Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger)


 * 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   speedy delete. Closing this early because of the attempted outing of the nominator by the article writer. There is a clear consensus anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave Johnson (blogger)

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

Autobiography of non-notable blogger, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, though it contains a lot of wikipuffery. (The edit history of the article is also interesting: on February 11, made this edit to Dave Johnson (at the very top, naturally) and created a G12'ed version of the page; on February 12, a "fan",, recreated the page and said he/she would be back; on February 13, Dcourtneyjohnson starts editing the page.) THF (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing on there asserts notability; the Huffington Post has hundreds of "featured bloggers" and the organizations and blogs he claims to belong to are also non-notable. The "Commonweal Institute" article was created today. There's nothing here for WP:BIO or anything else. Just a blogger. § FreeRangeFrog 05:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--yet another blogger without real notability. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing adminstrator the article has gone through considerable improvement since the nomination, including 4 external references, including The Hartford Courant and the New York Daily News, and a book on blogging. Ikip (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these passing mentions and WP:PUFF constitute "significant independent coverage," as required by WP:BIO ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"), so my nomination rationale does not change. THF (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Thus far I have four independent sources. Puff is a mere essay, written by THF himself! "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion."  Ikip (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the essay makes a great deal of sense, I for one will be quoting it in future. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Notability has been estabilished by at least 4 references. Before deletion, nominator must, according to Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." This was not done in this case. Nominators first contribution was the AfD to the article, and no indication that he attempted to look for sources. Ikip (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - How can anyone say whether or not THF looked for sources? --  Darth Mike  ( join the dark side ) 13:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references do not establish the notability of this blogger. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I also don't see how these additional references help establish notability. They are passing mentions at best--two sentences in a book doesn't really add up to in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. Two recently-created SPAs just started editing the article, larding it with cites to blogs. I've opened Sockpuppet investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson. THF (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any evidence that the subject of this bio has been the focus of any articles in reliable sources. --Leivick (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete long on puff, short on RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above rdunn  PLIB  09:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipuffery? That's a new one for me, but its an often-seen behaviour here. The article is indeed well-sourced, but I don't see any reliable sources specifically about him, therefore, he fails the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete only RS refs are en passant, non-notable blogger using wikipedia for self-promotion.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete He's had plenty of mentions, but nothing really substantial about him directly. He's had mentions in pieces about other things, but he's not been the subject of RS. -- Ged UK  13:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Being mentioned is NOT the same as being the subject. Wikipuffery indeed: even the photograph attempts to impart fame-by-association to the subject. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:19, 2 March 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.