism scandals where he will feel right at home. This article is a WP:COATRACK because its subject is known only for one episode which shows him in a bad light. He did not qualify under WP:BIO before his plaigarism was exposed. I say this even though I find the article quite satisfying and enjoyable to read. Edison 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: FCYTravis calls RedState a "major" conservative blog. I don't see any evidence at all, anywhere, that it's major. If it can be shown that it's major, then Domenech's notability would be supported. If RedState isn't major, then Domenech's notability rests with a single, scandalous event and I'd agree with Edison, that the article should go, with information merged into the scandals article. (see Keep !vote below) How do you establish that the blog is "major"? I'm not sure, but someone might start with some factual assertion of its notability in the RedState article. Noroton 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC) -- updated Noroton 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per FCYTravis/Gamaliel. Ossified 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to his later exploits, he was the subject of a 946-word profile in the Washington Post when he was just 18 years old. That source alone means the subject meets WP:BIO. He was further profiled as part of "ELECTION 2004: Rising stars in the Republican Party" in the Atlanta Constitution, and named among the top ten bloggers by the Evansville Courier & Press in 2003. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he has a special talent for fooling newspaper people. The Washington Post even gave him a job :-) Steve Dufour 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, could you please provide links to those articles? I'm having trouble finding them. Noroton 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I found them in ProQuest, an archive of newspapers, etc. You may be able to get access to the database through a library or university. Here are the citations. If you'd like me to quote excerpts I can post them on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• An Early Eye for Political Punditry; Teenager's Pointed Views Play in Conservative Circles; [FINAL Edition] The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2000. p. V.01
• VIRGINIANS ARE JOUSTING IN ONLINE 'BLOGOSPHERE'; [City Edition] Pamela Stallsmith. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Aug 24, 2003. p. A.1
• BLOGGING YOUR MIND INTERNET WEBLOGS PROVIDE EASY FORUM FOR IDEAS AND OPINIONS; [Final Edition] Evansville Courier & Press. Evansville, Ind.: Nov 7, 2003. p. M.15
• ELECTION 2004: Rising stars in the Republican Party; [Home Edition] TOM BAXTER, ANDREA JONES. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Atlanta, Ga.: Aug 29, 2004. p. A.7

• Keep See: this sample of the first several paragraphs of the Washington Post article, which is clearly about Domenech and meets our definition of significant coverage from a reliable source. From what little I saw of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article (the first two paragraphs here), it also appears to be significant coverage of Domenech from a reliable source (although he's apparently one of a number of people featured). This is clear, convincing evidence of WP:Notability. Combine it with the scandal and with whatever coverage we have in the article and that the other sources Will provided, and the case for notability is solid, now. Will Beback, thanks for your enormous help. Noroton 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added information from the Washington Post article. Noroton 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep - Domenech absolutely meets notability requirements, given the number and quality of citations in the article. Sufficient sourcing is available to write an NPOV article, there is an article, and there should still be an article after this AfD. DickClarkMises 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If this AfD decides to keep the article please do some work to correct the undue weight now given to his college plagiarism and his having to quit his job on the Washington Post. If he is notable it is as an Internet commentator, not a dishonest college student. (I will not edit the article since I was the one who nominated it for deletion.) Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:11, 3 September 2007 (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.