Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott W. Johnson

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 Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott W. Johnson

Vanity W Johnson 900 google hits nn Skrewler 02:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a substub: No position on the worth of the subject, but the "article" is a predicate nominative. A fact is not an article. Geogre 03:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO and WP:WEB. Highly notable blogger and opinion leader. Co-founder of PowerLine, Time Magazine blog of the year for 2004 for the their role in exposing the use of fraudulent documents by 60 Minutes leading to the end of Dan Rather's career. [1], Website has 80,000 visitors a day see [2] "Scott Johnson" Powerline gets 141,000 Google hits see [3].

Johnson appeared on CNN's reliable sources program in response to a book from CBS Producer Mary Mapes see [4]. Highly notable blogger. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Independently noteworthy from Powerline. Jtmichcock 04:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with capitalistroadster. His blog is notable and if one of the blog co-founder's Wikipedia article has barely survived the AfD process. I don't see any harm of keeping this one. --J. Nguyen 04:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have expanded the article including the material cited above. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You know how I am with substubs. (I squish 'em!) Geogre 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Skrewler, if you don't know what you're talking about, you should probably stick to reading instead of trying to edit anything. --Daniel11 02:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, let's not insult nominators or other voters. It's enough to vote to keep. Geogre 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but don't bite the Skrewlers. Jacqui^★ 15:09, 20 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.