Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Louis

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 - kept - SimonP 00:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan Louis

Delete. A vanity article, going through the normal, unnotible life of a blogger and his blog. Written by the blogger himself/herself. 24.76.141.128 05:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notice the redirect from the user account of TNLNYC who originated this article. --Barfooz (talk) 05:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Redirect removed because of note below (by DenisMoskowitz)
• Userfy back to TNLNYC --Xcali 05:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, and post a cheerful lecture on his talk page. -- BD2412 ^talk 08:00, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Keep, (of course, I'm the user so I'm biased but this is based on the fact that I still meet the wikipedia criteria for biography:more on my talk page) - TNLNYC 12:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I do support Userfying the article. Honestly, this thing reads like incredible vanity. Terms like "well known" are tossed around quite alot, even though this was written by the person in question and so seems very biased. 24.76.141.128 22:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Edited page to make it less biased... However, it's hard not to be since I'm the subject. --TNLNYC 23:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy unless the unverifiable claims are removed and the references to the verifiable ones establish a modicum of notability. My threshold is low, but this article doesn't give one much to go on. Dystopos 22:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed all non-verifiable claims from page--TNLNYC 23:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While it could be considered vanity, I think the author makes a good argument for why to keep it. It's a tough call between Userfy and Keep but, considering Dystopos comment, I'll go against the prevailing opinion and support the author on this one. --208.131.51.19 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like the links point to verifiable claims. --63.111.163.13 22:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on above 63.111.163.13 has, if you check his/her contributions, only contribs to the article in question. They are biased, and possibly Tristan himself. 02:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Response to comments Checked my IP (I did indeed go to edit some stuff - mainly removals to make it more compliant with what people were asking to do here) but it doesn't look like mine (and I know I didn't add a Keep... I'd like you all to Keep it (or Userfy it, at worst) but not so badly that I would try to rig the vote (I figure it would be too easy to find out :) )--TNLNYC 23:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• UserFy He doesn't seem important enough to keep as an entry but has made some contributions so I would hesitate to delete. Plus, extra points for being willing to be honest and redirect his user page instead of creating a separate one. --70.19.92.21 14:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ouch, that one hurts my ego (not important :) ) --TNLNYC 23:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• comment I would ask that he not redirect his user page to this one - it complicates looking at his contributions, getting to his talk page, etc. No opinion either way on deletion. DenisMoskowitz 20:15, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • response to comment: Done. Redirect removed. --TNLNYC 22:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy. Really, man; why even have us waste time discussing whether to keep the article in the main namespace... (no insult intended for you yourself, TNLNYC---I just do my wikiduty voicing my opinion on the WKP article as such). --Wernher 01:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • response: Wernher, I guess the issue is that, technically, the page does meet the criterias listed for inclusion. Maybe the criteria should be changed? --TNLNYC 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep During the Internet bubble, the guy's opinion could make or break companies. I remember meeting him once at the Internet World conference and people like Jerry Yang of Yahoo! were clamoring after him to endorse their products. My, how the mighty have fallen but still someone who deserves a footnote in history --68.116.184.131 16:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • response: Actually, I'd say this is not enough of a reason (damn, why am I arguing against inclusion here :) ) --TNLNYC 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless you want to remove the following entries: Jason Kottke, Juan Cole, Ana Marie Cox, Anil Dash, J. Bradford DeLong, Hossein Derakhshan, Betsy Devine, Mark Frauenfelder, Philip Greenspun, Joshua Harris, Hugh Hewitt, Meg Hourihan, Dave Hyatt, Joi Ito, etc... who have had about as little an impact as this guy did (I could add more people but I don't have the time... maybe we should rethink the whole Bloggers category as it doesn't really give the long view. --70.19.111.5 12:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • response: I would agree with some (as I started writing the entry based on the fact that those people had entries). However, I'm not sure deleting them would be the right idea. --TNLNYC 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment again, nearly all the "keeps" are from nearly contribution-less anons. Specifically, one has only contributions to the article in question, one has contributions to December 28 and 29, and one has contributions to December 30. It seems fishy, and I hate to say things like that. (I also agree that most or all of the blogs mentioned in the vote above be deleted ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep from someone who isn't a contribution-less anon, and would like to point out that there are many articles on Wikipedia that people do not edit, but would not like to see deleted and thus vote if the issue comes up. --ElfWord 07:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hence I'm staying out of voting, I don't really care all that much about this article, but have no opinion against it either. The anons are still suspicious in my mind, as two were editing the same set of articles, one only had edited the one in question, and one or more apparenly have something to do with Bloghate. None had simply edited nothing, or unrelated things, and it just struck me as odd -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy Keep I just did a minor edit on it, after hearing that there was an entry in contention (on a mailing list). He was a minor character in the development of several web formats back in the early days of the W3C (circa 1995) but I don't think he deserves a full article in the wiki space but considering some of the feedback I've seen, I'm changing my vote (many people credit him with the 3 column look adopted by so many news websites). --Spainhour 03:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Spainhour 18:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete He's only a blogger. I think none of the bloggers should go in. Let's face it, they don't contribute much --Bloghate 05:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and delist. VfD vandalism by IP address 70.19.111.5 who is working hand in glove with User:Bloghate. [1] [2] —RaD Man (talk) 08:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - not because he's a blogger, but because he's General Manager and publisher of iWorld. Also, keep listed on VFD - do not assume this is vandalism. Radiant_>|< 12:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: When a someone creates a user account named Bloghate and runs it immediately to VfD in order to nominate and delete blogger-related articles, it is safe to assume it is bad faith. What planet do you live on? —RaD Man (talk) 15:05, 14 Jun 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.