Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Loy


 * 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 keep. Hordes of single purpose accounts noted. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Brendan Loy
Non-notable and reads as a vanity entry Stevenscollege 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The page does read like blog-promotion. But the fact that major old-media outlets (NYT etc) turned to a personal blog as a source in a time of major national crisis is kind of significant to the history of media -- just because it was probably one of the first times that had happened. However, merging the info into a section on "Media coverage" (which I'm surprised to see doesn't exist yet) on the Hurricane Katrina page would be fine--or maybe put it in the blog article. Minus the puff-quotes of course. Dybryd 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems Mr. Loy is also featured in Spike Lee's new movie about Hurricane Katrina. -- 137.53.94.17 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No opinion As the subject of the article, I'm not qualified to express an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. However, I just want to say that it is NOT a "vanity page," if I understand the definition of that term correctly. I did not create the article, and I have no idea who did. Nor have I participated in the revert wars that have happened in recent months; I've watched them with some amusement, but have remained on the sidelines. Anyway, if the Wikipedia community thinks it's not sufficiently notable to be included, that's fine, but I would appreciate it if people wouldn't imply that I created an article about myself when in fact I did nothing of the sort. -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:14 PM EDT
 * Keep Seems newsworthy to me. -- Anon, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:57 PM EDT
 * IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems from the coverage that this blog was never used as a source for any news; just in the scores of articles about Katrina a couple noted his coverage of it.  And nothing of any note has happened since then, nor does his blog have enough readers to meet the standards of notability.  Not to mention that he has now made an entry on his blog about how his entry is up for deletion--insisting that it is not "meatpuppetry," naturally, but simply informing his readers (who are, as far as I can tell, his parents and a few college friends) of the "interesting" fact that it's up for a vote.  Nautikale 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User's only contribution have been to this AfD -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Solid case for notability provided with verifiable & reliable sources. Alexa gives a current rank of 227,116 (3 mo. average), but also shows a recent spike (last week) to ~51,000 and a peak of ~25,000 during the Katrina days. -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge I am also surprised a "Media Coverage" section on Hurricane Katrina does not exist yet. While I do not find this article to be a vanity post, the information contained in this article would be much more relevant as part of the Hurricane Katrina page. Ravenkatie 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User's only contribution has been this AfD -- Scientizzle 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be the most I would agree with. The only arguable notability of the blog was a few puff pieces related to Katrina a year ago.  The only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage, and it was not enough attention that an account of Katrina would mention Brendan Loy other than perhaps as a minor footnote.  Wikipedia should reflect that.  I still think he's not worth a mention at all, but if he merits any Wikipedia mention it should be as a minor footnote to Hurricane Katrina, not an entry of his own. Nautikale 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, look. I again reiterate that I am expressing no opinion about whether the article is notable. That's a decision for y'all, not me, to make. But I'm not going to let blatant untruths and character assassination go unchallenged. First of all, the implication that I'm engaging in meatpuppetry, despite my repeated, straightforward, honest statements to the contrary, is a flagrant violation of "assume good faith." Secondly, the assertion that my readers are my "parents and a few college friends" is laughably false. Really, I'm flattered by the assertion that I have thousands of "college friends," but it's just not true; I wasn't that popular in college! :) Before Katrina, my blog averaged around 1,250 unique hits per day; during and in the immedate aftermath of Katrina, that shot up to 7,500+ per day, and as many as 20,000-33,000 on some days; and since November of last year, after Katrina, it's hovered around 2,000 per day (see for yourself here), with occasional higher bursts (last week, for example, I received a ton of traffic because of widespread blogospheric discusison of my commentary on the Lieberman-Lamont election (and, to a lesser extent, the London terror plot). That leads to my final point: "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage" is simply, flatly, verifiably untrue. See, for example, this list of 69 links from InstaPundit since February 2003 -- only about 20 of them related to Katrina. Other topics covered on my blog that have received significant attention from multiple prominent bloggers: my coverage of the Bush-Lieberman "kiss" (try googling "bush lieberman kiss," without quotes, and see what comes up); my commentary on John Kerry's deficiencies during the 2004 election; my coverage of the South Park controversy back in March (check the Wikipedia entry and the link to "Internet clip" in paragraph 4 of "Real-life censorship controversy"); the Lieberman-Lamont election and the London plot, as I mentioned (see for example Technorati); and there's plenty more. Technorati notes I have recevied 737 links from 310 blogs, by the way. Also getting plenty of attention: my coverage of USC and Notre Dame football generally, and specifically my videos of the USC-Notre Dame game last fall, taken from the ND student section, which have gotten repeatedly linked by fan sites for both teams. Oh, and if you want non-blogospheric sources of "attention" ... I was on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal and mentioned on Fox News nearly two years before Katrina because of a Lord of the Rings-related story. And, two months before Katrina, I was in the South Bend Tribune just for my blog generally, not for any specific topic. Now, AGAIN: I am not asserting that this level of "attention" makes me "notable" -- that's for you all to decide, not me. I'm simply refuting the false statement that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." My intention here is to correct the factual record, and nothing more. Whatever you decide, I simply hope you'll base your decision on verifiable facts, not unverified and untrue assertions. I also hope you'll assume good faith and not attack me for leaving this comment here. The mere fact that I don't appreciate being the subject of factual untruths and character assassination doesn't make the article a "vanity entry." (And, if I were into sockpuppetry, wouldn't I leave this comment under someone else's name?) -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 3:48 PM EDT
 * Ok, wow. Please make sure you understand the terms you are using before reacting so vehemently to a discussion.  I reiterate that I just don't think this person or blog meets any of the guidelines of notability, either people or websites.  Instapundit is a good comparison: that's a website that has attained enough of a readership and notoriety on its own to merit an entry.  Having been linked from it does not make a blog of the same stature.  Nautikale 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My "character assassination" reference was to your unsupported, false, assuming-bad-faith allegation (at 05:17 today) that I was engaging in meatpuppetry. If you'll withdraw the allegation, I'll withdraw my use of the term "character assassination." As for your reiterating that you "just don't think" the subject of the article is notable, that's fine, and for the umpteenth time I am not expressing an opinion about that conclusion -- I'm just saying that you need to stick to facts and not state things which are blatantly and demonstrably false, like that my blog's readership is limited to friends and family, or that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." Those are both factually incorrect assertions, as I've demonstrated above, and if you're not going to either acknowledge their falsity and retract them, or else attempt to refute or somehow explain away the factual citations above which discredit your unsupported statements to the contrary, I don't see why anyone should take your contribution to this discussion seriously. My response is "vehement" only because you are assuming bad faith and making false assertions of fact about me, neither of which have any place in Wikipedia. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:00 PM EDT
 * P.S. For informational purposes only: you may find this page helpful in assessing the extent of the Katrina-related media coverage about my site. Please note, the page does not include non-Katrina-related articles. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:07 PM
 * Comment I have expanded and cleanly referenced the article. I think it stands up to WP:BIO & WP:WEB pretty well.
 * WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Check.
 * WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Check.
 * WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a pure vanity page as evidenced by the fact that the subject has updated it himself and constantly posts here vigorously defending his honor against 'character assassination'. Writing a blog is decidedly unnoteworthy no matter how much it is temporarily popular. 24.63.250.152 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * IP's only contributions are to this AfD and a personal attack on Talk:Brendan Loy -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Loy's constant presence in this discussion is rather indicative of his personal investment in this vanity page staying up. Regardless of whether the subject wrote the entry himself or not, whoever the author is has an obvious non-journalistic interest in Loy. 82.69.72.36 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Jaffa
 * IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My presence in this discussion is indicative of no such thing, as I've repeatedly made explicitly clear. My only "investment" is in correcting the factual record and preventing untruths from being passed off as truths. Do what you want with the damn article, but if you say things that are demonstrably false, I am going to correct them. If that's wrong, then I don't want to be right. Your assumption of bad faith on my part is indicative that you don't seem to have any respect for Wikipedia's most basic principles. The same goes for everyone who insists on ignoring the verifiable facts I've presented and focusing only on the ulterior motives that you ascribe to me, notwithstanding that my actions are perfectly reasonable and justifiable without any ulterior motive (and thus assuming good faith is dictated). (Brendan Loy) 67.133.222.170 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge While Loy may deny his personal investment in keeping this page up through words, his incessant replies to almost every entry seem to indicate otherwise. His rebuttal to "blatant untruths and character assassination" reads as a veiled attempt at advertising and making the case to keep.  This page has been nothing but a pissing match between Loy's supporters and his detractors.  To merge as part of a wider look at blogs or Hurricane Katrina would be acceptable.  It is not worthy on its own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.65.55 (talk • contribs).
 * IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep —  per Scientizzle. Dionyseus 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: A review of the subject page, coupled with comments by both Loy and his college friends ( I believe user Scientizzle is a close personal friend) reveals that the blog is, in fact not designed to inform per Wikipedia's standards, and, in fact, is being used by Loy and his friends to publicize his blog.  In addition, it is worth noting that the entry has been subject to frequent edit wars, which indicate that it is being used as a forum for his friends and detractors to air personal grievances.  The entry provides little to no value as a scholarly enterprise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.117.18 (talk • contribs).
 * The article being subject to frequent edit wars is not a valid argument for deletion, otherwise George W. Bush or anything else here should be deleted... -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am friends with Brendan. That does not change the fact that almost none of the anonymous IPs (and new accounts) that have commented here have presented a valid, detailed argument against keeping (by addressing the relevant policies and guidelines). You may not think the subject is notable, but Wikipedia has two established notability guidelines (WP:BIO & WP:WEB); I have detailed above 4 criteria from these two guidelines that the article appears to meet. I believe I've objectively come to my "keep" vote and properly supported my conclusion. Additionally, while Brendan Loy has been (in my opinion) overly zealous in defending his honor here, there have been several specious and demonstrably false claims made in support of deletion. I honestly wonder where all these anon IPs and new accounts with no Wikipedia edit history are coming from. Please stick to the facts, make sounds arguments, and avoid personal attacks. -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate your contributions to the discussion and your evident hard work on the entry, although I still disagree with your conclusions. But I disagree with any characterization of the previous discussions, including my own, as "demonstrably false claims" or personal attacks.  You will notice that I qualified the statements I made with things like "as far as I can tell" and "seems like."  This is because I am not friends with Brendan Loy and know only what I read online.  For example, I said it seems like the only attention his blog got from outside sources was connected to Katrina--and I stand by that, qualified by the "seems."  It's great that Mr. Loy can give an exhaustive account of every time his blog has been linked by another blog, and I wish him the best in expanding his readership, but the average user on Wikipedia who does not read his blog regularly would not know or care about a two-day spike in traffic to his website last month.  Nor would they particularly care that a fake South Park video clip linked to by another Wikipedia entry happens to be hosted on his blog in one of the two places it is linked to on the page.  The only larger significance that the blog seems to have achieved was in relation to Katrina.  This is not a claim that nobody has ever linked to the blog in relation to another topic, or that I'm committing character assassination on Mr. Loy by failing to recognize his achievements in other areas.  I just don't think, as a casual reader and relatively new acquaintance of the blog, that it has significance of the type generally required by Wikipedia.  I have referred to Wikipedia's guidelines previously, but to repeat: Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (people)(WP:BIO).  He has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field.  He is not a published author with multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work.  He has not achieved renown or notoriety for his involvement in in newsworthy events.  At best, he has achieved minor note for assembling information on Hurricane Katrina, so at most I think it it would be accurate, if generous, to mention his blog as related to media coverage of the hurricane.  He has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.  Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (web)(WP:WEB).  I do not consider the handful of what I would call puff pieces on Brendan Loy multiple non-trivial published works.  No disrespect meant, but I do not believe articles headlined "Weather nerd" are non-trivial pieces.  His website has not won a well-known and independent award, nor is it published by any site independent of Mr. Loy himself. Nautikale 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't see anything here that's worthy of an ecyclopedia article. Sounds more like some guy with a blog looking to do some self-advertising.-66.254.235.231 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Self-stroking glamour post, just like his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.101.208 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2006


 * 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.