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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pool[edit]

Tim Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like a resume and doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Mr. Pool had his 15 minutes of limelight back in November. The media hype about him has since ended as has notable coverage. An obscure, minor element of the Occupy Movement, Mr. Pool's coverage via Ustream (a website with thousands of users), is interesting but no less notable than the hundreds of iPhone videos taken by other young protesters across America. It simply doesn't merit its own article. Wikipedia is not a Who's Who. Thanks-- Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's still doing what he made the news for less than two months ago, It could use a rewrite but that's not reason to delete. Google his name and you will see him profiled in TIME Magazine, MSNBC, Fast Company as well as television stations. The people who shoot most iPhone videos don't have this coverage. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-- He just went on RT, and his footage of NYE was just picked up by NBC universal and all of its affiliates. You need to do research before making claims about 15 minutes. The story on OccuCopter is on RT, BusinessInsider, and the Guardian. I think when someone is in international news for over 3 months it qualifies as a bit more than "15 minutes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.7.97 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (TIME person of the year featured, important figure who "revitalized the movement") The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (First person to report a major event LIVE via cell phone). 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. (His coverage of N17 and the 21 hours of the raid are covered by hundreds of outlets). The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I didnt even mention how he created a livestreaming drone the OccuCopter for which he goes on tv about!!! 50.14.68.230 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--He wasn't the first person to record the event via cell phone. He is yet to be cited by "peers" or "colleagues". The OccuCopter drone is yet to become a revolutionary or conventional method. The use of his coverage has nothing to do with your second point. While he has garnered attention from multiple reliable sources, apart from Time magazine (he wasn't person of the year) and a few others media focus was highest two months ago. Many of the hundred of outlets are news blogs which have questionable reliability. I was of course being figurative when I said "15 minutes". Mr. Pool doesn't fill criteria (a)-(d).

I think this comes down to the question: "What qualifies as notable?" I create pages on war heroes who changed the course of history. These people have extensive documentation and accounts in libraries across America and the world. When I see an article about Tim Pool, who's documentation is limited to media coverage and news blogs, I cannot help but wonder what notability means. Do people become notable through significant, impactful achievements documented and analyzed by academia, or do they acquire notability by "going on TV" and receiving limited attention from magazines/news blogs? (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

By your own logic you admit this is a selective enforcement. You neglect other pages like "Jesse Lagreca" who has no accomplishments at all other than TV coverage, where as Tim Pool was featured in TIME's person of the year for a 21 hour live broadcast via a cell phone. Not only has Tim garnered international notability, he is giving lectures at colleges and conventions. You need to do research, clearly you are the only one making claims against the merit of this article. At which point it would be ethical that you, as the person who nominated this page for deletion, stop responding to comments and allow a discussion to carry on. In response to your comment;

Keep - Jay Rosen and Greg Mitchell qualify as peers. http://pressthink.org/2011/11/occupy-pressthink-tim-pool/ http://www.thenation.com/blog/165460/occupyusa-blog-thursday-jan-5-frequent-updates Greg mitchell uses Tim Pool as a primary source and also cites his work. Also this article just came out today http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/occupy-drones/

I admitted no such thing. This is not a selective enforcement. I am not making claims because I have some "bias". How dare you accuse me of having an agenda and claim I cannot debate. I was unaware of pages like "Jesse Lagreca"; if I found such an article I would treat it accordingly. Your personal attack against me is ludicrous. Have the decency to sign your name--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - over 1 million live viewers and over 4 million unique hits constitutes notability http://www.ustream.tv/theother99 Tim Pool's contributions and international fame are much more notable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Brolsma yet I do not see Wikipedian taking these pages up for deletion. Selective enforcement is bias and unethical Sx91 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you declaring that I have an agenda? When have I revealed this? This absurd string of personal attacks must stop--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Snow Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources equates to topic notability. See sources listed above by User:Disneyfreak96 for some of them. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 6 January 2012 (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.