Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Hunt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internet marketer, the article was restored on request from prodded deletion at deletion review. The biographical basis for the article is thin though, at best one source that can be considered to meet the original notability requirement (about a Wikipedia spat of course), so I believe this article should be deleted unless more nontrivial sources can be provided. A Newsbank search turned out unsuccessful (i.e. more passing mentions and many stories about a high school senior). PS This is not a procedural listing. ~ trialsanderrors 10:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MER-C 11:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. The "mainstream press" articles linked seem very promotional, making me wonder if Fost has some personal interest in promoting Hunt or BarCamp. In any case, since they're both articles by the same author, and since the articles only reference or quote her (they're not about) her, Hunt clearly fails the "multiple, independent published sources" notability criterion. —Psychonaut 12:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as nomination. Ronbo76 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Valrith 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete Tara, her blog, and her projects are broadly significant. Heyjohngreen 5 PM, 4 January 2007 (PST)
- Delete per nomination. Liveforever22 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 05:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, thoguhtful and well-reasoned. I found nothing "out there" to contradict T&E's statement above. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Um...I don't know if I'm allowed to do this - as I am actually the Tara Hunt being deleted - but the entry isn't encyclopedic. I will disagree that it was self-promotional. I was informed after the fact that it was entered and I would have certainly written it another way. ;) LOL. At some point I may accomplish enough to be notable (although I do find it interesting that notability means mainstream media references...but I suppose you need guidelines). It may be helpful in the future to keep the arguments unbiased. I can't argue the lack of references, but I find some of the comments here rather amusing and, moreover, un-encyclopedic. User - Tara Hunt 12:44 AM, 6 January 2007 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.121.73 (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I didn't see any evidence for self-promotion. Only a lack of "mainstream" (known here as "reliable") sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Well, thanks. I haven't really appeared in that many "mainstream" articles, really. I speak at quite a few big conferences in my industry (including ETech, Future of Web Apps, etc), but I know that doesn't really count. I must say, though, there are a heckuvalotta small-time porn stars on wikipedia. I suppose that there is a notoriety in that - they've been in 'movies'. I just wanted to point out how biased (and a wee bit sexist) the measure is. I saw a good friend kept after this debate because people said, "He is a notable developer on some fairly prominent web projects" and he is not a developer, nor do I see the notableness of being a developer over a 'soft science' type like myself. I, personally, don't need to have a page, but there is alot of weeding you need to do to justify deletes like mine when lots of stuff is kept that is not very "notable" at all. In fact, the measure I would use is: when history is looked at, will this person/place/thing/event have an impact at all? I know that is hard to judge, but it would help with the current weeding. That's just my opinion, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.245.70 (talk • contribs)
- The fairness of the inclusion criteria is a much-debated issue here and elsewhere (and your criterion is known as the 100 year test). For myself I found the best strategy is to remain utterly non-notable, so that nobody will ever get the idea of writing an article about me. ~ trialsanderrors 07:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Well, thanks. I haven't really appeared in that many "mainstream" articles, really. I speak at quite a few big conferences in my industry (including ETech, Future of Web Apps, etc), but I know that doesn't really count. I must say, though, there are a heckuvalotta small-time porn stars on wikipedia. I suppose that there is a notoriety in that - they've been in 'movies'. I just wanted to point out how biased (and a wee bit sexist) the measure is. I saw a good friend kept after this debate because people said, "He is a notable developer on some fairly prominent web projects" and he is not a developer, nor do I see the notableness of being a developer over a 'soft science' type like myself. I, personally, don't need to have a page, but there is alot of weeding you need to do to justify deletes like mine when lots of stuff is kept that is not very "notable" at all. In fact, the measure I would use is: when history is looked at, will this person/place/thing/event have an impact at all? I know that is hard to judge, but it would help with the current weeding. That's just my opinion, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.245.70 (talk • contribs)
- I didn't see any evidence for self-promotion. Only a lack of "mainstream" (known here as "reliable") sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - don't see how sexism plays into this argument —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.144.21.78 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2007 (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.