Talk:Steve Gilliard

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- 172.148.214.94 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Don't delete just yet. Gilliard was a reasonably popular left-wing blogger. --One Salient Oversight 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I understand that many bloggers may not be considered "notable". Steve Gilliard's death has been announced around some very prominent left-wing blogs like Daily Kos, Americablog and Eschaton. Moreover, as the article shows, Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe dedicated part of a column to criticising him. --One Salient Oversight 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding a bit of disclosure... Ms. Nunes has personal history with the Daily Kos site according to a frontpage diary, and may have personal reasons for the article's deletion. Not saying her argument is automatically disqualified, but just letting people know. --kizzle 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So are you saying these white, male bloggers are the only measure of authority for inclusion in Wikipedia? --Liza Sabater, Publisher www.culturekitchen.com 207.237.24.22 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW - I am all for KEEP, I just don't believe these three people should be the only reason why he gets included. 
I believe Steve Gilliard's notability should be settled by his notoriety -- in late 2005 he photoshopped an image of African-American Republican Senate candidate (and then-Maryland Lt. Gov) Michael Steele to be wearing blackface, terming him "Simple Sambo." It drew coverage in the Baltimore Sun  and elswehere, which led now-Gov. Tim Kaine to pull advertising from Gilliard's website. Few bloggers draw news coverage of their own, yet Gilliard was one; if endorsements of notable products count toward the notability requirement, perhaps Gilliard's emphatic non-endorsement of Steele should count as well. Moreover, he was one of the very first regular contributors to Daily Kos and one of the few popular enough to strike out on his own (successfully (and as I understand it, draw his primary income from his blog)). Love him or hate him, he was controversial in his time and certainly well-known in political blogging circles. (Full disclosure being that I did interact with him infrequently). I also think Gilliard meets the notability requirement for web content. But what this really goes to show is that Wikipedia needs a notability standard for bloggers. As others have noted, bloggers of lesser note are included in Wikipedia, and if this actually comes to a formal debate, I will vote Keep. --WWB 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, the New York Times saw his passing merited an Steve Gilliard article, and the Hillary Clinton Campaign sought fit to write about his passing on their official website as well. When the paper of record writes about the man, as does a former first lady who may well be elected the next President has their campaign website call him "one of the leading voices of the progressive blogoshpere" it seems to make this an open and shut case that this is more than a valid entry. Just because you have your personal axes to grind because he tore into some of your blog commenting without much mercy in no way makes it even close to a legitimate argument that Steve Gilliard doesn't merit an entry. Lestatdelc 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Jules, that was my first reaction, but as I read through the comments I concluded that the discussion would serve a useful purpose by deterring people from starting a hopeless Afd.  (If anyone is bothering to tally the boldface responses to the hypothetical AfD, I'm a keep.)  As for Ms. Nunes, the English-language Wikipedia has one point something million more articles than Britannica,  so she can find plenty of other places to try to persuade the community to adopt her rule of thumb. JamesMLane t c 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of Bloggers

message: Enough with beating that dead horse, time to work on this article to prove whether or not he was notable. I changed the cause of death/illness line to be shorter; the article lead should spend more time about the who and why; you can have a "Death" section later in the article. Let's keep the lead quick and to the point (WP:LEAD). Someone should throw a couple of cites up there for "controversial" and "influential"; those are opinions that should be referenced. I've been changing some presentation styles around; just my choices, if you disagree, change them back, its fine.  Lipsticked Pig 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough already 

message: *Change "Professional biography" to "Biography" and include his early life and education.
*Crop the image of Gilliard on the right-hand side a bit Lipsticked Pig 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions