Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Anthony Watts (blogger)

Alex added an irrelevant section re JA; I've removed it. I don't think that should be here. If Alex wants to delete JA, then fine - he can AFD him. But he should not be using another article to prop up this one - that is an abuse of process William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. The "abuse of process" is trying to hold Watts to a different standard than hundreds (more likely thousands) of other biographies. The simple fact that he was on TV for 14+ years appears to be sufficient for at least hundreds of others. On top of that he is a meteorologist and he is now a controversial figure. In any area (except Global Warming) he would more than qualify as notable for Wikipedia purposes. Q Science (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, there are literally thousands of other pages you might compare him too, which is why any one page is bad. WP:Other stuff exists applies. Deletion debates often get "but you have an aticle on this crappy pokemon character, so you must have an article on my railway station". It doesn't work. You need to make the argument based on the page itself, not based on other pages William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But in this particular case, it's not a railway station vs a Pokemon character, it's two bloggers on opposite sides of the same debate. I think that fact makes the argument relevant and it should not be removed. Moving it here to talk might have been more appropriate if you felt that it was cluttering up the main page, but I don't agree with deleting it entirely. Removing other editors' comments should not be done lightly. In any case, the argument is now on Alex's talk   -- ATren (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You should AfD Annan then, not use his article as a "counter"... (not to mention that Alex gets WP:Notability (academics) wrong by looking at Google News articles - instead of Google Scholar). Imho Tillman's and Alex's rather excessive comments on this AfD (read: walls of text), are detrimental to the AfD discussion. Tillman's comment should have been on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger), and be used on the article, instead of here. (with a possible link here) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and there is no policy violation here. I think there are cases where looking at similarly notable figures is instructive. Certainly, politely raising such an argument is not disruptive, but removing it and then accusing him of "abuse of process" (as WMC did) certainly is disruptive, and far from necessary in this case. I have no problem with editors disagreeing with Alex's argument, but I do take issue with removing it. ATren (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've said nothing new, so I suppose I should repeat myself too. The comparison is irrelevant, which is why I removed it. Re-adding it was disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of you are missing the big picture here. Marginally notable BLPs like this one for Watts or for other marginally notable living persons like Annan should not exist as long as Wikipedia has such poor mechanisms for guarding them from BLP violations.  They both should be deleted until flagged revisions are implemented. Cla68 (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Cla68, that's a fine theory but is it actually going to happen and if so how? I'm not going to nominate Annan. How's this going to work? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)