Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Gardner: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Phil Boswell (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*'''Keep''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''': meets [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:CITE]]. [[WP:BIO]] includes "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''': meets [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:CITE]]. [[WP:BIO]] includes "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''', as per Kman, also this is encyclopedic because the use/abuse of the Internet (including Wikipedia) was so widely documented and the deception lasted so many months. This has become a somewhat notable case of Internet identity fraud (of which there is a lot) in the early 21st century. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:16, 19 January 2006
Deletable. My reasons are stated well enough here. -Ste|vertigo 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- No keep this on it goes to show wikipedia helps society in many ways sometimes strange --Kyle G 06:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Noteworthy.[1][2]. See also precedent AfD case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer). — TheKMantalk 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't meet notability standard. Inclusion of this article seems to be inherently POV (in this case, biased towards topics that are even tangentially related to Wikipedia). --L33tminion | (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The only WP:BIO criteria that comes close is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events", which is so nebulous as to be almost useless. Notoriety within the WP world yes, in teh real world? Methinks not. --bainer (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Does television coverage on CNN count as the real world? — TheKMantalk 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- From what I've read, much of the media coverage (especially the original ABC article) seems to focus more on the kids who uncovered Gardner. Moreover, none of the sources paint Gardner as being exceptional among sex offenders, since many use false names and identities. --bainer (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- What makes him exceptional is his media coverage. The vast majority of sex offenders don't get interviewed on NBC[3]. — TheKMantalk 08:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- From what I've read, much of the media coverage (especially the original ABC article) seems to focus more on the kids who uncovered Gardner. Moreover, none of the sources paint Gardner as being exceptional among sex offenders, since many use false names and identities. --bainer (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Does television coverage on CNN count as the real world? — TheKMantalk 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kman. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE. WP:BIO includes "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Kman, also this is encyclopedic because the use/abuse of the Internet (including Wikipedia) was so widely documented and the deception lasted so many months. This has become a somewhat notable case of Internet identity fraud (of which there is a lot) in the early 21st century. The Witch 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)