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. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Sapienza[edit]

Jeremy Sapienza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Jeremy Sapienza is a blogger. He started Anti-state.com and BushwickBK.com, is Senior Editor of Antiwar.com, and also writes for some other blogs. The New York Times devoted a paragraph to one of his blogs in a roundup of local interest websites, but it wasn't really a profile of him.[1] Anyway, an IP claiming to be the subject has posted to the talk page that he'd like the article to be deleted, so this is a courtesy nomination.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Jeremy, and thank you for nominating this for deletion. I neither wrote nor commissioned this wiki article about myself, and it really has caused me problems over the years for various reasons. I know this doesn't matter to Wikipedia, but I thought I'd add it to the fact that I am very obviously not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. Thank you. Not sure how to prove that i am me -- I guess you can see my IP is from Brooklyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.185.41 (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A mention in a paper, even the NYT, is still trivial. A blogger being cited on other blogs? Nont notable. "Contributing" to the intoduction of a book? Um, still not notable. 0+0+0=0. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The entry simply needs some--(ok, a lot)--of help. I suspect that further research will establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wiki entry. Estéban (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Niteshift. No substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment I relisted this before julian's delete !vote was added. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The guy is notable. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to work with him on fixing the article? I guess we can delete it and I'm all for being courteous, but I don't think doing so improve the encyclopedia. I know we did it for another semi-notable insider recently *cough* *cough*, but I don't see why deleting is better than fixing in a case where notability is not huge, but fairly well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm fine with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not want any blogger mentioned by a newspaper to get an entry. This guy does not merit an article, the fact that this page inconveniences him only makes this easy decision even easier.

--Johnwgoes (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons that Johnwgoes mentions. This is the second time Sapienza has requested deletion. Please honor that. User:Newsgods

• Delete All of the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juices Main Man (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The Keep proponents suggest that the subject is notable or that they "suspect" he might be. The previous AfD is even worse, where the first Keep proponent says outright that despite a lack of evidence proving so, he thinks Sapienza is notable anyway ... and several others proffered as their reasoning to "Keep per the first guy!" It is the responsibility of Keep proponents not to say "Well, uhhh, I guess he's notable, because, well, he just is." It is their responsibility to proffer genuine evidence that a subject meets the criteria of WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This evidence does not seem to exist in this case; fundamentally, where are the independent, published, reliable sources about this subject? I could find none.  RGTraynor  22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.