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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rivers Pitt[edit]

AfD template unfinished by 198.133.105.244 RWR8189 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is nothing more than a blogger and his books are published through 'vanity press' sources. If Wikipedia includes every self financed author or blogger, it will be utter chaos. This is nothing more than a vanity posting by Pitt. Also Contains False Information In this site it claims Pitt was Dennis Kucinich's Press Secretary, but on Kucinich's site, it lists otherwise. (http://kucinich.house.gov) No verification can be found Pitt was Kucinich's official Press Secretary- maybe in his own mind or a title he made up because he had a blog about Kucinich http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich . Book Not Listed. The book this author claims to have written (Our Flag Too) is not listed on Amazon and the ISBN listed is not in the ISBN database. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&y=0&isbn=1893956490&x=0—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.133.105.244 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete per nom--Esprit15d 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep To rebut the points made above, he was Kucinich's Press Secretary, as you can clearly see from the following links: [1], [2]. As the article makes clear, that was only for the 2004 election,so of course he's not listed on the current website. Also, he did write those books and they were published by an independent publisher, Context Books, which has subsequently gone out of business[3], which is why you couldn't find the books on sale with your search. That doesn't change the fact that he wrote them and they received major independent reviews of them like the following: [4]. He also wrote another book with a separate independent publisher (not vanity press). He's also had articles written about him in major newspapers like the following:[5] Add all that to that his online blogging presence, including his involvement with the Jason Leopold incident, and he's pretty notable. Maximusveritas 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blogger/civil servant. -- GWO
• Keep per this AfD was by a confused anon editor trying to vote on the closed AfD. Not to mention, highly notable: he was the Press Sec, as Max shows adequately, as well as being a head writer for a prominant blog (notable enough to have its own article), and being on all number of interviews on various news channels. Also, I see no evidence that this is a "vanity posting by Pitt" - none of these edits sound as if they were written 1st person. -Goldom (t) (Review) 07:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete not convinced he's notable enough for inclusion GassyGuy 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, again. The AfD notice on the article violates the deletion policy by failing to disclose that deletion was considered earlier this year and rejected. Furthermore, deletion was rejected by a two-to-one margin with more than 20 Wikipedians commenting, and no new arguments are presented; the only real change since the first AfD is that Pitt has become more notable because of his involvement in the truthout.org controversy, a paragraph about which has been added to the article. Therefore, a speedy Keep might well be appropriate. JamesMLane t c 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Pitt is a arogant punk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.173.78 (talk • contribs) .
  • Personally disliking the subject is your basis for your vote? Where's the integrity in a vote like that? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 07:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If each Pokemon card merits an entry... Austinmayor
• Delete less notable than Pokemon. Even less credibile after blogging his confidence in Jason Leopold.--Tbeatty 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Leopold episode may have made him less credible in your eyes, but the attention it received made him more notable than he was at the time of the previous decision to keep the article. It's unfortunate that proposed deletions so often turn into referenda on the popularity of an article subject. The real issue is notability. Are you contending that the reporting of the Leopold incident and of Pitt's role in it somehow lessened Pitt's notability? JamesMLane t c 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 90% of article topics are probably less well-known than Pokemon, that test really doesn't mean much, either way you use it. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • George W. Bush has no credibility, but he has an article. Lost on your point. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 07:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Three books in print is easily more than 5000 copies sold. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Books in print. Television appearances. Radio interviews. Obviously notable. And also obvious is that this is a bad-faith nom. BenBurch 00:29, 17 June 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.