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 AFD relisted. The amount of trolling in this AfD is so high that determining a concensus is just totally impossible. This AfD will be restarted, and semiprotected as soon as created. Unfortunate that it came to this. --Deskana talk 04:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Pierce[edit]

Tony Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fails WP:BIO hard. Vanity and self-promotion. Apparently this guy did nothing in his life except writing in blogs. Femmina 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthless.

• Keep yes keep

• Delete If this guy is notable so is my mother. --Amanduhh 21:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Really isn't notable.--SUIT 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry, blogfather. This guy is a dime a dozen. Just H 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Waste of space 69.105.108.232 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As bloggers go, he appears popular, popular enough that G4tv interviewed him. [1]--Oakshade 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - G4tv inteviewed him about his blogs. Absolutely non-notable blogs I might add. Exactly to my point. The guy did nothing else whatsoever in his life. - Femmina 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he or his blogs weren't notable, they wouldn't have bothered interviewing him. --Oakshade 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe G4tv folks had 10 spare minutes in 2004. I see no hints at notability in the interview. They ask him how bloging so much is like and he says he enjoy doing it. And that's all. - Femmina 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems you've never worked in broadcast journalism (I have for national networks that you've likely watched). They don't waste 10 seconds on something non-notable. --Oakshade 08:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's true, I'm not a journalist. Wait. How do you know I'm not a journalist? Is my computer broadcasting an IP address or something? Anyway, he's been interviewed once by G4tv and I was unable to find any other claim of notability. Is that single short interview enough to justify the presence of his biography on wikipedia? - Femmina 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. bikeable (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Running a blog (or a hundred) does not make you notable. --timecop 03:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously I'm biased in this discussion since I am Tony Pierce, and maybe nowadays running a blog is no big deal, but in August 2001 when I started the busblog there weren't 54 million blogs going. Anyways, I was on G4TV not for my blog, but for the "blook" that I wrote called "How To Blog" which won an award at SXSW. I've also been interviewed in the New York Times for being addicted to the web (http://community.livejournal.com/blog_sociology/78243.html), written about in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47633-2004Oct20.html), and named in the LA Times (http://www.craigslist.org/about/press/LAwideweb.html) as the most entertaining blog in LA. True my personal blog busblog.com (http://busblog.com) lately isn't what it used to be, but that's because I now blog for a living as Editor of LAist (http://www.laist.com/), but everyone has made a career and a living out of blogging these days, right? In 2002 I coined the word blook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blook) which is turning parts of your blog into a book, a word that is dorky, true, but was up for Word of the Year this year by the Oxford Dictionary (http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/10/blook_is_a_runn.html). Again, achievements I'm sure you've all reached. I'd have cleaned up this wikipedia entry on myself but as you can see from this note I'm not so skilled with your interface. I guess that's why I still use Blogger.com, speaking of which I was sitting next to Ev the night he announced that Google had just bought Blogger (http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/2003/02/only-guy-who-had-better-day-than-me.htm) just like Amanduhh's mom? She looked alot like Xeni Jardin. And I was one of just 20 bloggers given free trips to Amsterdam by the Dutch government this year and put up in 5 star hotels to blog about the city (http://www.bloggersinamsterdam.com/blog/), and and and... but blogging is irrelevant to you guys so whatevs. And yeah I realize I don't get the amount of hits of some of the bloggers in the Technorati Top 100 but personal sites that state right up front that "nothing in here is true" dont really stand a chance of popularity unless youre a whorish hot chick or a political partisan and yet still somehow I am in the Technorati Top 500 (currently i'm #428) (http://www.technorati.com/search/www.tonypierce.com). I agree lots of bloggers can claim that they "belong" here, but how many have achieved these things while being more popular than 99.999% of the rest? Maybe the kids just liked my photo essays (http://www.tonypierce.com/photoessays.htm)? Regardless of what you choose to do, there's no doubt that I was one of the early leaders of blogging, and definitely one of the more influential ones, and now a professional one. Therefore I believe that my entry should stay. But if it goes, that's ok. I did well without Wikipedia, I will live without it. Plus people know where to find me since Google has me listed right below the Tony Awards and Tony Hawk when you simply type "tony" into Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=tony). Thankfully they're not blog-haters :) Now that I read some of your snarks, it seems like the problem here is in the entry not being very good, not the subject. However, if I had written this entry then you would have tried to bust me for self-promotion. So there's the rub. TP 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ignoring the fact that your plea for maintaining notability by keeping a wiki article (whereas you are otherwise un-notable) proves nothing, It is not permitted in this discussion, as you are a non-neutral party. However, I invite any other wiki editors (not blogging trolls) for their opinions in this discussion.

• Delete Nothing in Pierce's missive above is notable. Tfg 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Cam 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You HAVE got to be kidding me. Tony is the Blogfather. And somebody that says "Sorry Blogfather" is somebody that knows just how important Tony really is.
  • Comment above account only has a single edit, to this article --timecop 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Saying that Tony hasn't done anything of note is like saying Kit Marlowe never did anything of note. pfrankenstein
  • Comment hahahahah. comparing a non-notable BLOGGER with Christopher Marlowe? Funniest thing I heard today, and today just started. --timecop 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My point, which you seem to have completely missed, is that Pierce was a pioneering and very influential blogger. There are plenty of bloggers who are much less notable than Pierce with Wikipedia pages, yet they don't seem to be marked for deletion. --pfrankenstein
    • Comment - Please add them to my talk page, I just love non-notable bloggers. --timecop 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yet. One thing at a time.
        • Comment - Perhaps you can end this debate quicker, timecop, if you give us an outline on the requirements of a "notable" blogger. But since you have this bizarre war on blogs going, perhaps you don't have such an outline. But if you do, please proved one. - TP
• Delete This page is blatant self-promotion, and the subject is not notable. Delete with due haste and extreme prejudice. Trollaxor 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trollaxor you don't get a vote, you've been on Blogger for a month.
    • Comment Vote for "Keep" changed to "Comment"; 70.48.103.26, you don't get two votes. 154.20.200.220 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More like "the blahfather". And I just totally coined that term. Where's my Wiki bio? 67.48.92.79 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The jealousy is just seeping out of you people.
    • Comment You seem to confuse jealousy with disdain. Combining a made-up word with an already existing word into "blook" is hardly note worthy. You know what they were called before Tony Pierce? Memoirs. 67.48.92.79 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete- The article is shameless self-promotion. While it does attempr to assert notability, it does not succeed. Reyk _YO! 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although it needs a total rewrite preferably by someone who doesn't know him as the current page definitely sounds more like a bio on a personal website and spends too much time focusing on the non-notable aspects of his life which probably contributes to much of this discussion. As stated on WP:BIO, Failing WP:BIO should not be grounds for deletion on it's own. While Tony does work for a competing company (Speaking of which someone else might want to look at Gothamist in regards to WP:AUTO and WP:SPEEDY - obviously I have a bias) I do feel he is a notable blogger. Sean Bonner 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He taught thousands how to blog.PermanentE 09:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it that a good thing? - Femmina 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. --Oakshade 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not a big fan of blogs, but this guy's history does seem to make him more notable than an average blogger (though a rewrite after all this would be nice). Quack 688 09:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What does that means? The average blogger is an utterly non-notable attention whore. - Femmina 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I admit to occasionally reading Tony's blog, so that may indicate bias, but he is a notable blogger. I agree that the article needs a rewrite. Mrzoink 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly, the blog as a media format is not going to be going away any time soon. As a blogger prominent enough to have won a Bloggie Award at SXSW, this article should be kept. No doubt that in years future, there will be numerous cross-links for articles on Bloggy Award winners in various years and categories. In fact, there already is an entry for Bloggie Awards. Barneyg 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The blog as a media format is not going to go away any time soon because it never made it as a media format in first place. But keep dreaming and wasting your time. - Femmina 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This campaign against blogs reminds me a LOT of when rap music first became popular back in the 80s. Many people campaigned against the very notion of calling rap “music.” They hated seeing rap embraced and legitimized as a new form of “music” within popular culture. Of course, against millions of rap listeners, their efforts were futile…much like this frustrated effort against blogs is. With numerous blogs having hundreds of thousands of daily readers, the blog is—like it or not—a common and accepted media format. - Barneyg 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete About as notable as the piano player down my local pub. Linuxaurus 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs to be re-written and reduced to a much shorter entry. Pierce is notable in his field which I is the standard that should apply here. Glowimperial 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "notable in his field" means absolutely nothing. - Femmina 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - care to explain that sentiment in detail? Wikipedia is full of extensive pages on all kinds of obscure historical and contemporary figures, who's notability exists solely within their professional field. I'm concerned that this "War on Blogs" campaign is not effectively targeting vanity pages. I'm familiar with Tony from his activities with Laist, and he appears to have had a role of significance in the larger blogging community. I'll admit I'm just shy of a weak keep on this one, but IMHO, he's not necessarily worthy of a speedy delete. I'd rather see an intelligent effort at a more Wikipedia-ish reduction and re-write and evaluate the worthiness of the article from there. It doesn't appear to me that there was any serious effort to bring this article in line before becoming an AFD - why not? Glowimperial 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Because the subject fails WP:BIO and the page should be deleted. - Femmina 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "'notable in his field' means absolutely nothing." Considering notability is an ipso facto standard for inclusion, Femmina is basing her opinion on an overall opinion that bloggers are not notable in any occasion.LABlogger 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • • Comment - WP:BIO Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. He's won a bloggy which is a major award in his field - we wouldn't delete and article for an actor who has only one a single Academy Award but no other awards. He's paid by Gothamist for his blogging - that qualifies him as a published writer, and given that his field of work is based upon the self publishing of media, I'd be inclined to include his self published works - considering them along the same line as an independent musician publishing their works. It's a big world, you have to presume some degree of flexibility in policy here. Policy is not a club for bashing, it's a tool best used intelligently. Glowimperial 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Sorry if I didn't recognize a "Bloggy" as a major award. Obviously it's me the outcast that doesn't know things about the mainstream culture. - Femmina 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Pierce is notable per wikipedia's definition that "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."LABlogger 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User's first and only contribution to wikipedia. [2]- Femmina 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Femmina also has not established which deletion policy criteria she believes the Tony Pierce meets - "vanity" is not included on this list. Additionally, Femmina should be aware of the the Wikipedia Deletion_policy subsectioned "Abuse of deletion process" which states:

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally.--LABlogger 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - User's second contribution to wikipedia. I'll say it again since you didn't bother to read at the top of this page. According to his biography (vanity) page, the one we are discussing about, the subject fails WP:BIO. And you should be aware that, being you clearly a sockpuppet, you should be blocked.- Femmina 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read your reason, and point out that vanity alone isn't listed as a cause for deletion. Additionally, the number of edits someone has bear no weight on this debate - having numerous attempts to delete others articles does not make someone's opinion more important than people who read and use Wikipedia on a daily basis. (as for the charge of suck puppetry - if its so clear, share the evidence).--LABlogger 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Femmina, please show your work on the sockpuppet accusation if you want it to be taken seriously. Glowimperial 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'm not an admin so I can't check but the fact that Tony has put a cry for help on his blog [3] and the fact that LABlogger contributed to wikipedia only twice -on this page- is enough to raise suspect. - Femmina 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I highly doubt that LABlogger is a sockpuppet. Are you accusing him of being a meatpuppet? None of us have any awareness that LABlogger isn't an experienced Wikipedian posting under another account, or someone who has never had a Wikipedia account before today and has chosen to make the jump into having an account and properly signing his posts. Could there be less of a welcome mat put out to potential contributors? I also have trouble seeing Tony's post as a "cry for help". He just posted about the situation. Nowhere in his post does he make a direct request for support. Glowimperial 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tony is one of the blogging pioneers and just because Femmina and a few others think that blogging is not a real medium does not make it so. If bloggers like Tony are deleted from Wikipedia it won't weaken bloggers it will weaken Wikipedia's credibility with bloggers.
• Keep Tony Pierce is absolutely worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. He is a very prolific blogger (whether one agrees with blogging as notable or not, Tony's contributions to the medium are not insignificant) and has held high-profile jobs in online communities like Buzznet and LAist. As many have already noted here, he inspired many people to begin blogging, and earned the "Blogfather" title that twas bestowed upon him. This article was clearly put up for deletion as some sort of personal vendetta by a user who desperately needs lots of attention; that's not a good enough reason for an article to be removed, in my opinion, and even talking about this troll wastes everyone's time, including editors and administrators.
  • Comment - O RLY? - Femmina 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant self-promotion. The fact that he needs to beg for help on his blog demonstrates this. Vyse 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentUnless you're willing to provide a quote that backs up your claim, I think a retraction is in order. No where in Tony's post or comments does he ask for, let alone beg, for help.--LABlogger 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Vyse - I have to question whether you've looked at this situation adequately. The page in question is not a vanity page - Tony Pierce has never edited, nor contributed to the editing of this page in any manner according to the history page. Secondly, as stated above, he also did not beg, request, or in any way solicit help regarding the AFD in question. Glowimperial 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Mere mention of the controversy on his blog (and on MetaFilter) is an implicit call for assistance. Given the sudden influx of "Keep" votes, it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Tfg 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment In general Mr. Pierce, those who are notable, do not spend time attempting to convince others of their notability. Three mentions in one blog entry of this discussion (with links) suggests as clearly as a hammer over the head to your regular readers as much. Vyse 00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Agreed. Notable people do not spend time talking about, and especially not personally influencing the process of, their inclusion in an encyclopedia. While it is not proof, it is evidence that the entry is vanity. Xiphoris 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BIO states as a criterion for inclusion: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." It continues, "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles..." etc. Pierce meets that criterion. A quick search of the Dow Jones/Reuters Factiva service shows Pierce has been the subject of articles from the New York Times (27 May 2004) (followed by an echo to the Times-owned Int'l Herald Tribune on 29 May); Reuters (10 July 2004); Straits Times (Singapore) (5 March 2006); Reforma (Mexico City) (2 April 2006); EL PAIS (Madrid) (20 April 2006); Los Angeles Times (16 October 2003, 27 Feb 2003, 12 July 2004, others); Le Monde (25 June 2005); and others. The search string was (Tony Pierce AND blog), and the variety of citation shows that some regard "just blogging" to be sufficient for notability, if one is widely enough known for it (just as one could become widely known for such synonyms "writing a diary", "writing a journal", "writing essays", etc.). A campaign to edit the phenomenon of blogging out of Wikipedia, when it is clearly observable in everyday life, could be considered a violation of WP:NPOV through overly aggressive editing out of known facts. .--hbobrien
  • Likely another sockpuppet, but this vote can stay as it was reasonably well thought out and not just "keep l0l you f00lz". --Deskana talk 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom 凸 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everyone and their mother has been interviewed by G4, they're hardly a good test for notability. Tony Pierce has contribuited nothing historically significant, and is not known outside of his very limited readership. Viscid 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The infestation of suspicious votes is troublesome since it smacks of solicitation. Bottom line, however, is that the subject clearly fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of the votes to delete are more suspicious than anything. Please see User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs for more... Sven Erixon 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pierce is a very prominent person in the world of blogging and for all the reasons noted above, I vote to keep. Sven Erixon 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tony is a highly influential figure in the history of blogging. Blogging is a highly influential phenomenon in the history of the world. Those who think otherwise are not well-researched on the subject, or are intentionally trying to game the system for some biased reason. The fact that this deletion has gotten so much attention is evidence enough that he is notable. If this gets deleted, there is something wrong here. Phronk
  • Comment How is Tony highly influential in the blogging community? What influence does he have outside the existence of own blog posts? I have been unable to determine this from any non-trivial sources. Xiphoris 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with hbobrien, he has been the subject of multiple "non-trivial" works. Further, the article is informative. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd go so far as to call at least some of these edits in bad faith. Not accusing everyone, but I'm just saying, this may be somewhat organized on both sides. I'd move to invalidate this whole proceeding as throughly screwed up on both sides if there is such a thing -- ZachPruckowski December 4th, about 8:19 PM ET.
  • Comment - On this note, say hi to Digg as well. -- Northgrove 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This is a total waste of time, of course this article should be kept. He is notable in his field; the fact that the field

itself is viewed by some as a niche - or is disliked by a select few - does not constitute grounds for removal. --Sprhodes 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a notable blogger, and there's nothing inherently about bloggers that say they should be deleted either. Some quick checks are showing his fame goes even beyond the blogging community itself, appearing in various interviews, etc. -- Northgrove 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This guy is a blogging pioneer. Blogging is a huge part of internet culture and he has indeliably shaped it. He has multiple appearances on tv and popular literature. I'm sure there are people who have used wiki in order to get info about this man. This is an encylopedia. He is notable. People search for him. Wiki should have info about him.131.204.217.53 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Willie Morris, morewillie.com[reply]
• Delete per nom. Consider also that one of the largest sections is the external links which include a cafepress link. Mikemill 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A notable blogger should have a notable blog and Tony Pierce, as evidenced by his alexa ranking doesn't. Further, this blog appears to be Tony Pierce's main claim to fame TerraFrost 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alexa rankings are not a viable test on notability and includes significant bias due to the reasons shown in Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Alexa_test. -- Northgrove 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Alexa rankings are as viable as anything else, when included in context. All search engines, including those of scholarly articles, introduce biases. Alexa is one measure of popularity as perceived by a certain share of the market. Popularity does not imply notability, but a complete lack of popularity might imply non-notability. Xiphoris 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned by numerous individuals (Femmina, bikeable, timecop, Cam, Eusebeus, etc.), this article clearly violates WP:BIO Special4k4 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Top 500 in the technorati ratings isn't good enough? Articles about him in the NY Times and LA Times isn't good enough? Certainly he's a blogger of SOME note, and more people know of his work than, say of art collector John Day. 68.181.243.19 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)PH[reply]
• DELETE. Cursory review of search results from Yahoo/Google/Ask.com indicate that not many reputable news sources seem to be writing about this guy. However, it could be the articles about this guy from reputable news sources are not online. Articles that do exist seem to be coming from the self-propagating blogging community, which does not (IMO) meet the notability requirements. While some might argue he is the subject of many works, I have not found those works easy to locate. Xiphoris 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add further: I did a more comprehensive review, specifically looking for psychology/ergonomics/computers/computer human interaction articles through my university's article search system. I located no scholarly articles of any sort. scholar.google.com located no references. While he may be referred to in "entertainment" sections of popular blog-related and Internet-only news services, I do not think he meets the notability requirements as per above.
  • Finally, I especially don't think people worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia would much worry about their presence. Especially, notable people should not be getting personally and directly involved in debates about their inclusion in said encyclopedia. I get the impression from Digg.com and Metafilter.com that Mr. Pierce has been asking for help from many of his friends to influence this process. Popularity is not notability.
• Delete - nn. Jmax- 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. This is self-promotion, no doubt. 72.68.63.7 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. digital_me 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs to be rewritten, but its subject is notable, and, contrary to several comments above, does meet WP:BIO (even though this is not a requirement to keep the article). He has been the subject of published works, such as this article in the New York Times. He has won awards in his field, which is notable. It should be noted that there appear to be an extraordinary number of suspicious votes (WP:SOCK); it should also be noted that there is a concentrated effort to delete all blogging-related articles, without regard for notability or for following Wikipedia's guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? 02:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pathetic self-promotion. If he wants a page, he should create a USERPAGE just like the rest of us. Loser. Techfan 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of the related links are back to his own blog. I am a blogger, but we all tend to have rather large egos, and if this was notable then we would have a flood of vanity entries. Nonforma 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Excuse me. Somebody deleted my keep comment? Is it because I didn't sign it? I will sign it now, and you can see that it is from the same ip that you deleted. Strange me thinks.Binsk2
  • Comment. It might have been me. If so I apologize. I might have lost some of my own additions in the process. Not really sure. Again, I apologize if it was me. Xiphoris 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per bbatsell above. A Google News Archive search shows verifiable sources for Tony Pierce. [4]. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - notice, every one of those 'google news links' goes to another personal blog. --timecop 02:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Worthless, non-notable. He has a blog and nothing else- the content of this article is 100% redundant with his personal site. It's immaterial that there were a couple of newspaper articles that asked the interchangeable blogger of the moment what he thought about blogs. Wikipedia isn't a directory of people who have ever had their name mentioned in the newspaper.
• Keep Blogging is quickly becoming more and more accepted in terms of mainstream media, and if he is considered by the media to be one of the "forefathers" to modern blogging, and has been quoted, cited, interviewed, or otherwise been exposed by modern media as such, that's verification for me. Wikipedia isn't a directory of people who have ever had their name mentioned in the newspaper - true, but he's had his mentioned in places other than the newspaper, multiple times.To0n 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Yes, he is also mentioned in blogs and the wikipedia article itself. Those sources are obviously inadequate. And the newspaper articles that people keep saying are "about him" aren't about him at all- they are about blogging and happen to mention him as an example. Ask yourself the question: Would this article have been substantially the same if they had chosen virtually any other blogger? If yes, then the article wasn't about him.
• Strong Keep Quite notable. He is a well known journalist on the web, Don't delete because of a campaign against Bloggers. I'm glad it's now on Digg. I don't think people should just vote here, but I do think that all digg users who are editors of wikipedia should have this brought to their respective attentions as to contribute their opinions. Alexbrewer 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI, as of this post, not accounting for any accusations of sockpuppeting etc. It's 28/26 in favor of deletion. Alexbrewer 02:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone (69.105.108.232) changed three Keep votes to Delete votes. See [5] and [6]. This is getting ridiculous!PermanentE 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think pages like this ought to be editable only by those who wrote their portions of the page. This is inviting trouble if you ask me. Hey, lets hold the next presidential election on Wikipedia this way.
• Keep Ignoring the fact that this person is a notable author, I strongly disapprove of groups trying to remove articles from Wikipedia because of their personal dislike of the article, or the individual featured. If this is allowed, it will be the end of Wikipedia.
• Keep This is an actual notable person doing real things in the real world. Keep. King-of-no-pants 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regardless of whether or not Tony Pierce *was* notable, the fact that there are now two large groups promoting agendas within Wikipedia over this article (one side anti-blogging and the other pro-blogging) has in fact made the article itself noteworthy. Removing it at this point will smack of censorship. Alvonruff 03:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that people disagree about whether a person is noteworthy doesn't make it per se noteworthy- that logic is preposterous. If the pro/anti-blogging issue is noteworthy, then give that issue its own page. And this isn't a pro/anti blogging issue anyway- it is a pro/anti trivia issue. And censorship requires a state actor, to call this "censorship" is simply histrionics.
  • Comment Jordanjill railway station is Wikipedia's one millionth article and yet that fact isn't mentioned in the article, itself. What makes the "controvery" over this article any different? TerraFrost 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This guy's exploits are just that; an exploit of a new syntax of referring to reverse-chronologically posted content. He simply takes shit and makes sculptures. But it's still boring, non-notable shit. --lesalle 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Opinions on the work product of the subject of this encyclopedic article are entirely irrelevant. What is at issue is whether the subject is notable, and whether you think blogging is worthwhile or not is not a measure of notability. —bbatsell ¿? 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE The nominator, User:Femmina has been blocked indefinately (Admin edit summary reads "Blocked indefinitely, troll"). From that, apply whatever logic you like to this AfD (it's a free-for-all, that's for sure). --Oakshade 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self-promotion Emfraser 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Femmina went to next door neighbour's and changed username to Emfraser.
• Strong Keep I love to delete pages that are worthless (i've been a member for almost a year and I have made several contributions), but Tony Pierce is clearly notable and this page should not be deleted. He qualifies under all of the following: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.; Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers ; and Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Magdela 03:44, 5 December 2006 (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.