Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Pierce
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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable biography, written by Larvatus whose own autobiography was userfied a day ago. No indication that Mr. Pierce is notable outside Usenet. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:36, Dec. 25, 2005
- Delete per nom. If someone can find evidence of coverage in non-Internet media, I'll reconsider. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Firstly I would expect any print book on the history of Usenet would most likely mention Tim Pierce, secondly who says Usenet doesn't count for notability? It's still a huge network with a huge audience. If there is a precedent, point me to it. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I'll never agree that he's not notable. --LesleyW 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you name such a book? It isn't verifiable unless and until someone can supply the refence. And yes, Usenet is huge, but again, I want to see references verifying notability, and high Google counts don't necessarily prove that (I have 5,000 Google hits myself, and I'm not notable enough for my own article). -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try when I get a chance, but all the public libraries around here are closed until 4 Jan. --LesleyW 23:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you name such a book? It isn't verifiable unless and until someone can supply the refence. And yes, Usenet is huge, but again, I want to see references verifying notability, and high Google counts don't necessarily prove that (I have 5,000 Google hits myself, and I'm not notable enough for my own article). -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a person supposedly famous for Usenet use, I'd expect them to have more posts to Usenet than little old non-notable me. He doesn't. By a substantial margin. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Also note that a Wiki user named Tim Pierce participated in the discussion about deleting the Larvatus article; if he is the same person covered by this article, perhaps the content can be moved to his user space. Engineer Bob 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For all reasons that make Tim Pierce a Usenet legend. Larvatus 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
- Keep He's certainly notable in the Usenet culture. Haakon 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't think Wikipedia needs entries on every Usenet character under the sun; the movers and shakers like David Lawrence, Gene Spafford, Henry Spencer, yes; pundits and kibitzers like me, no. It strikes me as ironic that Archimedes Plutonium has a Wikipedia entry but that Tom Truscott and Stan Barber do not. As far as Wikipedia is concerned I would rather be known for my contributions as User:Twp than as Tim Pierce. Tim Pierce 12:30, 3 January 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.