Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (second nomination)
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 was DELETE. -Docg 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gregory Kohs
Delete Already deleted once. No assertion of notability (and I highly doubt that one could be made). It appears to be somebody who's just pissed off at Wikipedia and is trying to make a WP:POINT. --Адам12901 Talk 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Minimal scope of interest outside of the WP community.
Also fails WP:V. Caknuck 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)- If that were the case, then the Associated Press and the Washington Post wouldn't have run articles about the subject. --Oakshade 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Notability and verifiability issues aside, this seems to violate our policy of avoiding self-reference. Kohs is one of many many banned users, and I'd hate to think about the precedent this would set if kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Upgrading to Speedy per below. First AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Recreation of deleted content. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Multiple non-trivial sources. VigoDeutschendorf 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: More added to the article itself; asserting notability. Google news and regular Google searches show still more. VigoDeutschendorf 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — VigoDeutschendorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: No valid assertion of notability appears in the article at this writing, later than Vigo's two items above. Neutral, because some minor and passing notability might be shown by the added sources. Avoiding self-reference isn't a primary policy, but where Wikipedia-related stuff is the primary claim to notability, we need to make sure there is truly substantial independent source material, such as featured discussion of the ability of collaborative projects to protect themselves from being commercialized. Probably this bio should be replaced with a redirect to an article about the controversy; I don't think I even heard Kohs' name in the NPR radio coverage, and I didn't notice it in articles I read at the time. Barno 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete • Deny problem users recognition, please. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Nothing there except self-reference. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete junk. JuJube 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Of the telephone directory, yes. An encyclopedia? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 15:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I didn't know telephone directories had that much independent information in them. Up in New England, you only get one or two. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable.--MONGO 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BIO. Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works [7][8] [9]. --Oakshade 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The first item's headline should be a hint: "Microsoft Offers Cash for Wikipedia Edit" -- Kohs is a footnote, not the primary subject. The second item is an AP item piggybacking off of the Microsoft story. The third is brief, 5-graf blurb about Kohs from the website of the Chronicle for Higher Education. Trivial all, and self-referential, to boot. --Calton | Talk 15:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- You're right, he's not a primary subject of the Post one. But he is a primary subject of this, a primary subject of this when translated, and the other articles offer enough to expand upon further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Two brief blubs (one of them, as I pointed out and which which you glossed over, piggybacking on the Microsoft story) and some wishful thinking certainly stretches the whole "multiple nontrivial" threshold. --Calton | Talk 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, while the Biz should be a footnote at Wikipedia, Mr. Kohs is NN. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-02t21:32z
- Keep per WP:BIO. Adding to the AP article and the independently written articles in Chronicle of Higher Education and Die Welt, there was a 7-minute appearance on national TV. Seems notable, unless the Wikipedia "self-reference" is more important. --QuiteNiceGuy 13:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC) — QuiteNiceGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
18,300
Delete? Keep? Let Google decide. 18,300 hits for a name in a quoted search on Google? Without quotes = 28,800. Seems notable! This appears to be an "add to watchlist" subject, fuel the fire sort of thing. Let's move on, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.147.46.51 (talk • contribs) — 172.147.46.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep, the sources indicate notability. Everyking 10:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO, WP:POINT, and WP:DENY ➥the Epopt 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per The Epopt. Picaroon 18:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No notability besides items which should be avoided per WP:SELF -- Seth Finkelstein 12:11, 6 February 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.
