Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Burch (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben Burch
Delete. Does not conform to Wikipedia's inclusion of biographies. DantheMan 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 *  Very weak keep because I think his contributions to Adult Video News would, in fact, qualify him for WP:BIO. His notability in terms of name recognition appears to be pretty low, but unless there's something to tell me that AVN doesn't reach a 5000+ circulation, keep seems to be the fairest vote. EDIT: After reading the talk page for the article, being mentioned in Salon as well as a source for published books seems to reach levels of notability that I can't disagree with. This assumes that Burch (who doesn't consider himself notable) is being accurate, and I see no reason not to believe him.  --badlydrawnjeff 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. 543 search results. Of the 20 I looked at only 7 referred to this person.  2 from his own page, 3 from his form posts and 2 from radio station interviews.  Re-list maybe in a few years if he becomes noteworthy. (Signed: J.Smith) 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't particularly like Ben myself, but this article doesn't seem to pass the tests in the link Dan posted. I must wonder, though, how many times this article will be listed for deletion?--WinOne4TheGipper 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * AVN circulation is at 40k. With Burch as a contributor, doesn't he actually meet said guideline tests? --badlydrawnjeff 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I once wrote a "letter to the editor" to a paper that had a circulation of well over 50k. Does that make me note able? If he's a regular contributor then maybe, but I don't see any evidence of that. (Signed: J.Smith) 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to meet (barely) the qualifications for notability. Article could use some improvement, but I don't know the first thing about him, personally. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How often does contribute? Anyone want to check?:)--WinOne4TheGipper 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can answer that. Monthly.  I consult on news stories and legal matters with Editor Mark Kernes via email on an almost daily basis. Rarely mentioned by name, though I am always in the colophon.  Not sure about this month, though, as Mark as been ill. BenBurch 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, Ben. It looks like you qualify, then.  I'm changing my vote to keep.  Hopefully, this is the last time I hear about AVN.:)--WinOne4TheGipper 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. -- Nightowl1335


 * Delete. NN. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't conform to the rules of WP:Bio. 0nslaught 22:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. --kingboyk 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Movementarian (Talk) 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP Ben Burch is a very important person in the progressive community. He has devoted endless time and resources to make sure that progressive voices remain heard.  Attacks on him or his bio by people who do not agree with him politically are petty and patheticSweetm2475 00:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. - O^O
 * KEEP
 * err... unsigned vote. :( (Signed: J.Smith) 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. A virtual nobody in the grand scheme of things.  Wikipedia might as well put my biography in.--Susan N.
 * KEEP Stuff all of these freepers and their politically motivated comments  --Alan P.
 * Merge into The White Rose Society (website) --Revolución (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, doesn't meet requirements of WP:BIO. Oppose merging into The White Rose Society (website), as that article is also up for deletion, and also doesn't meet requirements for inclusion (WP:WEB in that case) --Krich (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I will not comment on this as I personally don't think I am all that notable. I fall into the category of non notable people mentioned on national radio on a daily basis.  People like show producers, editors, etc.  You hear their names, but you don't remember them.  All I really care about is that people hear the name of my website, and go there to download shows.  And since 2002, over five million hours of audio has been downloaded from the site.  And the site only bears my name if you look in the right place.  BenBurch 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't take this NfD as an attack against you. I happen to support your work. (Signed: J.Smith) 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I was amazed that this entry survived the first RfD, and don't think my notability has increased by much since...  BenBurch 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is some kind of sophomore warfare going on here between two groups of I am not sure what (see Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website) for the sockpuppet jamboree). However, the happy news is that everyone involved is extremely nn, and hence can be very safely Deleted. Eusebeus 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen on that. Who knew the Freeptards had so many IP addresses?  BenBurch 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think Mr. Burch is notable. In addition, Burch doesn't appear to have qualms about editing his own Wikipedia bio. This could taint the article content. Rhobite 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge -- There is nothing wrong with this article, honestly. However, perhaps by merging other articles connected to this one (such as the White Rose Society (website)) would increase the worth overall to all of them by having them in the same article.  InvictusNox 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong? Ben Burch, by his own statements attests that he is not notable. He just doesn’t fit the bill for those important enough to be listed in a encyclopedia.  Given his accomplishments to-date will he be remembered in 100 years? What about another benchmark... if I asked 10,000 people on the street who "Ben Burch" was, would any of them know anything?  Maybe Mr. Burch will become one of the most influential people of the 21st century.  But we can't judge the articles worthiness on "maybes." "I personally don't think I am all that notable" (Signed: J.Smith) 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete --NaconKantari 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. Burch is pretty much an unknown outside a small group of people.  I would guess that most on DU and the opposing website CU know about him and his website.  There is a minority that have heard of him on FR.  However, one of the criteria to determine whether to keep an article or not is whether they contribute regularly in a publication that reaches 5000+ individuals.  I would argue that that number is too low, but AVN's circulation number of 40,000 and that he contributes monthly qualifies him.--WinOne4TheGipper 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Burch doesn’t get bi-lines on any of those "contributions" and thus they are unverifiable. (Signed: J.Smith) 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable and also rather unverifiable. Stifle 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: As his website seeks permission to archive left-leaning radio shows, his name is frequently mentioned on those radio shows. While I didn't create the page, I don't really see a reason to delete it. Jackk 22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like a person in a creative profession with a reasonably large combined audience. Kappa 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to meet (barely) the qualifications for notability. Article could use some improvement, but I don't know the first thing about him, personally. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of Hearts


 * Keep, Meets the qualifications for notability. Reasonably but not exactly massivley well known. Englishrose 20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although merger with The White Rose Society (website) would be an option, keeping this article seems the better way to accommodate his separate involvement with the sex industry. JamesMLane 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a solid Keep to me, not sure why others are voting to delete. -Colin Kimbrell 16:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  17:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - nonnotable. "Contribution" to AVN by consulting vs being a cited author.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 01:25, 17 January 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.