Deletion of Tony Pierce

Comment: Because the subject fails  and the page should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The article needs to be rewritten, but its subject is notable, and, contrary to several comments above, does meet WP:BIO (even though this is not a requirement to keep the article).  He has been the subject of published works, such as http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?_r=1&res=9C0CE0DA123EF934A15756C0A9629C8B63&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print this article in the New York Times. He has won awards in his field, which is notable. It should be noted that there appear to be an extraordinary number of suspicious votes (); it should also be noted that there is a
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: The infestation of |suspicious votes is troublesome since it smacks of solicitation.  Bottom line, however, is that the subject clearly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCKS||WP:BIO)

Comment: per nom and . Running a blog (or a hundred) does not make you notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: WP:BIO states as a criterion for inclusion: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."  It continues, "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles..." etc. Pierce meets that criterion. A quick search of the Dow Jones/Reuters Factiva service shows Pierce has been the subject of articles from the ''New York Times'' (27 May 2004) (followed by an echo to the ''Times''-owned ''Int'l Herald Tribune'' on 29 May); Reuters (10 July 2004); ''Straits Times'' (Singapore) (5 March 2006); ''Reforma'' (Mexico City) (2 April 2006); ''EL PAIS'' (Madrid) (20 April 2006); ''Los Angeles Times'' (16 October 2003, 27 Feb 2003, 12 July 2004, others); ''Le Monde'' (25 June 2005); and others.  The search string was (Tony Pierce AND blog), and the variety of citation shows that some regard "just blogging" to be sufficient for notability, if one is widely enough known for it (just as one could become widely known for such synonyms "writing a diary", "writing a journal", "writing essays", etc.).  A campaign to edit the phenomenon of blogging out of Wikipedia, when it is clearly observable in everyday life, could be considered a violation of  through overly aggressive editing out of known facts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)