Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogers Cadenhead

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August &#9742; 01:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rogers Cadenhead
Was tagged as a vanity speedy: it is most likely a vanity article; the IP of the editor is the same as the subjects home (Jacksonville, FL) suggesting it was created by the subject or a friend or relative (info on ip location is from: ). and was said in another tag not to assert notability when the article states, he sits on the RSS Advisory Board, registered benedictxvi.com several weeks before the pope was named and also did some reporter work. If you take that together, I'd say calling this non-notable is a bit hasty. Keep, unless someone can prove the RSS Advisory Board doesn't exist or has no real importance in the computer world. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Marginal Delete. The RSS board is notable, and important as an organisation, but its members are not necessarily notable (and don't need to be). The books are not especially notable. Given that some Wikipedians have similar accomplishments, I'm not fully convinced he merits an entry.--inks 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, author of popular books. The fact that some wikipedians may be accomplished is not a reason to deprive users of information. Kappa 10:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * However, it is not recommended that wikipedians author articles by themselves, which is surely the case with this article; it's still a vanity article. --Quasipalm 16:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not recommended but if they come up with a reasonably neutral and factual article it shouldn't be deleted just because of its source. If someone else had made it, would the article look so different? Kappa 18:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is pretty non-notable stuff as far as I can tell. Writing a book itself does not mean the person should be included.  I looked up the books on Amazon and their sales rankings are #30,000 and #80,000.  The website isn't very notable and the RSS board may or may not be important enough to cary the article.  Mainly, I think this is an auto-biographical vanity page, only edited by a single author who's IP address comes from an ISP in Jacksonville, where the author and subject both live.  --Quasipalm 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Not as important as the author seems to think, but above the line of notability for me (author of a few non-vanity books.) Sdedeo 14:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Cadenhead is known for his RSS work, cruel.com and the Pope Benedict antic. Article could be beefed up, but he is a well-known web pundit and writer. Jessamyn
 * Keep; he's had some books published, and I have heard of him in numerous articles when Pope Benedict was announced for the website.  Ral  315  17:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite the author's admission that this is vanity, the subject is still notable. I reaffirm my keep vote.   Ral  315  22:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * This comes across as a self-promoting, vanity page. I appreciate the arguments iterated above, particularly the noteworthiness of the various projects, but the fact is that letting vanity pages stand withers the credibility of Wikipedia and mocks the efforts of those who contribute to it. If another editor wishes to create a page about this guy, I will vote to keep.  But since I accept the evidence that this is self-authored as convincing, I vote Delete on principle.Dottore So 17:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * isn't Jacksonville sort of big though? I agree that it's bad precedent if the guy authored it himself, but do we know that or just strongly assume it? If people think it's a keepable article except for the author, I'd happily do a rewrite of it, or re-create it, however this sort of thing usually works. Jessamyn 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Trollderella 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Sdedeo. Meelar (talk) 17:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; Cadenhead is notable and the stuff in the article is interesting and relevant. It answers exactly the kinds of questions somebody would have who was looking up Cadenhead in the Wikipedia. betsythedevine 21:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Jachin 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. All the little stuff adds up to enough of notability.  Gamaliel 09:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established within the article.  Hall Monitor 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm probably notable enough for inclusion here by virtue of the RSS board, 21 computer books, and brief papal namespace infamy, but I did write my own Wikipedia biography as an experiment, and for reasons I detail today on my weblog, I am somewhat eager to see this vote end with my deletion. rcade, 31 August 2005
 * I knew it. ;-)  Don't feel bad, I don't think I deserve a wikipedia article either.  --Quasipalm 17:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In light of this admission, can we resubmit to VfD and have it properly voted on as a vanity page? Much of the above misses the point. Dottore So 18:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I object to redoing this VfD. rcade seems to be confused as to the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about doing a clever blog post and then letting everyone else tidy up after it has suited your purpose. I am really very tired of this. We all knew it was a probably vanity when we voted the first time around. My evaluation of the article as a weak keep stands; the basic principle that article subjects do not dictate the terms of their inclusion should as well. Sdedeo 19:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment again. Reading rcade's blog post, it seems that he was acting in good faith both in creating and later voting delete on his article. However, my vote still stands and I still object to redoing the VfD; the community has looked at the article, found the subject notable, and that's all that needs to be said. Sdedeo 19:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo the sentiments of Sdedeo. My vote is based upon the merits of the article, not who created it.  Hall Monitor 20:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. What Sdedeo and HallMonitor said. Being eager to have a wikipedia article about you has zero bearing on the question of whether or not there should be a wikipedia article about you. The point of Wikipedia is to let people find information about stuff that has some reasonable notability. betsythedevine 11:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From Vanity_page Problems with vanity articles:

The most significant problem with vanity article is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors. Additionally, they are often "experimental" articles to which the author never returns. The quality of a Wikipedia article is often presumed to be proportional to the number of edits, so if an article is doomed to be a one-edit article, it should be deleted.

In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the User namespace rather than deleted.

Another danger is inherent in auto-biographical articles. Users might write articles pertaining to their own work. While the authors of such articles might not consider them "vanity" articles, they are in violation of the soft policy against writing articles on one's own accomplishments.
 * I don't think I saw this page when poking around Wikipedia to see if there was a prohibition against autobiography. That reference to a soft policy isn't as clear as it could be -- does that mean there's wiggle room and it's a matter of judgment? In any case, if Wikicities accepts my proposal for a non-famous biography wiki, it should make this particular editing issue easier to resolve. Moving a self-promotional or dubious biography to another wiki should be easier for contributors to accept than a deletion. rcade, 31 August 2005
 * WP:VAIN is a guideline, not a policy. Logically, if the information within an article can be verified and meets the qualifications set forth by WP:BIO, it should be kept regardless of how it began.  Multiple precedents exist which we can refer back to.  Votes for deletion/Richard Bozulich was recently closed with a unanimous vote of keep after the subject requested his article be deleted.  There are also precedents for the retention of autobiographical "vanity" articles, such as Jesse Liberty and Cyrus Farivar, although the latter discussion was somewhat contentious during the second go-round.  See also Jason Snell as well.  Hall Monitor 17:24, 2 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.