Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sock puppets or no sock puppets, there is only one "keep" vote, so the "delete" side wins either way. — JIP | Talk 19:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David_M

Since there was no nomination for this, I'll create one. This is un-alexa-able, has no presence on Google news, vanilla google has nothing grand in the first few pages, the links from the page are unverifiable without login, barring the single entry which only refers to "a blogger". Unless some details are forthcoming that can satisfy WP:V, I'd recomend that this article be deleted as unencyclopdic. - brenneman(t)(c) 15:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Who? Not notible in my books. supers 05:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • User has less than 50 edits, the first of which was to AfD. Alphax τεχ 15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one verifiable link from original article, and first few 100 google hits are blog directories. --Timecop 05:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn blog. Dottore So 08:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The majority of this user's contribs are to AfD. Alphax τεχ 15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I take serious umbrage at this misguided attempt to disparage my vote. Dottore So 15:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that, see the note I left on your talk page. Alphax τεχ 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity in its purest form. -Incognito 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmmm. This subpage doesn't have a nomination. Why is that? There is, in fact, not one single valid reason for deletion listed on this subpage (oh, except "nn". Sorry.). The article was listed by a known Internet troll as part of a GNAA campaign. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I see User:Aaron Brenneman had to provide a decent nomination, because the trolls couldn't be bothered. C'mon, guys, put your backs into it! Do you want to disrupt Wikipedia or not?
  • Keep, some nice men told me to. Alphax τεχ 15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the new, Brenneman, nomination. The Land 15:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Brenneman's nomination. Generally unverifiable. Saberwyn 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure what the "notability" criteria are, but folks should be aware of some points. The print media references in the article are in fact legit. If that is enough to make this entry notable, then it is in fact notable. The links are unfortunately "verifiable" only to those registered with the publications in question. The NY Sun and Editor & Publisher refer to the blog by name, but the WSJ refers to it only via a link. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the 6/28/05 NY Sun:
"While Mr. Lemann intended Mr. Navasky to oversee CJR, his exact role at the magazine wasn't agreed upon until this week, after a New York-based blogger, who goes by the name David M, wrote on Tuesday of the CJR's high profile hire. Shortly after that blog entry, Mr. Lemann and Mr. Navasky settled on the title of "chairman," and said Mr. Navasky's name would be on the masthead in the next issue of CJR...."

--68.198.234.56 02:50, 19 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.