Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Dillard


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve Dillard

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

Does not satisfy notability guidelines for people: no citations to reliable sources to support article's content; article's subject stopped maintaining blog in 2006. Tone of article lacks a neutral point of view, and appears to promote the article's subject, raising a question of conflict of interest. Thanks. Walshga (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —Walshga (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the article (yet), but I don't think the nomination is solid:
 * Does not satisfy notability guidelines for people: no citations to reliable sources to support article's content
 * That could be a good reason, but you gave no indication you tried looking for any, and you didn't do an evaluation of the sources already in the article.
 * article's subject stopped maintaining blog in 2006.
 * Notability is not temporary. If he was notable in 2006 or before, he still is now.
 * Tone of article lacks a neutral point of view,
 * That can be resolved through editing and isn't a valid reason for deletion.
 * and appears to promote the article's subject, raising a question of conflict of interest.
 * As long as the article can be rewritten in a neutral tone, conflict of interest doesn't have to be a problem. It shows the intend of the contributor, but the article should be considered on its own merits, separate from the editor. Also, if the guy stopped writing his blog, what does he need self-promotion for? - Mgm|(talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken, MGM. I should have been more specific with my nomination. I really did review the article and research the article's subject before making the deletion nomination. The "External links" section of the article links to two sources that meet the reliability criteria: a 2005 NPR interview and brief mention in a 2007 New York Observer article. But besides these sources, additional research revealed only occasional mention of the article's subject on blog postings - which are considered "not acceptable" as self-published sources. Similarly, some of the article's information comes from its subject's law firm web profile - another self-published source. So, based on the lack of reliable sources to support the article's content, I decided to put it to the Wikipedia community to consider deletion. As for my other statements about 2006,  neutral tone, and conflict of interest - you are right! I agree completely with your remarks and retract those statements as reasons for the article's deletion.  Thanks! Walshga (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I hunted for it, but I couldn't find a foundation to build a notability argument on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with above rationale as laid out by . also makes good points. As this is a case where the subject is lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the article should be deleted. Note: I received this note on my talk page from : Thanks for deleting my bio from Wikipedia; and I mean that sincerely. I agree that I am not in any way noteworthy enough to warrant my own wikipedia bio. Keep up the good work! Steve Dillard. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject doesn't meet the GNG, most of the sources listed aren't reliable, a BLP violation. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per RMHED's rationale. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There may be substantial sources published in third party sources. Just check http://catholicsagainstrudy.com/about/ and scroll down. See also, ,, . There is more, of course. With some simple research, and picking the most reliable sources available, a short article that is compliant with our content policies, can be easily written about this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This site is merely quoting one of the others, and the others are brief mentions without too much significant discussion of the individual himself or biographical info, and also not the greatest sources. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just posted to the talk page of User:Sladillard informing him that this discussion is (again) taking place, and giving him the email to contact OTRS. At least for me, the subject lies in that area of marginal notability in which I am willing to consider the subject's wishes, provided they are expressed in a form that gives us a reasonable assurance of veracity. Waiting to see if any response materializes. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I hope that this is the appropriate place for me to respond to your inquiry. To begin with, I don't object to the bio staying up. That having been said, I don't consider myself all that notable. There are times when I have been a blip on the national political scene (e.g., Hardball and NPR appearances), and it is true that I am one of the more established conservative bloggers, but whether or not my background passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines is an issue above my paygrade.

That having been said, there are numerous news articles floating around the web that verify a good bit of the information contained in my bio, and I would be more than happy to pass those links along to y'all if you like. I can be contacted directly at sladillard@gmail.com

And once again, if y'all decide to delete the bio, you won't hurt my feelings at all. It is a bit of a pain to have to check it every so often to make sure that the information contained therein is accurate, but I am, of course, flattered that someone took the time out to create the bio in the first place.

Oh, and one minor nit to pick. While it is true that I did shut down Southern Appeal in December of 2006, I restarted the blog in March of 2008. I am not sure whether that matters, but I did want to mention it.

In any event, if I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Steve Dillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladillard (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you Steve. We appreciate your assistance in providing sources. If you could add some links to such sources in your bio's talk page (Talk:Steve Dillard), that would be very helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep and thanks to Mr. Dillard for responding here. You've addressed my primary concern. I also agree that the sources Jossi cites establish notability - perhaps stronger in the past, but of course notability doesn't expire. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep!, the article is now revised and includes the aforementioned reliable, third party sources. I incorporated most of the source citations inline to support the article's content. I started the deletion discussion, but now see the article's subject establishes notability. So I retract my original reasons for deletion, and vote to keep the article. I would urge others who voted delete to look again at the newly revised article. Thanks! Walshga (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I still don't see any coverage of the subject himself. What is the basis of his notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2008 (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.