Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Friedman

Brad Friedman

Brad Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:BIO, and perhaps autobio of freelance journalist--most edits come from IP addresses. The lead calls him a "self-described" etc. etc., and self-described is what all of the footnotes in the article are. Lots of wikipuffery, zero substantial coverage in independent third-party sources, and the desperation in linking to blog posts and the like suggests there is none to be had; I didn't find any, though it's hard searching through all the false hits to Brad Friedmans out there. THF (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, While there is an assertion of notability, it's reading more of a resume. In particular, only one reference seems to be independent, and it's more of minutes for a meeting rather than news coverage. The best notability assertion is with Brad Friedman: Blog Bio & Testimonials..., where it at least lists quotes from other people (but not reference them.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Clearly the notability bar for "Creative professionals" is high and not reached by Friedman. Lot's of quotes from CourtTV don't make it a notable article. 12.3.62.130 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This debate was originally closed as "delete" and reconsidered at deletion review. Result was to relist to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 00:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete non notable, per WP:CREATIVE §hawnpoo 06:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Added sources not only easily satisfy the general notability guideline, which has primacy, but demonstrate that the subject is regarded as an important voting rights blogger who is often cited by his peers, hence WP:CREATIVE is satisfied. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. You might want to identify the three or four cites that you feel best show notability: out of the first two I randomly spot-checked, one was a blog, and the other was WP:LARD that barely mentioned Friedman, which doesn't give me faith that all those footnotes are real. THF (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Subject is profiled in The Beacon-News (see text here). An LA Times newspaper blog, which counts as a reliable source per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, cites the subject as "the state's most persistent blogger-watchdog on the dangers of voting technology". Rolling Stone cites the subject as having single-handedly kept a voting rights controversy alive via his "relentless blogging". The New York Times describes the subject as "perhaps the most dogged critic of electronic voting machine technology in the blogosphere" . Another NYT article quotes the subject extensively on the subject of the role of bloggers as journalists. The subject is quoted in numerous other sources in the article and on the internet, satisfying one of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. If you don't like the sources I've picked out of the article, please do your own due diligence research on the dozens of other reliable sources available online. I recognize it's hard sorting through the false hits on that Gnews search, but as AfD nominator you've got to make a better effort. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Edits aren't going to make someone notable. WP's got a high standard here and it's very clearly not met. This doesn't appear to me to be a question of article quality. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Edits aren't necessary to make the subject notable. Notability is established by at least ten reliable sources in the article, plus I would estimate several dozen more in Gnews (that refer to this Brad Friedman). Baileypalblue (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with you. I encourage you to read WP:CREATIVE. I don't believe "refer to" is a qualification.71.178.193.134 (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:CREATIVE: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." This criteria is clearly satisfied: the subject is heavily quoted by his peers in the media on his subject of expertise, and multiple cited quotes in the article demonstrate that he is regarded as an important figure. Quoting from Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Basic_criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Unless you can demonstrate that all but one of the dozens of independent reliable sources online that cover the subject are "trivial", this criteria establishes the subject's notability. Better make sure you know what the term "trivial" means in this context before attempting this. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Baileypalblue. WP:CREATIVE does appear met. Ancemy (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep he does make regular appearances on KKGN radio 960 am in san francisco bay area. i think the article needs to be trimmed down, but he is notable, as he is heard and announced as an authority on a radio station that runs nationally syndicated shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete still not notable per guidelines. 166.199.58.8 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- I see lots of references here to reliable sources. I don't see any record of the nominator voicing their concerns on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Nominator cites wikipuffery as if it were one of the wikipedia's policies. It is not. It is an essay started by the nominator him or herself. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There appears to be enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability. DHowell (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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.