Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverbend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Riverbend

Is this blatant and POV blog spamming, or encyclopedically notable content? If nothing in this article can be factually substatiated, is it still notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? Shall I continue? See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rance --GRider\talk 21:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.

  • Please do. We don't know what you want to do, so we can't decide if we support it. Chris 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Shall I continue? No. I have an idea, GRider: how about actually giving your reasons for adding things to VfD. I also took the liberty of deleting the POV and accuracy tags from the article: GRider, if you're too lazy to engage, you ought not to be cluttering articles with extraneous tags. --Calton | Talk 00:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There was one, unsigned, set of rhetorical questions. Tell you what, you stop behaving like a troll and I'll stop treating you like one and actually talk to to you. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Was there not a mention left on the talk page? How is any of this information verifiable? Other than a first-person link to a weblog, what references are cited? What is an example of her "elegant, near-perfect, English"? In its current state, how is the entire article not speculative, unreferenced POV? --GRider\talk 17:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Copied from User_talk:GRider#Riverbend.)
        • Please note that the article has been updated with sources and more information including a quote from the New York Times (one of many mainstream publications that have taken note of her). Perhaps we can spend a few minutes with Google before slapping a vfd on everything in sight. --Lee Hunter 16:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and keep: well-known blogger, even if GRider can't be bothered to find out. --Calton | Talk 00:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; nomination is malformed. —Markaci 2005-03-22 T 03:05 Z
    • Vote is malformed. Grue 17:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • "Vote is malformed"? What is that supposed to mean? --Calton | Talk 14:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No, please don't continue, please cease your vfd activities entirely. Wincoote 13:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Grue 17:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Funny, I don't see any personal attacks worth reminding about. Chris 20:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • "please cease your vfd activities entirely" is what then?
          • Sound advice, politely given. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Famous blogger? Sounds like oxymoron. Grue 17:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like an uninformed opinion. Daily Kos? Pax Salaam? Little Green Footballs? Juan Cole? Ring any bells there? --Calton | Talk 00:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Not at all. This "Riverbend" could be easily a fat bald bloke living in Honolulu. Grue 06:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh huh. And this has to do with "oxymoron" how, exactly? You do know the meaning of "oxymoron", right? --Calton | Talk 14:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Do you know the meaning of Wikipedia:Verifiability? How about Wikipedia:No original research? All articles must be based on objective, verifiable information; this is not. How are fellow Wikipedians able to verify what is written in this article is accurate? If you can't give a print source for the information contributed, it should be removed. --GRider\talk 02:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Are you and Grue playing tag-team non-sequitors? Do you know the procedures for nominating articles for deletion? Do you even do the slightest bit of research before launching your VFD nominations? Do you know the meaning of don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Do you even have a point? Did you get a big box of question marks at Costco you're trying to use up? Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? If your mother says don't chew it, do you swallow it in spite? --Calton | Talk 05:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this another attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Is the nominator ignoring two RfCs brought in regards to this behaviour? If the nominator refuses to desist from this behaviour, will the current RfAR end with sanctions imposed? See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#GRider. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bloggercruft. ComCat 05:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep She's a brilliant writer, frequently referenced by other notable bloggers like Middle East expert Juan Cole and Danny Schecter, one of a tiny handful of Iraqi bloggers, one of only one or two Iraqi women bloggers. Notable enough to become the target of a few right wing nutbars in the US. Notable enough to get 60,000 hits on Google. (I've also added some more information re her identity and her book). --Lee Hunter 02:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And I also want to register my displeasure with yet another malicious nomination from GRider.--Lee Hunter 13:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.