Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Shawn Barber (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 Keep. --Tito xd (?!?) 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

La Shawn Barber

 * Previous nomination: Articles for deletion/La Shawn Barber

Vanity. 3 google news hits, but some of them are from BLOGS? since when does google news point to blogs?.. alexa is 100,000. useless Skrewler 02:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since provision of news online has become increasingly important. Google News checks all of its sources before adding them and inclusion in the Google News database is an indication of notability for a blog. Further, both Google and Yahoo have a blog search given that blogs are becoming increasingly important in the news cycle. To this nomination, Barber meets both WP:BIO and WP:WEB Further, she is published not only on blogs but in publications such as the Washington Post, National Review Online and the Washington Times see list of writings . Over two million hits for La Shawn Barber see.
 * Keep: Terrible article, terrible person, but extremely well attested in outside media. He is referred to quite often in other formats.  Geogre 03:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep--notable blogger, often referenced on other notable sites (e.g. National Review Online or Redstate.org) and has a wide readership. As per Geogre--terrible person, but notable. Meelar (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has made several appearances as a commentator on Fox News. Agree with Geogre and Meelar: Barber is a truly odious person, but a notable one. Andrew Levine 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rhobite 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What gives with the anti-blog campaign dude?   &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. You people are a bunch of uninformed, anonymous screaming squirrels. First of all, I am NOT a man, so dispense with the "he." Second, I have NEVER been on FOX news. What kind of voting process is this when voters don't know the facts? I never wanted to be on Wikipedia and hoped the "Deletes" would win the first time I was nominated for deletion. Unfortunately, the "Keeps" won. This time around I hope the Deletes win so my name will no longer be associated with this site. VOTE ME OFF! - La Shawn Barber
 * LOL <3 Skrewler 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep odious but verifiable and almost certainly notable. Quality sock above, BTW, congrats to whoever it was :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete if the author herself wants deleted. I'd personally think she deserves to be included, but we've deleted numerous more bloggers with a lot more traffic and a lot more links. So in the interest of consistency, and especially if La Shawn wants off, this is a no-brainer. --YHoshua 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment User:YHoshua has emailed me (and presumably other users as well as I have had no previous involvement with this article or the previous AfD) in an attempt to canvas delete votes:
 * Please help me remove this entry that's simply a vanity blog ad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/La_Shawn_Barber_%282nd_nomination%29
 * We've deleted many more blogger entries that had more traffic, hits, and publications, so in the interest of consistency we need to delete it. Besides, the blogger herself asked to be removed, so it's a no-brainer.
 * I note this here in the interests of openness and fairness to all sides. no vote. Thryduulf 00:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Peculiar use of "no-brainer" if you ask me. Keep. A ninny, but not a non-notable ninny. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because not notable, and author wants to be removed. See the Wiki terms on that.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.224.237 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. As long as the article is factually correct and NPOV, it should not be up to the author whether it is included or not.  Ms. Barber is notable for her publications both on and off the Web.  What's with calling someone a "terrible person"?  That says a lot more about the person writing it than with the one so described.  Logophile 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a dinky stub that could use some heavy TLC, but she fits the "published author" criterion on WP:BIO. (I was also e-mailed by User:YHoshua, FWIW.) - jredmond 15:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also, color me skeptical about that comment being from the real La Shawn Barber. -Colin Kimbrell 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being published isn't enough, and her list doesn't meet the criteria on WP:BIO. -- User:Bobby B 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No such user as "Bobby B". The vote was actually by User:149.166.220.125. Rhobite 21:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can we tone down the attacks towards the subject here? She's well known enough to warrant an article, whatever your opinion of her. In addition, a subject doesn't get to choose whether Wikipedia contains an article on her (though I highly doubt it was the real person making that comment). Carbonite | Talk 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see anything that's changed since the last nomination. --Carnildo 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This anonymous squirrel screams delete an article on somebody who's touted as yet another rightist -- and doesn't the US have more of them than of schools? -- but whose own website redirects to some "Teletubbies" nonsense. -- Hoary 03:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else  Joe I  03:57, 24 November 2005 (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.