Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Walker


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Steven Walker

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

This looks to me like a vanity article. I suspect it's also an autobio. The notability of the subject is questionable in my opinion. The "sources" don't meet WP:RS or WP:V standards. The only smidgen of possible notability seems to be his podcast but it was only *nominated* for an award, it didn't win the award. And I'm not to clear how important that award is in the podcast world. I'm also not keen on the fact that legitimate tags about WP:COI and other issues were removed from the article, although that's less an AfD argument and more of a personal peeve. Pigman ☿/talk 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete autobio or vanity to one side, nothing about the bio is actually notable.   DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for focusing the issue, DGG. Neither vanity nor autobio are pertinent here. I'm a little scattered tonight. Pigman ☿/talk  03:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT Thank you for your work to continually improve the quality and caliber of articles here on Wikipedia. Please consider the following in your deliberations.

From the time I wrote this article, I have been accused of being the subject of the page, which is not true. I am a fan and a listener to his podcast. It is not an autobio nor do I see how it could be vanity. If you want some additional proof to put this to rest, please let me know how I could possibly prove that I am, in fact, not the subject of the article.

Regarding WP:RS or WP:V standards, admittedly, some of the sources are interviews on blogs. These are obviously mostly self-published which WP:RS lists as not reliable, however some are from "news organizations" that print papers and perform journalistic work which it would seem to me is both reliable and verifiable.

It would seem that the notability of the subject is the biggest contention. This seems to me to be quite subjective, and I would like to offer a few notes and comparisons for your consideration.

1) My error, he did win best Sports Podcast in 2007 Podcast Awards, which I updated.  2) There are plenty of other "minor celebrities" of the Web 2.0 era that have their own wiki pages that are not targeted for deletion Examples: Brian Brushwood, Dan Trachtenberg, Dan Huard 3) Other one time winners of Podcast Awards, with no other appreciable notability have their own Wiki pages not targeted for quality or deletion and further, regarding WP:RS or WP:V standards, some of these articles have zero outside sources and many of the sources are from similar quality Examples: theforce.net, Feast of fun, Nobody Likes Onions 4) I did not remove the COI tag. If you believe that someone who listens to and enjoys a show is too biased to write an entry, then I guess I must defer to your experience as editors however, I note the articles above which also seem to be written mostly by fans.

Obviously, I am invested in this article, having written most of it and defended these issues before and I do not have your significant editorial experiences, however I do not really see how it is below Wikipedia standards of notability, and I feel like my efforts to source it have been thorough and perhaps greater than some other pages not being marked for deletion.

Again, thank you and please message me with any further thoughts or information I can provide.Dwinches (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Winning some online contest does not grant notability. I also have doubts about the notability of the Podcast Awards.  Looks very much like a vanity page and I dont think this guy can be considered an expert on the field to warrant a page.  Corpx (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT From WP:PEOPLE 1. Basic Criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Sources from several self-produced and independently produced media sources provided to this effect 2.4 Creative Professionals 2.4.1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Sources from several self-produced and independently produced media sources provided to this effect 2.4.3 The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The subject has produced 200 episodes of his Podcast on running that is considered in the running community to be one of the top periodicals in the format.  From WP:COI Examples of COI include: financial, legal antagonists, autobiographical, self-promotional, client promotional, campaigning, and close relationships. At most, I have the relationship to the subject that I listen to his podcast. That does not preclude me from having a WP:NPOV. If there is suggestion that the article is not neutral, please indicate so. WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. If you have reasons as to why the subject is not notable, please provide them.<BR> There seem to be plenty of subjects in WP, some noted above, with similar notability, success, and secondary source reporting which are not marked for deletion and I would appreciate if someone could help me understand the differences between those pages and this one.Dwinches (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * COMMENT Dwinches, this AfD is not about other articles, it is about this one in particular. Please see the other stuff exists essay for more why that is generally not considered a good argument in an AfD. Also, if an article has lots and lots of poor sources which don't meet WP standards for reliable and verifiable sources, the mass of them doesn't then accumulate credibility by sheer numbers. I see that an article from the Sacramento Bee has been added as a reference. That is an example of a good reference source. I'm afraid Wikipedia can't rely on most blogs for substantial verification of facts. There's no good way to judge such sources' credibility and accuracy of reportage. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about Wikipedia on my talk page if you like. Pigman ☿/talk 02:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * REPLY Thank you, that is helpful for me to understand the process. I did review further about AfD discussions and realize that the discussion should be limited to this article alone. I mention those articles for comparison only to seek clarification and refinement of the reliable and WP:PEOPLE criteria as they apply to people with an area of expertise who produce largely online and digital content. In addition to the reference from Sac Bee, there is a reference from other credible and verifiable sources such as: Runner's World, The Boston Globe, and The Roanoke Times. Dwinches (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wading through this, I still can't find notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)<Br>
 * COMMENT This entry's notability was challenged once before, and notability is supposed to not be temporary WP:NTEMP Last time, the notability criteria as described above and in WP:BIO were adequate. If someone would like to suggest how to further apply notability criteria to people who are well known podcasters and content creators, I would appreciate that information.Dwinches (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I am not convinced he meets WP:ENTERTAINER, although #2 appears open to interpretation on what is meant by: "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." His podcast once won the sports category of the Podcast Awards, however, that would at best warrant a redirect if it existed and was found to be notable. Location (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2009 (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.