Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley the Republican

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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley the Republican

"...the first popular conservative woman podcaster." Weasel words aside, so what? Podcasts are a dime a dozen. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment How about we see some independent verification of any of these claims. I say, give it a little bit, and if they can't come up with any of that, then my vote is for delete.DeathThoreau 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep pending some verification. -- JJay 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 493,000 google hits for "Shelley the Republican" and the early ones are all about this, and in a wide range of different places. CalJW 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Gee, that's funny, I get only 105 unique Google hits. Try putting quote marks around the phrase. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, JJay's vote is odd -- what, we're supposed to keep all nonverified stuff? That's not the way Wikipedia works. And I have to question CalJW's counting skills, as I get 26,500 Google hits for "Shelley the Republican", only 94 unique. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I meant that the nom has not shown that this is not notable or unverified. I don't have time to google every nom and also don't feel that I can fully trust the nom's judgement. Since we have tons of podcasts/podcasters on the site, how am I supposed to decide which ones stay or go. Therefore, I have to default to keep pending some verification that Ms. Shelley Republican is not notable. I was hoping that editors with some expertise in this area would help guide that choice. -- JJay 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I share your same concerns, only because some of the other nomations made by Mr. Gustafson earlier today looked a bit hurried. I am assuming good faith, but I hope that he reconsiders and voluntarily withdraws some of his other noms, such as the AFD for Khalil Beschir. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, I agree. I can't run the risk of throwing away potentially valuable information. In this specific case, how can one judge the notability or popularity of a podcaster? Are there ratings or awards? Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Maybe google hits are not the answer. -- JJay 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment So, are you saying that lacking verification, your vote above is one for a Delete? You're right, Google is rarely a good source when it comes to Websites, [http:/www.alexa.com Alexa] is far superior, but can't be used in this case since the Alexa rank will be for [http:www.blogspot.com Blogspot], Shelly's bloghost. Maybe we should ask Shelly why she's any different than the hundreds, if not thousands of political pundit bloggers out there. karmafist 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought this woman was supposed to be a popular conservative woman podcaster. Is podcasting the same as blogging? Does Alexa rank podcasts? I do find Ms. Shelley nominated for Texan of the year along with a bunch of other famous people [1], or mentioned in a Guardian book review [2], but am still quite unable to judge her notability. Also, my vote right now is Keep. It might change to delete, at which point it will be two letters longer with a different pronunication starting with the letter "D". -- JJay 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My Google results are similar to that of Zoe's, but with 100 more for some strange reason ("Results 1 - 10 of about 26,600 for "Shelley the Republican". (0.06 seconds)"). [3] The difference of 100 hits might be because I have filtering disabled and am allowing for any language, any format, anytime and anywhere in the advanced Google configuration. This seems notable enough though. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your search still only shows 94 unique hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not know how to explain our strange discrepancy, but when I perform a search for this name using the link I provided above, it returns 118 unique hits on page 12. In any case, I believe that this person is notable enough for inclusion based on these results. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator and Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - EVERY SINGLE LINK past 210 is a link to "Podcastpickle.com." Linkfarmed and linkspammed to boost results, obviously. Non-notable. "First popular woman podcaster" is also unsourced and unverified. FCYTravis 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa check is impossible since it's a blogspot blog, blogs/podcasts are generally not notable and this one hasn't proved otherwise, or really anything about how it doesn't violate WP:NOT/Propaganda Machine. karmafist 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per FCYTravis and karmafist. - Randwicked 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agreeing with above. The linkspamming is out of control. Eusebeus 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Good example of why Google is a guideline when determining encyclopedic notability, not a strict rule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. You want to be anonymous and then spam everywhere in sight? Bah. Non-notable. Ifnord 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability Irrelevant, not official Wiki policy. Jcuk 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Untrue. Notability is one of the specific criteria by which biographies can be speedy deleted. That is official Wikipedia policy. And please do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. Notability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and therefore a valid reason for deletion. Durova 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be spamming; absolutly no sourced claims of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Podcasters are a dime-a-dozen. Hells bells, even I've started one. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability is relevant. Why? Apart from it being the basis of WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc. etc, notability is relevant because the community damn well says it is. Wikpiedia is not a bureaucracy (that's not in WP:NOT, but it should be) and community consensus ranks over the lack of 'policy'. --Last Malthusian 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep to counter left-wing bias.  Grue  14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per FCYTravis Agnte 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per FCYTravis - FrancisTyers 16:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete although you know the liberal jewish media is out of control *wink* wink* I was tempted to vote keep, but then I didn't--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:34, 24 December 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.