Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Scoble

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 03:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Scoble
This article appears to be vanity/non-notable/pov DDerby 18:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * NN and not every blogger (even microsoft) is notable so delete. Feydey 20:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blogcruft. -- 8^D gab 20:21, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
 * In light of the outpouring of support, I'm persuaded that this is not so clearcut a case, and therefore withdraw my earlier vote. -- 8^D gab 03:48, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not a Microsoft fan but I heard of this guy before. He has been featured in mainstream press stories such as The Economist ("a celebrity blogger on Microsoft's payroll"), Fortune magazine, and Wired News.  ("a prominent technology blogger")  --Anonymous Cow 20:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, this press attention certainly makes him notable. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 23:06, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've heard of him, and that's good enough for me. --Asriel86 23:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per press attention. Radiant_* 09:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable tech blogger. Capitalistroadster 10:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (see revision below) tech writers in any media on Microsoft's payroll as untrusted. Where does the SCO money paying Laura DiDio or Maureen O'Gara come from?  Do we want articles on people with ideas of journalistic ethics contrary to WP's?  Barno 02:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. That's because we're (trying to be) objective. Keep. Radiant_* 09:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Scoble is a top chap, and has made history in the way that companies have now found a new avenue for communicating with users.
 * comment if those articles are clear about what they have done which suggests ethical violations, whilst remaining verifiable and accurate then the answer is yes. Mozzerati 21:05, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, I agree with Radiant and Mozzerati that we should keep articles on MS-funded tech writers if the subject is particularly significant and the article content is verifiable.  A better way of expressing my point is that people in this position need critical attention when considering their notability, given that (1) tech bloggers are a dime a dozen -- self-weblishing does not equate to encyclopedic notability, and (2) some of those known to be on the payroll of Microsoft or its partners have proven (see, for example, www.groklaw.net) to disregard journalistic ethics in favor of FUD supporting corporate interests that don't correspond to the public interest.  My guideline isn't really "delete them all", but "view them with suspicion and strong attention to notability and verifiability guidelines."  For the comment between those two, has Scoble actually "made history", or just been one of the first to sell out in an old way in a new medium?  I haven't read enough of his material to judge, and the article doesn't help me resolve this.  No vote, just a cautionary comment.  Barno 15:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read the article and its edit history, written only by anon 69.248.116.97 whose only other contribution was to blank the Kevin Rose page. I don't think the stories cited by Anonymous Cow above really establish any WP-worthiness, and certainly the substub (to which I've added an NPOV tag) does not.  If someone can add factually verifiable evidence of not-just-another-0wn3d-blogger notability to the article, then expand; otherwise my vote returns to Delete.  Barno 15:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This guy is definitely noteworthy. The article requires some cleanup and more substantial content, but should be allowed to grow. --NormanEinstein 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, more nn blogcruft. ComCat 06:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this guy's just a noisemaker.
 * Above vote was from anon 67.161.42.199, who has been doing a lot of apparently legitimate editing in recent days. Barno 14:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.