Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Jimbo

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. Deizio talk 11:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Jimbo

I doubt this is notable. Article seems to go out of its way to display notability through google and yahoo ranking, but this is probably just due to googlebombing. jaco♫plane 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Googlebombing? Please at least do me the favor of any type of search. The prominence on Yahoo, Google and other sources is due to the large volume of content I have produced and the amount of links from notable media sources including National Review, Time.com, CNN, Salon, AP and many others. I will endeavor to make the entry more encyclopedic and simply ask indulgence for a day or two, as this entry was posted today. I was honest about my use of Wikipedia and that can certainly be verified by examining my postings, and I hope the community will not succumb to Jaco's incorrect and unresearched allegation.

  Cordially,

  Uncle J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 04:00:40 — Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete, the article spends more time trying to prove he's notable than it does talking about what makes him deserve an article. Fails WP:BIO, and the above shows that this is total vanity. Redirect to Jimbo Kern. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• There is some additional information added to the article that notes specific accomplishments in citizen journalism and blogging that ought to be taken into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 04:43:07
• Keep, and I hope the first vote doesn't count, because the guy who made it is obviously retarded. A quick Google search would show this isn't a "Googlebomb." As for it being vanity, how many news sources does a person have to be in before he's a pundit? I know some people here at Wiki are all like "Oh no! Bloggers! They're scary and will eat up all of Wikipedia's hard drive space leaving little room left to expand our article on Bumblebee from the Transformers!" Seriously, this is asinine. So, if someone sees Uncle Jimbo on CNN, don't come to Wikipedia for information on who that is. If you want Krang from the Ninja Turtles, we have you covered. Come on! The article needs some cleaning up, but do some research before making a decision. Frank J. Fleming 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: considering you have 5 mainspace edits, you may not be familiar with our policies regarding No Personal Attacks, and Civility. Please read these policies and abide by them. Calling somebody "obviously retard" is totally unacceptable. --Storkk 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete For all of the attempt made in this vanity article, there is absolutely nothing that shows this individual is notable. It is bordering on failing criteria G11 for a speedy delete. Resolute 06:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Okay. As per FFleming's wishes I have done a quick in-context Google search ("uncle jimbo" "jim hanson"). 281 results. Not-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 10:33:13
  • What's an "in-context Google search"? I did a Google search for that phrase but didn't get a hit. I don't think looking for Google hits on "uncle jimbo" and "jim hanson" together proves anything, since he's often cited as just Uncle Jimbo or Uncle J. Milbloggers are often cited in the press, inlcuding Jim Hanson, so it would make information about him a lot more useful than a lot of crap Wikipedia has extensive articles on. Is there just some irrational fear of bloggers here that makes it harder for them to prove notability than any other type of person? Frank J. Fleming 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 11:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and then recreate as redirect to Jimbo Kern, protecting if necessary to avoid recreation. The delete is required to prevent the WP:VAIN stuff being accessible in the page history. Suggest that the blogger article be at Uncle Jimbo (blogger), or Jim Hanson, but will probably fail WP:BIO. Possibly add a brief note to Jimbo Kern to note that a blogger is using the name, and/or create a disambiguation page to list Jimbo Kern and Jim Hanson. Carcharoth 11:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A move to Uncle Jimbo (blogger) would probably be acceptable, although a disambiguation page would have to be created at the current location of the article (Uncle Jimbo), forking to Jim Kern/Jim Hanson. Ashanthalas 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While I do realise that precise search engine rankings probably shouldn't go in a blogger article, the people who scream vanity likely do not know the reason they were posted. If you look at the page history, this is the third attempt to create this article. The previous two entries were simply reverted by a certain *user, not admin* without any sort of discussion. It is my understanding that these search results were posted as a simple way to confirm notability while the article is still fledgling and will be later removed. And look, it worked, at least we are having a discussion this time. Also, I have added this article to the proper category of American Bloggers. IMO a lot of articles in there could be deleted for lack of notability. But somehow noone argues that. Wikipedia has set a precedent and now we should follow up. I mean geez, there's a guy who has an article because he's a prominent figure in the community of podcasting. Please don't make me comment on this. Uncle Jimbo writes for - what I understand is - the top American military blog, Blackfive. He appears on radio interviews. On posters. He seems to be very widely recognised in the so-called blogosphere, especially it's military segment. And it's not like he started yesterday. Ashanthalas 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Category:American bloggers is no more an indication that Wikipedia is a directory of every single 'blogger in existence, than the existence of Category:Living people is an indication that Wikipedia is a directory of every single living person in existence. Wikipedia is not a telephone book nor an Internet directory. Our criteria for biographical articles are Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If you wish to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water, please demonstrate by citing sources that those criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 12:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My comment does hold water, as it adresses the issues raised previously (accusation of vanity and explanation of overall notability). Second: right now, Wikipedia is a telephone book, to be in which you have to win a lottery. As for the criteria for inclusion of biographies, Uncle J is likely to meet this one Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field in the field of independent journalism or something similarly worded, although since he's around, I'd prefer if he commented on it personally. As for Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, see here and here, look for "Blackfive" (the blog that he co-edits in addition to his personal blog). Ashanthalas 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I see absolutely nothing in this article that suggests this individual will become a part of the "enduring historical record of that field". Since when was "blogger" a professional occupation? Especially compared to a painter, architect or engineer? As to your earlier comment, if the only notability an individual can show in his article is google search results, then he is not notable. This article is pure vanity, nothing more. Resolute 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, Michelle Malkin is a notable blogger and if you go to www.counterterrorismblog.org that is a blogger that is reputable on counter-terrorism. Therefore, a blogger is a profession. MRMKJason
• Delete or Redirect as above, just another blogger. Thryduulf 15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The reason to keep the entry is based on the notability of the author of Madison.com and BlackFive.net. First, BlackFive published a book "Blog of War" and authors of books are notable. Secondly, Uncle Jimbo is one of five authors on BlackFive and there should be an entry of BlackFive, as well as its published work, "Blog of War." Thirdly, Uncle Jimbo should have his own entry within the confines of a BlackFive entry and "The Blog of War: Front-Line Dispatches from Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan" entry. He is notable by affiliation of authorship through another blog that published a written work on the testimonials of soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan. Still, the Uncle Jimbo entry needs to be Wikified and cleaned up. There does need to be neutral entries into his article, as well as the aforementioned entry requests to put in context his notability. MRMKJason 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the author for Blog of War is listed as Matthew Currier Burden. Jim Hanson is no more notable by association than the random child of a President or Prime Minister is. Resolute 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Matthew Burden is BlackFive from BlackFive.net and he has made guest appearances on news shows. Also, there are entries of people that are associated with other people and Jenna Bush has an entry as the daughter of President Bush. Therefore, there are entries in the context of someone or something more notable. The book written by BlackFive and his blog is notable as testimonials of soliders during war. It is also notable as a book that publicizes military blogs and www.counterterrorismblog.org is a very reputable military blog for research on terrorism. Still, the BlackFive blog also contains other authors and are notable under the recognitiion of BlackFive's notoriety as the result of Matthew Burden aka BlackFive's work. MRMKJason
      • Matthew Burden is not Jim Hanson, however, which is entirely the point. You have argued the notability of Matthew Burden (published author), and of the website blackfive.net (top military blog on the net^{[citation needed]}) Yet you have yet to show a single argument on why Jim Hanson himself is notable. Resolute 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Jim Hanson aka Uncle Jimbo is notable as one of the five others of BlackFive. Much like Jenna Bush, who is only notable for being a sibling to President Bush, Jim Hanson is notable for his authorship at BlackFive that is a top military blog and was implemented by a published author, Matthew Burden aka BlackFive. In addition, Michelle Malkin a blogger, has her own published works and entry into wikipedia. On the other hand, I do not think that the Jim Hanson entry should be alone. At least, there should be a BlackFive entry with all of the bios of the authors and the published work of Matthew Burden. Therefore, the Jim Hanson/Uncle Jimbo entry would be unnecessary if there were a BlackFive entry that had the bios of the authors and the BlackFive book. Without association to BlackFive than the entry by itself would not stand. Hence, there requires a BlackFive entry in order to give credence to its entry. MRMKJason
          • Also, a BlackFive entry with Uncle Jimbo would be good for those that want to research military blogs. For instance, Wikipedia is for the purposes of research and the BlackFive entry would serve the purposes for those that would want to research military blogs as a primary source into the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or past/present/future wars. MRMKJason
            • Well, I made an entry for BlackFive, so if any of you are interested, please make your entries. MRMKJason
              • Right now the BlackFive entry has a speedy deletion, but can be removed by other users and not by the person that created. Therefore, for those that support the BlackFive entry on its merits of being historical and newsworthy than remove the speedy deletion entry and update the article if you can. MRMKJason

• • • I appreciate the fact that you folks are considering ths article, and I just wanted to clarify a few things before a final decision is made. I did this because in researching my writings Wikipedia is the most useful tool on the internet for checking facts and I have been using it more and more. I work for madison.com selling online advertising, but I was writing my blog there for almost a year before I joined the company. They had shown support for citizen journalism and I wanted to help make sure the field would grow. Recently I had a row with the editorial board of the larger newspaper hosted on madison.com about the military commissions and prosoner interrogation. I did almost all of my research about the Geneva Conventions, Hamdan decision, and other related topics on Wikipedia and cited them in my piece.

While anyone who attaches their name to a piece of writing and believes the public ought to read it has an element of vanity, my purpose was more to join the community and hopefully add to the credibility of Wikipedia for more people. There is a perception that the editorial voice of Wikipedia is left of center, and while that is not by design, the perception certainly exists. I have two very distinct audiences, the one at Blackfive is largely pro-military while the one at madison.com is just as largely progressive. I have received positive feedback from the madison.com audience for my use and acceptance of Wikipedia and I have introduced it to a skeptical, but more accepting over time, audience at Blackfive.

I have not been active in editing other articles here yet, mostly because I am unfamiliar with the etiquette. I believe that the addition of myself and the other authors at Blackfive would be a positive thing for Wikipedia as it would aid in it's acceptance as a definitive non-partisan source of information. If this survives the deletion process I will add info to the article on myself in the proper format as well as one detailing Blackfive and it's authors. Obviously then the Wiki process will take those and build them into articles reflecting the community's perception.

Regarding the book "The Blog of War", The author is Matthew Burden "Blackfive" and although my work was included in the proposal that won the contract, it is not included in the book as the focus was tightened to active duty personnel and their families.

Citizen journalism and the blogosphere are having a larger effect on how the public gets information. Small as our contributions have been thus far, we are affecting changes. Thanks for your attention and hope this resolves in a positive manner for all of us. --Unclejimbo 17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; no evidence of adequate notability. Postdlf 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and redirect as per Zoe. No encyclopedic notability apparent. Bwithh 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not just another blogger. The argument for re-redirecting to the Southpark supporting character's entry is ridiculous, I've never seen that character outside of the animimated show. This Uncle Jimbo has been on the radio and tv. FlyingSpaceMonkey 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not even especially notable among milbloggers on his own[1][2]. I would suggest a merge to Blackfive but we don't even have an article on that blog. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Uncle Jimbo is one of the prominent bloggers out there and to me it's perfectly okay because he's outspoken about his military views especially regarding Galloway. He would be most known in the blogging community just like User:Dailykos who works on his own biography as well sometimes. At least he worked his reputation up before the establishment of this article. He's not out to promote himself because he's already done that job. Uncle Jimbo is a reference I always attribute to Blackfive.net, not Madison. Googlebombing is a stupid excuse for this as he is already #1 & #2 on the search engine for Madison. Especially other blogs talk about Uncle Jimbo ie: [3] [4] [5]. The Uncle Jimbo wiki isn't even in the first four pages and so on. The proper link to South Park's "Uncle Jimbo" howver in the first four pages are Jimbo Kern and Recurring South Park characters. Again the idea of deletion is nonsense. ViriiK 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Pre-eminent MilBlogger. I fear many of the delete votes are political in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falshrmjgr (talk • contribs) 2006-10-9 02:19

Note: User's 4th edit. --Storkk 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Re: Note:' The number of my edits is irrelevant. The issue is whether the subject is worthy of entry. The notoriety of James Hanson as a Milblogger of repute has been established. What I attempted to draw attention to is the efforts by some to make a political statement, including your own "strong delete" below. The simple fact of the matter is that a personage who has established himself as a pre-eminent milblogger, including being referenced in the Washington Post [6] is of significant relevance for a wikipedia entry. Surely he has contributed more, and is more influential and recognizable than a random sample entry for a AAA Basball player who has 1 major league game to his credit. Example: Shane Komine Furthermore, your intimation that my number of edits is somehow relevant smacks of of the sort of elitism that is counter to the spirit of wikipedia and I take offense. You might want to take yourself back to the "Don't bite the newcomers" page. Falshrmjgr 06:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's very relevant. Please read WP:SOCK, especially the part about "meatpuppets". The fact that you have few edits casts a strong suspicion that you were asked to come here and create an account for the sole purpose of contributing to this discussion. We call this "vote fraud" even though this is not a vote. --Storkk 10:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Voter fraud but not a vote? I thought we were supposed to argue the contents and not each other (at least, that's what I got yelled at for), and if a new user can add inforation on the content, I don't see how the number of edits is relevant. Maybe this just happens to be one area where the person is particular knowledable and can contribute.Frank J. Fleming 12:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since this isn't a vote, who does make the final decision?

• Redirect to Jimbo Wales and delete history before making the redirect. -Anomo 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo Wales is itself a redirect to Jimmy Wales. Thryduulf 10:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've watched all but 2 or 3 south park episodes and yet "Uncle Jimbo" makes me think of Jimbo Wales more than the south park character. Oh and then redirect to Jimmy Wales I guess. Anomo 10:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I've never heard of Jimmy Wales (I use Wikipedia constantly, but never cared to read about the founders). I don't see any Google hits for him under "Uncle Jimbo."192.190.121.109 13:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Even though I read Blackfive. Jinian 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, vanispamcruftisement. --Storkk 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A vanity entry for a nn notable blogger. The presence of an Internet-related persona on a search engine fails to indicate much along the lines of actual achievement. GassyGuy 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and link to BlackFive --- Metalman780 04:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New user. Arbusto 05:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New user or not, maybe a disambiguation page and a link to BlackFive would be a good idea, with any relevant data on Uncle Jimbo moved there. Frank J. Fleming 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I rewrote to be more stub-like. Jimbo is less notable than some bloggers who've been deleted from Wikipedia, but I agree with the point made about Wikipedia being too blog-hostile. Arcane television characters on cancelled shows get their own articles with the smallest minutiae (e.g., Sue Ellen Mischke) while IMAO.us and the like get repeatedly deleted (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/IMAO) in spite of being repeatedly referenced by virtually every right-wing blog and blog-like entity out there. Yes, Jimbo started this article and yes, it was badly written (partially in response to the RfD!), but I'd like to give it a chance before killing it outright. Calbaer 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep After reading the stub it seems its apparent this persons views are regarded to some extent, they have had media appearances, host a popular blog and program. I am not sure what more you can ask. While I normally do not like bloggers and blogs for that matter this persons reach seems to extend beyond the, dare I say it, blogosphere. --NuclearZer0 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article is full of self-references. I happen to agree with the default presumption of non-notability for bloggers. In this day and age where everyone can be a blogger, this subject is no different in that he likes to have his opinion known, and that's about all, really. Except, oh, he wants to have an entry in wikipedia (to increase his credibility?) Ohconfucius 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  FYI, the first link is not a self-reference, in spite of being from the same domain name. So only 2 of the 4 refs are self-references. Calbaer 06:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete absent multiple non-trivial independent mentions in external sources of provable authority. Warblogs are notable as a genre, individual warbloggers are not. Guy 10:41, 13 October 2006 (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.