Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Davi


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Davi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article is a non-notable blogger. The article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:WEB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Paster Theo, I beg to differ. Please explain which of the notability requirements I have failed to meet. One of the most reputable journalists in the world referred to my blog as required reading. I write for the Atlantic Monthly. Exactly what is missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blogger with two entries on Atlantic Monthly's website . The required reading claim is not significant coverage, but just part of a long list of blogs.  Fails notability. FYI, article creator claims that he is subject. 2 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's one just about my blog from the Atlantic: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/understanding_derivatives.php#comments. Also, there are tons of other article JUST ABOUT DERIVATIVE DRIBBLE. Would it help if I posted those? Finally, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I certainly meet that requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talkcontribs) 02:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--I don't see the notability here. The first reference is a primary source; the second reference mentions this blog as one of nineteen. And I'm not entirely sure if Megan McArdle is "one of the most reputable journalists in the world." Drmies (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what Google News had to offer--no secondary sources at all. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The link above is a secondary source, and is about Derivative Dribble only. There are plenty others like it. Google the blog name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talkcontribs) 04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ehh...a. which link? to Megan McArdle's list of nineteen blogs? Yes, that is a secondary source--the only one provided in the article. And it's a blog, and the mention is a passing mention, not in-depth. b. I did, as you can see. Nothing shows up in Google News, which is for things that have to do with news, like economic news. Please don't use imperative constructions in these discussions. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talkcontribs) 04:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. Megan McArdle. Her blog. You mentioned it before, and that is what I was talking about. Please sign your messages by typing four tildes, to give SineBot a coffee break. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are different links from McArdle's blog. You complained that Derivative Dribble was one blog in a list. That one is ONLY ABOUT DERIVATIVE DRIBBLE. And this link Erdosfan (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And this link: More? Erdosfan (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a google news search for my blog returning a ton of results. I don't know what you're talking about: Erdosfan (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete As mentioned by Drmies above, google news is "for things that have to do with news, like economic news" and my blog is heavily cited on the first page of search results, it satisfies the notability requirements. Look for yourself:—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned] comment added by Erdosfan (talkcontribs) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More? Please. Since that individual mention by McArdle is two sentences long. And your Google search delivers SIX hits: The first one is a press release. The next three, that's your blog. The fifth is about balsamic vinegar (which is delicious, of course). And the sixth is an opinion piece from an Australian newspaper about the new US president. I'm convinced--I'm sticking with delete. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, how is my page any different from Matthew_Yglesias and others like it?He cites his own material, 3 times. Erdosfan (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of many differences. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete Page has 9 citations, 7 of which are highly reputable secondary sources.Erdosfan (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, above user already !voted once, above, and left it unsigned. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability demonstrated, and frequent pleas to links from other blogs are not helping the author's cause. Obviously huge COI issue here as well... the author's feelings are at this stage well-known, so replying to every comment is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a forum for self-publicity. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Blackmetalbaz, The FT and the Economist are blogs?Erdosfan (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The FT and Economist links you have provided are indeed to blogs hosted by those papers, yes. Hint: read the URLs. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So because they are blogs hosted by the FT and the Economist, does that mean they do not satisfy the requirement of independent secondary sources? That seems unlikely.
 * Yes, that is correct, for those reasons, they do not meet notability criteria, quite aside from the fact that a passing mention even in a reliable source does not confer notability on your blog. There is no significant coverage about your blog anywhere linked, meaning quite simply that your blog is not notable. If this is still hard to understand, please go back and re-read WP:RS. Much like here in Barnsley, it appears to be snowing here at Wikipedia. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If a third party would've written this entry, none of you would take issue. That much is clear. You are not citing Wiki rules but rather making conclusionary remarks about the notability of the entry. Each time you have asked that a requirement be satisfied, I have met it.
 * See WP:COI, please. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Going on delete here. Aside from the very obvious conflict of interest, I really don't see anything notable here. He writes blogs.  So do I.  OK, he's published in a magazine.  Is he an authority?  If yes, pics or it didn't happen. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dennis The Tiger, Wiki has standards for what is notable and what is not. I've met all of them. Your standards are irrelevant. Please give me an example of a standard which I have failed to meet.67.110.139.163 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ""He's published in a magazine" is overstating the case, I think. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm listed as an author on the Atlantic Monthly's website. The website has heavier readership than the magazine. If you'd like, I'll ask that one of my articles appear in print. My blog is syndicated all over the web and is read by thousands every day. You don't think that's notable? And finally note that about half of those authors have wiki pages saying little more than where they went to school and where they blog.67.110.139.163 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, we get it. You think you are important. No reliable sources agree with you. Can you please stop commenting on this thread as you have simply become disruptive; let the AfD take its course. Obviously we are obliged to assume good faith, but you're beginning to push into the realms of trolling. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Charles, in this case, my standards == wikipedia standards. Consensus says you don't meet them, and I agree in this case.  As important as you say you are, you have not at this point given us evidence of notability with reliable sources - and note the plural, please.  Furthermore, your attitude is not at all helping your side of the debate. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Ordinarily (in the context of WP:BIO or WP:GNG, for example), I would be and have been suspicious of using citations to establish notability. The most directly-applicable notability guideline here appears to be WP:WEB, however, and its criterion 3 does the job: "web-specific content is deemed notable ... [if t]he content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster...." The Financial Times and The Economist are such media (although Megan's blog is not, since she is not independent of Davi: they both work for the Atlantic), and the article offers citations to Davi's work by them. Not every link by such a publisher to a story will constitute "distribut[ion]" of the content, but the examples tendered evince clear distributive intent, and that gets Davi across the applicable notability threshold - if only by a whisker. Lastly, WP:COI can amplify other concerns and problems, and will tilt the balance, but it is not an independent basis for deletion. See Deletion policy; WP:COI ("COI editing is strongly discouraged" - but not forbidden). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am asking a genuine question here (that may be slightly tangential to this AfD)... what exactly is meant in this context by "distribution"? I personally didn't read that as "there is a link to", but rather "we will host material for". But I am honestly don't know. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the ordinary meaning of "distribute" in the context of content on the internet encompasses the acts of dispersing through cyberspace; speading; spread; promoting to one's own customers (e.g. readers); passing or delivering to, or placing before, people who one has a capacity to reach. Cf. . One tends to think of distribution in a physical sense, but application of the term to the internet has to take account of the physical realities of the medium - viz., that the medium has no physical reality. Suppose I write a memorandum, print copies, and place it in the inbox of various persons in my office; few would disagree that I have "distributed" the memorandum. Now suppose that I send the same people an email, with a PDF of the memo attatched, and say "please see attached memo"; this, too, "distributes" the memo, one would think. Now: if I place the PDF of the memo on our office file server, and send an email to the same people saying "please see the memo in such and such a folder on the file server" instead of "please see the attached memo," have I not distributed it? I would think the answer must be yes. Now suppose I simply state on the company's internal blog that the memo is on the file server... You see where I'm going with this. ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do indeed see what you're saying, and it all seems very sensible in and of itself. However, I remain unconvinced that that is what the guideline is getting at, although that may be poor wording in the original. Ultimately, you cannot confer notability by basically saying, "Also, you might want to read this" in a blog post. There is no significant coverage about this individual or his blog, so I fail to see how he passes the general notability guidelines. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I would agree with you, but in this instance, that's how I read WP:WEB, I see WP:WEB as the applicable notability guideline, and as I've said before, I think that a more specific guideline overrides a more general guideline. That said, in the link just given, I argued that a specific guideline that is more restrictive than the GNG must override the GNG, and I suppose that one could argue that this is somewhat different because (it could be argued) while it is less specific, the GNG's criteria are more restrictive than WP:WEB c3. I don't want to stake a claim to that position, but for now, I still lean towards keep, albeit weakly so. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't understand why you're saying that "COI shouldn't be indepedent basis for deletion" - no one has asserted that(except the article creator/subject as a defense of sorts) .  Others have just mentioned it as an FYI. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." Derivative Dribble definitely satisfies this requirement.


 * The rules state that "web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any ONE of the following criteria:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEB67.110.139.163 (talk). Therefore Derivative Dribble is clearly notable web content. 67.110.139.163 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Erdosfan, Forgetting to sign in again? Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you, counselor, you may step down now. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Following the rules makes me a lawyer? (Which I am). Why don't you just accept that you're irritated that I wrote an article about myself. The very thought of that offends you. The fact that my blog clearly meats the standard for notability does something even worse to you. Not sure why you should care at all. The rules are clear on this point, and you should apply them dispassionately. Erdosfan (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That comment, Erdosfan, was not directed at you, but at Omarcheeseboro. Dennis, growl if I'm wrong please. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[Undent] Comment: Well, Mr. Davi, you say that your blog "clearly meats" (sic.) the standard for notability, and I agree, but we're not talking about an article about your blog. The article at issue is about you, and that might be an important distinction. As I said in explaining my keep vote above, it seems to me that the applicable notability guideline is WP:WEB. Nevertheless, WP:WEB in terms applies to "web-specific content" (emphasis added), and one could surely make the argument that by those terms, WP:WEB is inapplicable, because the article is about an author rather than particular content they have created.

Consider that although we have an article on Apollo 13 (movie), and its notability is evaluated under WP:MOVIE, we do not have an article for Al Reinert, who co-wrote the screenplay. That a movie he worked on is notable under the guideline applicable to the movie doesn't make him independently notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Instead, his notability is evaluated independently under WP:BIO, and he apparently fails.

Now, I would have to have concluded above that WP:WEB applies, but perhaps you could tell us why that's correct: why should an article about you should be evaluted under the notability guideline for a particular kind of content? Or, in the alternative, can you tell us why you - not your blog - meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dodd, that's a fair point and the two rules are distinct. If it suits everyone, for now I'll create an article about the blog and not about me. 98.14.139.154 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2009 (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.