Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Winer


 * 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. Seraphimblade 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave Winer

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Article is based on the word's of a company's owner. Listed by Random832 as a courtesy for 4.159.98.208 (aka probably Nirelan) 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete He is evil person who invents claims about himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.135.220.234 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I would like to state for the record that my position is keep but I figured this deserved a fair shot rather than simply not getting listed because Nirelan messed up the AfD listing. —Random832 2007-01-24T03:17:48UTC(01/23 22:17EST)
 * Keep, Winer is obviously notable (1200 Google News Archive hits, 116 Google Books hits), and even in 2005 articles without inline links were getting featured. Tag as unreferenced/primary sources, possibly some POV in a few places. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, note article history and discussion at Talk:Dave Winer. I find it extremely lame (and a waste of resources) to use AFD to resolve a content dispute. The nominator has few other edits than this recent activity. Yes, the subject is noted for self-serving statements, but that means you provide a sourced counter-argument. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - maybe speedy, as this seems to be a bad faith nom. -- MarcoTolo 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Assuming that it's a bad faith nomination isn't really in the spirit of WP:AGF, is it? I do think Nirelan has some legitimate complaints about the article, and it needs to be cleaned up - just the problems with it do not, in my opinion, merit deletion. —Random832 2007-01-24T13:30:16UTC(01/24 08:30EST)
 * I'm not assuming the nomination is in bad faith, simply suggesting that it may be. In other words, based on my reading of the talk page and Nirelan's contribution log, the nomination of this article to AfD does not appear to be in good faith. And, yes, I agree that Nirelan has made some valid editorial points. Like Dhartung, my concern is that we've gone from "0 to AfD" without the appropriate page-based discussion. -- MarcoTolo 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable figure in weblogging as cited by the articles and books about him. Calwatch 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but IMHO, it requires some cleanup. Kai A. Simon 13:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a rather notable figure in web technology with numerous recognition inside and outside the industry. Tarinth 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, requires clean-up though Alf photoman 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean it up somewhat. OverSS 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I admit there are refrences to him, but most of them contain false information. For example, this article orignally said that ScriptingNews was one of the first blogs. However, blogging exisited long before his site was created or he became interested in it. Also, RSS was created by Netscape and Dave talked Harvard into controlling it. While he has told those refrences that he played a part in creating blogging or RSS it just isn't true no matter how many sites link to it. Dave has the power to influence the media because he worked for Harvard, but that shouldn't give him the power to influence a community site like Wikipedia.Nirelan

Please look at the top of the article. I disproved the main reasons to give Dave an article. If major items like that are not true why should we waste time and space to create a biography of a man who did not really invent anything?Nirelan
 * You are addressing what you perceive as inaccuracies in the article. These are not reasons to delete the article. Please do not use AFD to address content disputes. Nirelan, has it ever occurred to you that he did not parachute into Harvard out of the clear blue sky? His notability, for better or worse, was well established before that time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dhartung, If any of us claimed to have invented a widely used program Harvard would probably take us seriously as well. However, the truth is that he tried to sell outliners and basicly had to give his company to Symantec because his own company was so unsucessful. --NirelanTalk
 * Nirelan, it's good that you deleted your potentially libelous comment here. I don't know where you were or what you were doing 1997-1999, but I was an early blogger (third public blog using Blogger.com, three-digit Blogger user number) and I have also used Userland products. The problem with Winer has never been "lies" as even the people he has alienated -- which is a large number of people -- respect his accomplishments. The problem has always been whether he allowed others credit or control. He sold outliners back in the pre-web days, and he adapted quickly and successfully to the web, and he was an enthusiastic evangelist for blogging even before the word was coined (see blog). This article and his claims regarding his career are necessarily contentious, but asserting that his accomplishments are non-notable misses the point of WP:BIO (which is for better or worse), and your efforts to turn the article into an attack page really demonstrate the bad faith of this nomination. The fact that you're trying to dismiss a Harvard appointment as based on lies really demonstrates how thin your argument is. --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are 79 references to Dave Winer in Google News alone at the moment. There's no question he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Don't use AfD to deal with NPOV and article quality objections. Rcade 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nirelan has removed the AFD tag from the article - does this count as a withdrawal? Can we get a speedy keep? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs).
 * I concur, removal of the AFD notice by the nominator is generally interpreted as intent to withdraw the nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Intent is further underscored by this comment:
 * I removed it becuase they cleaned up the article. The template says that should be left there until the disscussion is resolved and it was definatily resolved because the only person that felt the article should be changed is now happy.
 * And this comment:
 * Nothing in the rules says an administrator has to remove it. It says "After 5 days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions" I respected the wishes of those that thought it should stay and removed it after five days. It may not make the administrators happy, but we followed Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * Both posted at User talk:EdJohnston. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This theory is hard to credit, because: (a) User:Nirelan is not fluent enough with the mechanics of Wikipedia to close an AfD correctly, so it was unwise of him to try, (b) Since he removed the AfD banner he has entered his own vote for Delete, so his tag removal seems whimsical. Now that User:Random832 has restored the tag an administrator should be able to close the discussion in a proper way. EdJohnston 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep plenty of editors contributed and modified the article, It is irrelevant in this case that the person itself provided content to the article (which is not a bad thing by itself anyway). Notability is clear and does not require arguing IMO --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Winer is a seminal contributor to outlining and blogging, and is clearly notable. Ad hominem nominations should be struck down fast. Kevin Marks 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course keep He's Dave Winer, for God's sake.
 * 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.