Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Shawn Barber

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I counted 25 keeps, 25 deletes. (I have a lower threshold for "very new user" than whoever made the table.) dbenbenn | talk 06:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

La Shawn Barber

[edit]

This discussion thread has become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. Comment: For this to work, please keep all comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've missed anyone or listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please fix it. Rossami (talk) 02:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

table header inserted to allow section edits

[edit]
Keep votes  
Keep
  1. Randy
  2. Kappa
  3. Daniel11
  4. Loweeel
  5. Android79
  6. TimShell
  7. Wefa
  8. TenOfAllTrades
  9. Meelar
  10. Ray Radlein
  11. HyperZonk
  12. Linnwood
  13. ObsidianOrder
  14. Pentegamer
  15. savantpol
  16. Boothy443
  17. Opusaug
  18. Phenry
  19. Stereotek
  20. Dan100
  21. Hoovernj
  22. wwoods
  23. GRider

Anonymous/very new users

  1. user:68.72.59.148
  2. user:67.153.224.90
  3. User:The Baron
  4. user:24.136.207.2
  5. user:24.0.171.130
  6. user:24.166.165.79
  7. user:66.169.61.223
  8. User:Jambork
  9. asciident
  10. user:68.5.67.75
  11. amphigory
  12. user:65.94.139.188
  13. User:Jmcnamera
  14. user:12.203.217.218
  15. user:Vanderleun
  16. S.B.
  17. The Baroness
  18. Miranda V
  19. ..-..
  20. You Belong
  21. Egghead
 Redirect
Delete
  1. RickK
  2. Riffsyphon1024
  3. Hoary
  4. Megan1967
  5. Zzyzx11
  6. jni
  7. Jayjg
  8. Gamaliel
  9. Vanu
  10. Dpbsmith
  11. Yeff
  12. CDJones
  13. Mike Rosoft
  14. Lucky 6.9
  15. Carnildo
  16. Carrp
  17. Korath
  18. Snowspinner
  19. gadfium
  20. Fredrik
  21. Lan3y
  22. Rather

Anonymous/very new users

  1. Mixed
  2. user:68.50.241.28
  3. TimeH
  4. Sledgehammer
  5. The Met
  6. user:68.0.102.243
  7. Xof
  8. Shawn Colv
  9. GrazingCow
  10. CHALK
  11. Westlake
  12. Big Ben Clock
  13. Bonsai K
 Abstain or Ambiguous vote
  1. Phils
  2. Sommerfeld
  3. Rossami
  4. Deathphoenix
  5. R. fiend

Anonymous/very new users

  1. user:24.4.125.147
  2. user:134.126.206.33
  3. User:Gruffbear
  4. user:208.44.21.13
  5. 172.159.142.199
  6. Chiniski
  7. Crea

arbitrary break to allow section edits

[edit]

Non-notable blogger with a lot of puffery. RickK 06:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • nomination was immediately blanked by anon user:68.72.59.148. restored by RickK
  • Puffery is right. Delete with a vengeance. None of this advertising crap needs to be here. Plus if the author deletes this again, they will be banned indefinitely. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • vote vandalized by user:24.81.18.42. restored by user:Rdsmith4
    • Non-notable? You must not be in the know... See, e.g., TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem #17 as of 2/20/2005. Please provide support for your "non-notable" smite. Is this just a bias against successful conservative black women? It sure seems that way...The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • unsigned comment by anon user:68.72.59.148 who had previously blanked the nomination and later returned to sign as "The Baron". later edited by anon user:134.126.206.33
      • I had no idea she was either black or a woman, and I don't care in the least about her politics. But the fact that you needed to include all of those quotes trying to assure us of how famous and well-liked she is is pretty good indication that she isn't. RickK 06:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • unsigned personal attack left by anon user:68.72.59.148. appropriately deleted by RickK
        • "I had no idea she was either black or a woman, " I find that hard to believe. You began the delteIt movement here. A nano-second's visit to her site reveals, via a photograph (upper left) , that she is indeed black and female. Why would you lie about such a thing?
        • Hey RickK, she's the very definition of "Notable." Top 50 (traffic) out of 8,000,000 pretty much speaks for itself. Stop going after the non-socialists. Jack Rousch, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep La Shawn. (RickK, I find it interesting that you defend your vote by saying you had no idea that she was black or a woman. Does that mean you didn't visit her blog to determine her "puffery"? hmmm unsigned comment by anon user:67.153.224.90. later deleted by RickK. Restored by user:Rossami
          • That was quite "honest" of you to delete the entries in support of La Shawn...The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by anon user:68.72.59.148 who later returned to sign as "The Baron"
            • Where did I do that? You've already had your vote, you don't get to vote more than once (and as an anon, your votes don't county anyway), and what I was deleting was your continued personal attacks on me, which I will now stop doing since all you're doing is making your arguments even less meaningful. RickK 07:08, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why don't you put the two comments in favor of La Shawn back up. The first dealt with the communist collection on your site and suggested your disagreement with La Shawn may be more political than substantive. The second questioned how you did not know she was both black and a woman if you had been to her site. After all, you claimed she was full of "puffery." How did you know that if you hadn't been to her site? I vote to keep La Shawn Barber.The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The above was posted by User:The Baron, the User's only post to Wikipedia. Probably the same as the anon who's been attacking me on the page, who isn't aware that sock puppet votes aren't counted, either, but then, he or she hasn't voted, have they? RickK 07:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • I have saved two screen shots of where the comments were listed and then deleted, of which one was mine questioning your lack of knowledge in not knowing she is black. I admit that I'm not a wikipedian, however, in review of 1.5 Decision policy, it seems to me that the grounds for deletion have not been met. Andy--67.153.224.90 17:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • this comment first left by anon user:67.153.224.90 and later edited by user:The Baron
  • I get 252,000 google hits for "La Shawn Barber", which seems awfully high. If she's an established columnist she may well deserve an article (being a blogger gets nowhere with me, though). If someone can write a real article I may well vote to keep, but delete this puffery. -R. fiend 07:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Rewrite looks pretty good. I guess she seems notable enough. Keep now. -R. fiend 20:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Looking into it a bit more, and partially thanks to MirandaV's commentary, I'm going to abstain. -R. fiend 14:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you read her about page you would discover she is "a freelance writer (and blogger) with articles, book reviews, columns and essays published in print: Washington Times, Washington Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Denver Post, Baltimore Times, Today's Christian Woman and other publications. My work also appears online in Jewish World Review, Townhall.com and other sites." Hard to argue she is "just a blogger," though I would argue even bloggers may be worthy of an entry.The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • unsigned comment by user:The Baron who later returned to sign the comment
  • In current form Delete, needs a serious non promtional rewrite.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep after further review, of credientials of person, and changes in the article. Though i am not impressed with the "as i see it": sockpuppet like campaing that the anon seems to want to persist on using.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It reads more like an advertisement than something you would read in an encyclopedia. Mixed 07:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User only has three Wikipedia edits. RickK 07:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • R.Fiend, that's a fair assesment of her popularity. However, since you are the "arbiter" of what gets nowhere with you, then maybe Wikipedia is a nowhere blog that doesn't deserve its reputation as the go to spot to learn more about any topic or subject. IOWs, bloggers need not apply nor reference it. Could you please refer me to the section of the rules that states anon/sock puppets can't vote? I voted once to keep La Sahwn, came back to find it deleted. Is that kosher to delete votes you don't like? Andy
    • unsigned comment by anon user:67.153.224.90
    • As a anon your vote should not have been removed, but it would not be recorded in the final tally. As for no anons or sockpuppets voting, that is an established policy. I've been here long enough to know most of the policies here, but not necessarily where they all are written down. There should be relevent links if you look at the VfD page as a whole. -R. fiend 08:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this advertising. -- Hoary 07:41, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep if this is advertising, then so is Wonkette, Instapundit or DailyKos -- 07:50, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Note: 67.153.224.90's first edit was to this page. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: Actually it is 67.153.224.90's fifth edit. (The first two were deleted between 06:30 and 07:30, 2005 Feb 20 by ??). Nonetheless, I'm getting the hang of how things should work. Andy--67.153.224.90 17:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • All your edits have been to this page, including your first edit, which was to vote "Keep". And if you're getting the hang of this then you should realize that vote tallies are based on consensus of Wikipedia editors, not people who log in for the sole purpose of subverting that consensus. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • If my first edit wasn't tossed into the memoryhole, that would have been the end of my vote. It ain't about stuffing the ballots, or sock puppetry as wikis call it, it's whether Wikipedia is what it's cracked up to be. Tally my edits if you've nothing better to do. Andy--67.153.224.90 01:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you read any of the articles in Category:Bloggers, then you will see the articles actually have content rather than just a collection of opinionated quotes. Mixed 08:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Which is exactly why we should keep it and clean it up so it's an article and not an advertisement, as Phils says below. --asciident 13:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • All this debate over ad vs encyclopedia format, why don't the gatekeepers come up with a standardized and objective format? I've looked at a number of examples, such as Wil Wheaton (who I loved in STNG), Wonkette, Instapudit, Powerline, Atrios and DailyKos (come on, 3 or 4 pages of a marketing brochure for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Even my Worldbook don't give that much space to individuals. So far, this is looking more like a venue for ego trips to up or down others. Again, if Wiki is going to be serious, then create an approved format template for each category. If you can't do it, there will be another free encyclopedia to eat Wiki for breakfast, a la Alta Vista. Andy --67.153.224.90 17:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bloggers promo. Megan1967 07:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an ad. I hate ads. All right-thinking people hate ads. Delete this ad. A lot. I'll reconsider if someone cares enough to rewrite it into an encyclopedia entry instead. —Korath (Talk) 08:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) (superseded below)
  • Delete. Currently it is in the style of an ad, even with a section of testimonials. Zzyzx11 09:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment If the content is inappropriate but the subject is worthy of an article, shouldn't this be listed on one of the cleanup pages, and not here? Phils 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. blogger, advert. jni 12:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks like basic information. If you think it is too much of an ad, just clean it up a little. It appears as if people are letting their politics interfere with other peoples knowledge. 12:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: 24.136.207.2's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the end of Wikipedia as a credible medium, right here. Stick a fork in it.
    • Note: 24.4.125.147's second edit. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. As bloggers go, she is among the upper-tier, and whatever information we gather could be more important as the years go by. Randy 14:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, since it's being cleaned up, and R Fiend says she's notable. Kappa 14:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: There is plenty of precedence for keeping it and I do not see where the deletion policy applies!
    • Note: 24.0.171.130's second edit. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At this point, the nomination was vandalized by page-blanking by anon user:67.82.95.164
  • The page should stay - there is no reason whatsoever to delete La Shawn's entry. She is an excellent writer and blogger and has a large audience. If LaShawn's entry is deleted, then all blogger entries should also be deleted, including DailyKos. unsigned comment by anon user:24.166.165.79. accidentally overwritten when Carrp restored the page
  • Keep, There is nothing wrong with it in it's present form. Isn't the point of an article to give someone at least basic information on the subject? Doesn't it do just that? User:FletcherSC
    • Note: User FletcherSC does not exist. 66.169.61.223's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is just stupid. --Daniel11 16:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:She's published. She has a following and is quoted in the major media. Isn't Wikipedia the place for us all to go to quick-find info on folks we see, read and hear? I always like to know a commentator/reporter's politically lean and history. Keep the listing. User:Jambork
    • Note: User's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This debate isn't even worth having. There are articles for Charles Johnson and LGF, and he doesn't even publish articles outside of his blog. Loweeel 16:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- Post is the style of an ad. Eddie3 11:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User Eddi3 does not exist. 68.50.241.28's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Notable conservative blogger, and the advertising seems to have been cleaned up. However, in its present state, it needs some fleshing out. Also, another wrinkle: Ms. Barber does not actually wish to be listed on Wikipedia. This may change the minds of those who have voted to keep. Android79 16:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Perversely, it might also change the minds of those who have voted to delete.--Sommerfeld 17:28, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep - This entire movement to expunge people with whom one disagrees is shameful. And if George Bush or the Pope decided they didn't want to be in Wikipedia, would they be deleted?
    • Note: 68.5.67.75's second edit.Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - removing an article just because you don't like the subject violates NPOV. TimShell 17:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That is not the reason I listed it, I resent the assertion, and I demand an apology. 20:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I was mistaken in implying RickK wanted to delete for POV reasons; I thought he was referring to Barber's writings as 'puffery', but he explained he was referring to the article contents, which may indeed have been puffery before they were edited away. I still say keep, on more general eventualist grounds. Sorry, RickK if I pissed you off. TimShell 21:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if there is room for improvement, improve. I don't see any advantage in deleting an article with imformation someone might find usefull. Wefa 17:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative Keep and cleanup. Seems notable, but I can't say for sure. The fact that she doesn't like Wikipedia or want to be in it should have no bearing on whether we have an article—if you blog and write newspaper columns then you lose your right to complain about other people commenting on you. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is out of control. This is an information resource, not a way for certain political groups to say that someone is not important just because their views are different from yours.--amphigory 18:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • this vote was made then immediately deleted by User:Amphigory, then later added back by cut-and-paste (which corrupted the signature - now restored).
    • User's only edits are to this discussion.
  • Delete the article on the non-notable blogger and delete all these sockpuppets. Gamaliel 18:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Her radical and wrong-headed opinions don't deserve this kind of endorsement from us! We must not let her have even 5k of space on our glorious servers of the revolucion; we must not give her an outlet for her reactionary words! Vote for social justice, vote for deletion! Vanu 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. That last post is certainly one of the more scary things I have read in a while. Anyway, the TTLB listings place her quite highly. She does has some journo credentials. Given the scope and power of new media such as bloggers, I would vote that she be kept even if there is some difficulty with her points of view. unsigned vote from 65.94.139.188
    • Note: 65.94.139.188's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No one would be arguing this if she was on the left politically. -jeff
    • Vote from User:Jmcnamera. User's second edit.
    • Hey, can I borrow your telepathy machine? Apparently you must have one since you think you know what our motives are. I for one would just as quickly vote delete for an obscure left-wing blogger. Gamaliel 20:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--fairly notable writer as measured by print appearances, google hits. Meelar (talk) 20:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stereotek 13:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary break to allow section edits

[edit]
  • Comment: New users should be aware that votes by anonymous and very new accounts are generally very steeply discounted during these discussions. We have had significant problems in the past with abuse of the voting process and attempts to bias the outcome by users creating sockpuppets. Hard facts which add to the discussion are appreciated. Opinions and qualitative judgments are likely to be ignored. —Korath (Talk) 20:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's been cleaned up. (And thank you for the lovely vandalism of my user page. I shall cherish it forever and ever.) —Korath (Talk) 20:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) (superseded again below)
  • Keep - The fact that we have people on here arguing NOT to include one of the web's most prominent conservative bloggers and social commentary writers is just more evidence that Wiki has turned into a joke of politically-motivated slap fights. Ugly. (DJ 20 Feb 2005)
    • Unsigned vote from 12.203.217.218.
    • Comment. Jonah Goldberg and Instapundit are among "the web's most prominent conservative bloggers and social commentary writers". This woman is not. Gamaliel 22:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Re Susan Estrich, "The political blogosphere provides another clue. Although its geeky Usenet roots were (and are) testosterone laden affairs, there are still no formal barriers to entry here, no old boys club in the usual meaning of the word. Yet if you take a look at the Blogosphere Ecosystem, which for all its faults is probably the closest thing we have to a consensus measure of popularity for political blogs, you will find exactly two women in the top 30: Michelle Malkin and La Shawn Barber. (There are a few group blogs in the top 30, but those are very heavily male dominated too.)" -- Kevin Drum, Political Animal Andy--67.153.224.90 02:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not voting because I Am Not Worthy. /sarcasm But it's funny that Gamaliel has been over at La Shawn Barber's site doing some lobbying of his own in the comments of her blog. That's a lot of effort from someone who thinks that this blogger is insignificant.
    • Unsigned vote from User:Gruffbear. First edit.
    • What exactly am I lobbying for, besides to get people to act in a civil manner and not make baseless accusations? Gamaliel 22:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • "This woman is not." Coming from you, that's so sweet. Nevermind that this woman has written for Townhall.com, among others (heck, look at the archives from early this morning) and not only has Instapundit has blogrolled her, she's insta-lanched on a regular basis -- pretty insignificant. Dig a little deeper before you make baseless accusations -- but then again, who cares. /shrug I think I found a new source of entertainment for the next few days until I get my 100 edits, fisking wikipedia elites that missed the cluetrain. Andy--67.153.224.90 22:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, the wicked Wiki cabal is in desperate need of wisdom from random anonymous internet trolls. Fight the power! Gamaliel 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. "La Shawn Barber" gets only 30 hits in Google Groups, "lashawnbarber.com" only 7. Compare 1,140 hits for andrewsullivan.com. Typically a Google Groups search will yield about 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hits as on Google Web. In cases like this I believe a Groups search is much more reliable because Web searches are often distorted by gaming and "search engine optimization." It is very hard to believe that a truly notable political blogger wouldn't receive more than 30 mentions on USENET. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only 30 hits? Ah yes, defining down. Google Groups returns 49 hits on first page, and page 2 drops to only 18 hits. Methinks something is wrong with the Groups engine. Is it relevant that a relative newcomer (1.5 years) doesn't use usenet? Compare 184,000 hits for "Dan Smith" on Google Web, and 25,800 in Groups, yet those hits aren't all for the same person. Not notable, since we can't determine which is the real Dan Smith in question. What are the odds that there are more than 2 or 3 La Shawn Barbers (250K Web hits) making a web prescence? Andy--67.153.224.90 23:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That's why I also included the results of searches on the WEBSITES lashawnbarber.com and andrewsullivan.com. There may be many andrew sullivans but I don't think there are many andrewsullivan.coms... Her website gets less than 1% as many mentions in USENET as his. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Two more data points. Google Groups: instapundit.com 1,110 hits = 160 × lashawnbarber.com. Jonah Goldberg doesn't seem to have a single website but it's not a common name and exact phrase "Jonah Goldberg" gives 8830 hits = 290 × exact phrase "La Shawn Barber." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Your data points would be relevant if we're talking about "lashawnbarber.com" the website. On the contrary, ya'll supposed to be voting on "La Shawn Barber" the writer, who happens to have a blog. Ther'e plenty of Google hits that have nothing to do with her blog and everything to do with her published works. Andy--67.153.224.90 06:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Original charge by the less than straightforward Rickk was "Non-notable blogger with a lot of puffery." Author of several serious books by reputable publishers is not, by definition, a person without note, articles in numerous hard-copy and online publications adds to notability, "blogger" is a null pointer as far as notability here is concerned since notability is established beyond blogging, "puffery" is a pure high point of view value judgment from the Wiki-ite who moved for deletion. The claim by same that he didn't know Barber was black and female is dubious from the photo posted on Barber's site. Finally, an author, writer, speaker, and blogger whose is black, female, and conservative has obvious value in the market place of ideas by being both rare and representative of an emerging trend. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
    • User's first edit, and they decide to make it a personal attack. I smell footwear. RickK 23:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • User's Nth edit. I'd suggest changing socks, but that's optional. The problem with having "lots and lots of wikiedits" and not being shy about preening is that they tend to reveal more than you intend. The pattern of interjection into the process here, which is evident in the thread above, does not lead me to believe you are as confident of your postion as you proclaim. As to the question of "personal attack," I suggest you read your opening call for deletion with an clear mind. "Non-notable" and "puffery" pretty much set the tone, as did the subsequent claim of "Oh, I didn't notice her race and gender." Several others have noted this and have either had comments deleted or you have chosen not to address it. Seems to me you can't have a full and frank discussion when you've got a hidden agenda. As to my "first edit" -- well, let's look at the substance of the objection to your personal pogrom and not just count coup. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
        • Please share with us how you acquired knowledge of RickK's "hidden agenda". Another new user with a telepathy machine? Gamaliel 00:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Telepathy doesn't enter into it. Most sensible people know it is not usually able to operate in a distributed system. You should seriously rethink you own belief in it and not look to it as an explantion for the obvious. One can, as many realize, discern what a user is hiding by what he says and responds to along with what he does not say or respond to. That's usually impossible in a short one-response thread but Rikk helped everyone out with non-notable and puffery. After a thread reaches critical mass, which this one did about 5 or 8 responses in (Hard to tell since there were some deletions early on before they were called), the pattern of respones begins to reveal the inner workings and motivations of the user who continually engages only to disparage or degrade. That would include, among other things, the continual "ranking" of users opinions in order to disparage them. This is a technique that seems to be heavily in use here. Indeed, the tag team for this, if you examine the thread above, would be none other than Rikk and your good self. Seems to me that a thread that is a call for deletion should be one in which we see Wiki Vets such as yourself display the NOPV ethic as an example, not a series of small lessons in how to game the system and drive out new users. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
            • That's a lot of words to say "I'm making a guess based on absolutely no evidence at all". Gamaliel 17:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't think user:Vanderleun is a sockpuppet. On the other hand, I think I know who he is: so, Boswell, how's Laguna Beach treating you? Still stirring up trouble for its own sake? --Calton 01:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note, the Blogosphere is beginning to take up discussion of an apparent WikiPedia editorial POV in all matters savoring of politics; this discussion, and especially the tone of a lot of it, cannot possibly help matters. Keep in mind, It is no more possible for WikiPedia than for anyone else, to be "a little bit pregnant." CDJones 01:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And the Neo-Nazis are taking up discussing of our "apparent Wikipedian editorial POV." The Communist Party of the United States probably thinks we're biased, too. So, what's your point? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I think I'll rest that one on Godwin's Law. CDJones 01:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now (especially since she doesn't want it, heh, heh), and add a cleanup tag to it for the time being. As long as its contents are those of a reasonable and NPOV article, I'd say she is (just) sufficiently notable --Ray Radlein 01:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't care if this La Shawn Barber discovered a cure for cancer. She has done nothing noteworthy at this time that makes her stand out from an average blogger. TimeH 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. From reading the article, she sounds like an ordinary writer. She has not accomplished anything that makes her noteworthy compared to any random professional writer. Sledgehammer 01:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's go around the question of telepathy and inference to a direct question. Rikk, as the topic starter, you claim "I had no idea she was either black or a woman..." Are you saying that you called for deletion without once visiting her blog which has a photograph at top left that confirms these qualities? That would be the only way I can see that you "had no idea." If that is the case, how would you even begin to be able to judge that she was a "non-notable" with "puffery"? Are you in the habit of calling for the deletion of things you don't know about or investigate? I thought one of the purposes of Wikipedia was to expand knowledge. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
    • No, expanding knowledge is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and the sections on personal essays and original research, and "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base." The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia and Jimbo Wales has been very clear on that point. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Came across this quote: 'Jimbo Wales created this site and other Wiki products. He ownz your soul, along with Gates and Wal*Mart. You have been warned.' Well that 'splains it all. Since the La Shawn Barber entry isn't neat, you must De-lete. Andy --67.153.224.90 06:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know if RickK had a hidden agenda or not, but I definitely would have VFD'd this myself after reading the pre-vfd revision of this article. The article is suppose to establish it's nobility or else it will deleted. I certainly wasn't convinced at all this person was notable from the ad-like prose of putting together a bunch of quotes; it might as well had included a comment from Ebert and Roeper. All the information that is suppose to make the subject notable should be included in the article. Otherwise, the writer risks giving readers the message that the topic is too obscure to have anything of substance to even write about in the article. It certainly isn't helpful to Wikipedia to force the users to click on an external link to find out more about the subject, it makes it look like the writer's sole intention was to have readers go to the link to find out why this person is notable rather than having it fleshed out in the encyclopedia entry. The Met 02:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (User's first edit). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "The article is suppose to establish its nobility or else it will deleted." Perhaps you should propose this as an update to the rules for such things. CDJones 02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • There's no need to. The article has been properly vfd'd and will soon be deleted. The Met 02:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, looking at the article now it looks better. Since the recent revisions now establishes a little notability compared to that crap in the earlier revisions. I will change my vote if I see this article establishes a little more notability in the incoming days as it currently doesn't pass my threshold for notability. The Met
  • 'Please note' La Shawn Barber quoted 'twice' on 2/16 episode of MSNBC's Coast to Coast = notable. Ms. Barber is 'highly' notable within the political blogosphere. In fact, mentioned on Instapundit today (2/20) (DJ 20 Feb 2005) (UTC) comment by user:12.203.217.218 placed in the middle of the discussion thread. moved here to restore chronological order
  • My my my how I hate getting involved in wars. However, Keep. She is reasonably well-known for a political blogger (a huge class these days, I realize). If for no other reason, let's keep her because she doesn't want to be here (*evil grin*). Okay, maybe it's false modesty, but the simple fact that she's created such a controversy almost convinces me that she's notable in itself. HyperZonktalk 02:47, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • She hasn't "created a huge controversy" anywhere but here. This is a routine VfD nomination and a routine VfD flamewar. POV-pushers interested in winning rather than encyclopedia-building frequently believe they can get their way through pitbull tenacity, sockpuppetry, and allegations of bias. When this occurs, the result is huge VfD battles which are of interest only within Wikipedia and do not in themselves bear on the notability of the topic. Even a huge VfD battle only involves the partipation of a few dozen personae. In USENET, which is absolutely famous for political flamewars and controversy, her name has only been mentioned thirty times and her website has only been mentioned seven times. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Is this anon in any way a reincarnation of this pest: anon or is it a mutation like B-Blogger Bandit? Anyways, delete this useless stub. Yeff 03:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed all parts of this, my vote, for what it's worth, is to delete. This has nothing to do, though, with the reasons or intent, or the quality of the reasons or intent, in the original request. From what I've seen, even the best incarnations of this material are, at most, a paragraph from some other topic, yet to be written. Perhaps that topic, whatever it is, deserves encyclopedic treatment; this blurb does not stand well without it. CDJones 06:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Is notable blogger. This VfD is politically motivated — Linnwood 07:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless you can prove this assertion, you owe RickK an apology. Gamaliel 17:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And I WILL be expecting an apology soonest. RickK 20:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Despite discussion about this topic, Linnwood refuses to apologize for his characer assassination. He apparently prefers to attempt to read my mind rather than to Assume Good Faith. RickK 21:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no apologize needed. Everyone can see this for what it is. — Linnwood 22:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Can you please provide evidence for those who can't "see this for what it is" and disagree that words like "non-notable" are evidence of a liberal plot? Gamaliel 17:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable blogger and columnist. Capitalistroadster 09:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "'Delete'". I don't read her, but this is not productive information that Wiki should include. It's merely cowardly criticism. [User: Sadie]
    • Note: User:Saidie does not exist. 68.0.102.243's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ObsidianOrder 13:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No evidence of notability. (Site has Alexa rank of about 160.000.) Due to the bogus votes and original spam content, delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you delete her article, you make a martyr of her. You will only succeed in keeping knowledge of her away from those who already accept you as arbiters of THE TRVTH, and convince others that you have an agenda. I haven't made up my mind on that yet, but the way you deal with this one will tell me a lot about your commitment to your stated neutrality. (Now go ahead and dismiss me as anon. That way you can safely ignore the truth of what I have to say.) - The Monster** edit history shows this comment was left by user:208.44.21.13
  • Keep She's a prominent enough commentator. I've definitely seen worse stubs out there. Pentegamer 21:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vandalism at this point. I'm conservative as well, but you don't see me trying to write articles about myself. The sockpuppetry has gotten completely out of hand at this point. So have the subtle accusations of racism. A martyr? Give me a break, already. Listen up, socks: You aren't fooling anyone. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • My vote is a big-ass KEEP. Oh, give me a break. Do you think you can just simplify the injustice by glibly comparing your own self to the great La Shawn Barber. If you are, then you definitely need to look in the mirror and realize that your self image is much more grand that what it actually is. La Shawn Barber is MUCH MORE notable than you will ever be. Have you ever been published online? I bet you haven't by seeing how emotional you get when someone compared La Shawn Barber to a martyr. There is one GOOD reason why this entry should be kept - La Shawn Barber is a conservative, black woman. She has been the very FIRST black woman to be a conservative. Have you ever been recognized in the record books as being a pioneer in politics? To everyone voting delete, you're all being brainwashed why the liberal menace. Open your eyes and see that the world is being tainted with liberalism. It all starts out even in kindergarten when the pledge of allegiance was taken out. PLEASE change your votes to KEEP and stop the reckless MURDERS of FAMOUS PIONEERS in international politics. S.B. 04:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Apparently, the above sock named "Stupid Bitch" didn't fully read my comments. Therefore, I shall repeat them: A: You are not fooling anyone. B: I'm a conservative. C: The racism accusations are out of control. For the record, I've not only been published online, I wrote a weekly newspaper column as well. Deal with it. - Lucky 6.9 23:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At this point, Curps put a cute header on the discussion thread which, sourpuss that I am, I removed. no vote. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep She is well-enough known for someone to want to look up a reference article about her. Considering all of the people I try to look up who aren't obscure (i.e. Gloria Borger, USN&WR writer and CBS commentator), it's nice to have at least something. I've not seen the original page, but it looks fine now. savantpol
  • Delete. This "writer" is not notable enough. If I asked everyone I've ever known I bet nobody would know who this person is. In fact, Cletus' wife Brandine from "The Simpsons" is vastly more famous that La Shawn Barber and we don't even have an article on Brandine. Until I see that she has actually done something to make her more notable than other writers my vote is to delete. It would probably be better to have the article rewritten in a standard resume format before it gets deleted. That way everyone will know that her work experience in writing are no more notable than the average writer. Xof 03:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 04:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suggest everyone here apologizes to one another. I've been on this earth for decades and this is the most vile infested "discussion" I have ever seen in my whole life. I would vote delete to rid the world of at least one source of disharmony. Shawn Colv 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep In its current state, not nearly the advertisement some other bloggers' entries are. Argue about how influential she is all you want, but I can cite page after page with what most people would consider useless Star Trek drivel. If this needs to go, there's a lot of deletion neccessary in Wikipedia. Opusaug 14:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you'll nominate them, I'll vote "delete". --Carnildo 00:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Wikipedia can have an article on Fart fetishism and Two Hit Wonders, then La Shawn Barber definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Everyone, fight the Cabal of Liberalism and RickK's hidden agenda by voting KEEP on this article on one of the world's most famous poliical revolutionaries and quite possibly the world's most heroic figure in the political world. The Baroness 16:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. One wonders if this person is the same as User:The Baron? The hyperbole of quite possibly the world's most heroic figure in the political world is quite breathtaking. RickK 06:13, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 16:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As Android79 pointed out, La Shawn Barber mentioned on her site that she doesn't want to have an article about her. What does Wikipedia generally do about biographical articles where its subject doesn't want to be included in it? --Deathphoenix 20:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Cordially invite them to take a flying leap, perhaps? I don't see why the wishes of an article's subject should have anything at all to do with whether it should be kept around. --Paul
    • The last time that happened, there was a whole lot of edit warring as the subject tried to remove the article or bias it in his favor. The article got a lot better as a result. See Sollog. --Carnildo 00:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It pains me to do so, as I have less than no use for La Shawn Barber, but I have to vote for Keep - she's fairly well known as right-wing bloggers go, and I don't see any reason to assume that's going to change any time soon. --Paul 23:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whatever the outcome is, La Shawn Barber will always be more notable than Wikipedia will ever be. 172.159.142.199 07:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's good that you're not being petty about this at all. Gamaliel 07:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, once Barber stops being what user:Vanderleun (if he's who I think he is: hi Gerard!) calls a "useful idiot" to the modern conservative movement, she'll fade into nothingness, I'm sure. Oh, and for the moment, keep, since she's a notable useful idiot. --Calton 01:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep People voting delete would you at least think than be mindless sheep following RickK's liberal crusade in murdering this article. As a last desperate attempt to drum some sense into the thick heads of the people voting delete, I will PROVE to you dunderheads that La Shawn Barber is the metaphorical keystone holding the whole political infrastructure together. I will use her words and my comments to make my points. Miranda V 08:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why you should change your vote

First and foremost, I'm a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ. I am also a former liberal and current renegade supporter of conservative ideals.

The very notion of a black woman supporting conservative ideals has made La Shawn Barber a noted individual in various printed records. This includes the title of the FIRST black woman venturing out into unknown territory. There has been no other black woman conservative before her. This definitely shows that she is a PIONEER in the political realm and deserves a mention in an encyclopedia, even in a poor-quality encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Anyone who would refute this is either out of their minds or politically motivated to prevent La Shawn Barber's legacy from spreading - ignorance or malice but not both.

For most of my life I've wanted to be a writer. I often talked about writing for publication, but keeping a personal journal for over 20 years was the only disciplined writing I'd ever done. I graduated from South Carolina State University and Temple University School of Law, where I wrote a weekly "humor" column for the law school newsletter (which I wouldn't call disciplined for some reason).

Even early on in her life, La Shawn Barber was already being noticed for her writing skills. I doubt anyone here voting delete has the mental capacity to write a weekly "humor" column for a law school newsletter - or even anything humorous to begin with. La Shawn Barber is one of the world's greatest writers based on this and she deserves to be included. I doubt anyone would vote delete the article on Einstein's article despite the fact that he should a great talent for physics at an early age. Anyone who brushes off Barber's great writing accomplishments as puffery is definitely acting out of malice and hatred.

I've held a variety of interesting jobs. I was a flight attendant, which was very interesting but not nearly as entertaining as working for a Democrat on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial.

Wow, the last sentence says a lot about how great La Shawn Barber really is. How many people here worked on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial? Nobody, I bet. How many people here even know someone who worked on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial? No one. Not only was La Shaw Barber one of the lucky few who earned the grand honor to work on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial, she has also been a versatile member of society. Her talents have graced various industries including the luxurious airline industry.

One day I realized I was almost 30 years old (!) and still trying to figure out what I wanted to be if and when I grew up. But I had a few things to deal with first (Read "A Sobering Truth").

Another great accomplishment being buried by the liberal cabal. Not only has La Shawn Barber dealt with arduous trials, but she has also managed to finish reading an epic literary masterpiece. This demonstrates that she has the ability to comprehend esoteric writings, but can multitask in between the great burdens she was faced with. This doesn't sound like a "non-notable" at all.

After I became sober and gave my life to Christ, I knew it was time to write. A few months after my 35th birthday, I penned my first opinion piece, which was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer the week after I sent it in. I was encouraged, to say the least.

Another great feat. Has anyone here been published in an Inquirer periodical? Nobody. She definitely has a great knack for writing and now professional publications are vying for her masterpieces. In fact, her writing is much better any article that can be found in Wikipedia.

Two years later, I'm still at it. In my spare time, I'm a freelance writer (and blogger) with articles, book reviews, columns and essays published in print: Washington Times, Washington Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Denver Post, Baltimore Times, Today's Christian Woman and other publications. My work also appears online in Jewish World Review, Townhall.com and other sites.

The plethora of professional publications paying millions of dollars for her articles is a sure sign that she is notable. Who here has even had one written piece published in any of the aforementioned publications? No one. To classify the millions of companies publishing her work as "non-notable" is tantamount to boiling a male's genitals and calling it a recipe for making cream of mushroom soup. It's just plain illogical. It's notable that companies are paying her millions for her writings.

My bi-weekly political column is published on GOPUSA, MichNews.com, Grace-Centered Magazine, TheRightReport.com, American Daily and other sites. See "My Writing" for samples.

Seems pretty notable. Now, online sites and magazines have been added to her list of publishers. To just ignore this, is to go along with the liberal conspiracy and deny La Shawn Barber any acknowledgment of accomplishment. A reasonable person would really have to question the ulterior motives of the deletionists and their claims of non-notability.

Writing has opened up new opportunities and adventures, including public speaking. I had the pleasure of speaking at a conference in July, Conservative University 2004, sponsored by Accuracy In Academia. I was on a discussion panel with Star Parker (on the right). I wrote about the event (and having lunch with Star) on my weblog.

She is also a noted public speaker, who was invited and paid millions to speak at a famous university. She is also an ally to powerful and influential people in power such as Star Parker. Definitely, not a non-notable.

I also spoke at a women's retreat. The president of the church group invited me to be the opening night speaker after reading an article about my spiritual journey in Today's Christian Woman.

She is also a very spiritual person. This is of definite notability. None of the sorry deletionists here care that the illustrious Today's Christian Woman featured her in their retreats.

I've been a guest on a few radio shows, including "The Savage Nation" with Michael Savage, and "The Jesse Lee Peterson Show" with Reverend Jesse Peterson of BOND.

Now, she is emerging in field of radio. Not even the news of Ashlee Simpson's lip synching spread faster on the radio airwaves than La Shawn Barber's appearance of these radio shows.

I've been interviewed in print: "Blogging Brothers (and Sisters)" in National Review Online (8/12/04), "The Proper Biblical View Is Accountability" in The Daily Dispatch (7/9/04) and a few others.

The interviews don't seem to stop. La Shawn Barber has changed the world and will continue to mold it for a brighter future. Now, I hope some of the delete votes change to keep. Fight the Liberal conspiracy and vote against injustice. Help keep this article on Wikipedia. Miranda V 08:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • Apparently you never read How to Win Friends and Influence People, because you'd know that insulting people with playground taunts like "dunderhead" is not a good way to sway them to your side of an argument. Your hyperbole will not help, it will just induce laughter and eyerolling. But I'm sure none of this will make a difference because you've already convinced yourself we are a fully owned subsidiary of The Evil Liberal Conspiracy (TM). Tell you what, you come up with a single piece of solid evidence that this routine, standard vfd listing and discussion is politically motivated, and I will change my vote. Gamaliel 20:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Apparently, your political intentions are clear when you call her legendary accomplishments as "hyperbole". Miranda V 02:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I made no comment about her accomplishments, I was obviously referring to the language you used to describe those accomplishements. Perhaps you'd care to explain how pointing out that a metaphor about boiling genitals is ridiculous makes my "political intentions clear"? Gamaliel 02:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep on trollin'. First conservative black woman? There's prior art there. Android79 02:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, La Shawn Barber was the first. Rice just became more successful in politics than Barber. Crea 03:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable blogger. One worthy of inclusion wouldn't need an army of sockpuppets posting drivel in her defense. —Korath (Talk) 10:05, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
I still think she's (just barely) notable enough to warrant a short, NPOV article. Can we just delete her idiotic sock puppets instead? --Ray Radlein 11:30, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they're HER socks Ray, but otherwise I'm with you. A few more of these over-the-top testimonials and I might just change my vote.Opusaug 14:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a random black woman who happens to be a conservative. There's no notability on this "feat" as suggested by the Condoleezza Rice link. Her writings is equal to that of any other writer in the U.S. Also, Miranda_V's stupid points about Barber's alleged notability is laughable. If you read this: link you will see that La Shawn Barber is nothing, but an insignificant woman calling herself "notable". The whole idea of having an article on her reeks of advertising and vanity. This deserves to be deleted along with most of the other cruft in the Wikipedia before it gets worse like those Ashlee Simpson articles. GrazingCow 03:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That blog you linked is really no better than Miranda_V's diatribes above. Android79 03:24, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ashlee Simpson is notable for being a lip syncher. La Shawn Barber is notable for being a popular blogger. They both deserve to be on Wikipedia. Also, I disagree with Miranda_V's comment about Ashlee Simpson. The news of Ashlee Simpson being a lip syncher spread faster than La Shawn Barber's radio appearances. ..-.. 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that in both cases, the news would, by definition, have spread at the speed of light. --Ray Radlein 06:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I always thought Wikipedia was not paper or a junkyard, but this whole situation has shown me what Wikipedia really is. If I actually met with any of you people in real life, then I would slap you all silly. I'm tried of the excuses everybody uses. It's your notability debate, and I stayed out of it. It's your fight, do as you see fit. But get this through that I don't approve of what you all did for your case of keep or delete. If I'm the only witness to all your madness offer me some words to balance out what I see and what I hear. I want to say "What's the Matter here?" but I don't dare say. Chiniski 07:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ..-.. 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ban many sockpuppet voters currently supporting. Give RickK a pony. Snowspinner 21:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The ONLY reason this magnificent article was dumped into VFD is because of a vast left wing conspiracy. I have a feeling that either RickK or some other individual is trying to remove all conservative-related topics to pollute Wikipedia with only liberal topics. Just looking at the article, I don't see any so-called "puffery" or any reasons why anyone would dismiss Barber's writings as "puffery". The conspiracy needs to be broken before Wikipedia becomes a haven for every type of bleeding heart. You Belong 00:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no vast left wing conspiracy trying to delete this article, but from the looks of it there is a vast right wing conspiracy trying to keep this article. CHALK 07:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bloggers are not notable as such. (I was brought to this page by User:You Belong's posting to the Village pump. I don't consider myself part of a vast left wing conspiracy).-gadfium 01:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am personally amused that this alleged vast left-wing conspiracy is supposedly putting out all of this effort to carry out LaShawn Barber's wishes — i.e., to remove the article which she has said she doesn't want Wikipedia to have... --Ray Radlein 06:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is clearly a notable presence on the Internet. In fact, I even paid money to see him give a speech. La Shawn Barber deserves to have an article no matter what other people may think of him. Egghead 02:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "Him"? Are we even talking about the same person? —Korath (Talk) 03:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I meant her. Egghead 03:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Note: Egghead's contributions to date (aside from this page) consist of 5 acts of vandalism and 1 legitimate edit. Android79 04:17, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up otherwise Delete. Crea 03:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've had the unfortunate incident of meeting & communicating with her online and by my standards she is non-notable. CHALK 07:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Puffery. Fredrik | talk 12:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. Lan3y - Talk 19:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Dan100 22:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list of places where her work has been published are of questionable notability. I don't see how this alcoholic black woman, who pretends to be a conservative can ever be notable in anyone's eyes. Westlake 03:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Westlake's second edit, coming on his first day editing Wikipedia. What exactly does it mean that one's "work has been published (in a place) of questionable notability"? Is it the person or the publication that makes one notable? As for his description of her character, we should note that Hemingway was an alcoholic writer who pretended to be a conservative, and I'm fairly certain he eventually amounted to something, even though he was just another white male with a huge ego. Apparently Miranda V's opposite twin.Opusaug 23:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary break to allow section edits

[edit]
  • Delete. This article can go into detail about Barber and everything she has written, but it still won't make her notable. I'm a writer and have had my writing appear in a lot of publications, but I know I am not notable. If I'm not notable, she's not notable. Big Ben Clock 07:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Comment: a lot of people are using "sockpuppet" when I think "fanboy" would be more accurate. —wwoods 19:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Anons and people who did not exist prior to their votes are by definition sockpuppets. RickK 06:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • "By definition"? No. They might be, but then who are the old Wikipedians creating the fake users? More likely they're real people who'd never been to Wikipedia before they read about it on Barber's blog. —wwoods 17:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Whether sockpuppets or new editors, they don't represent the will or consensus of the Wikipedia community. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Death to non-notable topics/fancruft. Rather 06:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-notable woman who writes non-notable puff pieces and other trivial junk. Bonsai K 08:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and agree with —wwoods. --GRider\talk 23:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Off-topic question So I was driving home and heard on the radio that someone had been "arrested in connection with the December 2002 shooting of LaShawn L. Barber of Springfield, Massachusetts." Stories here and here. So... is there any connection between the two? Is La Shawn Barber her real name or is it a pseudonym in honor of the 2002 victim? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She's pretty insignificant. Also, I think it's sick, depraved and disgusting IF she changed her name to be more like the famous shooting victim. That's like all those people trying to sell pieces of the World Trade center on eBay after the terrorist attacks. If she wanted to be notable, then she should use a more respectable name and write on more serious topics rather than a lot of puffery. Issa2 06:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/La_Shawn_Barber&oldid=1265824114"