Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Robinson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to Talk Page on disputed decision[edit]

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 merge and redirect to Free Republic.
There is more discussion about this decision on the talk page. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jim Robinson[edit]

Ok, we've been having a bit of a dispute about this one; you may (or may not, since most of it is not about the merits of the article, but about the fact that I tried to merge it) want to visit the [[Talk:Jim Robinson|talk page] to see some history of the debate. Jim is notable only, as far as I can tell, for his website Free Republic, and I feel most of the information on this page (e.g. allegations that money donated to Free Republic was used improperly) really belongs on that page. As we have been unable to discuss this effectively up to this point, I'm putting it on VfD, so that a) we can get more eyes looking at it, and b) perhaps we can have a real discussion about the merits of the article, rather than the politics surrounding my abortive attempt at merging it.

      • Discussion not relevant to this article has been moved to the talk page
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Free Republic. The site is notable, he is only notable because of the site. The controversy stuff is interesting, but is about the site as much as the man. --bainer 06:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - no on merge and redirect. As I noted on Talk:Jim_Robinson where this discussion should be taking place per wikipedia policy, there is extensive precedent for having two different articles for well known political website owners and their websites/blogs etc. Among the many examples are:
  • So long as this is done on other similar websites no valid reason exists to treat this one any differently. Rangerdude 17:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • NB The above two bullet points are one vote by Rangerdude, just in case it's not entirely clear. --Jonathan Christensen 14:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. In keeping with the guidelines at the top of WP:VFD, I'd also like to point out that User:Rangerdude is the author of the article in question. --Jonathan Christensen 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment In keeping with the wikipedia VFD Policy, I'd also like to point out that a clear majority consensus to keep this article already existed on the discussion page talk:Jim Robinson at the time this VfD process was initiated (4 editors to 2), the main dissenting voice being the individual who both sought the original merge and initiated this VfD process. The second dissenting editor concurred with his position, though he/she also recognized it was not the majority position. Rangerdude 17:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • And I'd like to point out that this is a lie, as there were at most three people (accounts) in favor of keeping the article: Rangerdude, Wakeforest (a puppet) and ObsidianOrder, who came from the RfC page, posted one brief comment, and has never come back. There were two obviously in favor of merging: myself and Katefan0. However, we can continue discussion on this matter at the corresponding point on the talk page, as this is not very relevent to the article anymore. Thanks for telling the truth in the future, anyway, Rangerdude! --Jonathan Christensen 05:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Tis no lie at all, JC. You've forgotten/ignored User:Casito, who originally objected to your merger and requested that you discuss it first. You essentially shunned him then since he imposed upon your unilateral actions, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised you would ignore him again here. Rangerdude 06:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Actually, as you would know if you actually read the Talk page, I've far from forgotten Casito--I simply do not believe that his suggestion that I try discussing before merging counts as a vote on the side of keeping them as seperate articles. In fact, he later said, on the Talk:Free Republic, I probably should have read this talk too before I reverted the page when I did. I’ll make some notes in both talk pages to prevent others from doing the same.-Casito 23:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC), which makes the view that he is in absolute support of keeping them in different articles unreasonable. Along the same line, he also said, on his talk page: Silly me, I should have read the Talk:Free Republic page before I commented. Or maybe I shouldn’t have been reading recent changes in the wee hours of the morning. -Casito 23:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) In any case, I've asked him to come clarify his views here, so hopefully we will soon learn the truth from the horse's mouth, so to speak. --Jonathan Christensen 11:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • To set the record straight: I found this page while following RC. I took actions after only reading talk:Jim Robinson. This page contained no mention of the fact that it would be merged to Free Republic. This looked like simple page vandalism or a rather unilateral and inelegant political statement. I didn't bother to check out talk:Free Republic which is quite understandable since JC left me no clues. If I had read talk:Free Republic, I would have seen the ongoing debate and let the disputants decide what to do, since it wasn't my plan to get entangled in a long-standing dispute that I didn't care about. I take no position on the merits of the Jim Robinson article, but I believe the action taken by JC was inappropriate. I hope this clears things up. -Casito⇝Talk 20:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. This man is only notable for the Website he runs; I therefore see no reason for there to be two separate articles. As to Daily Kos et al, I feel that he and his Website are not as familiar to most folks as the others. Although, for that matter, I'm not entirely sure that their webmasters need their own article either. As to the VfD, it's true that merging is not usually a reason to list on VfD, but considering that the redirecter and the person who keeps reverting the redirects have been unable to come to an agreement, it is appropriate, I think, to put the matter to the general populace. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Founder of Free Republic makes him notable enough in my book. That is where the discrepancies in the documents in the Sixty Minutes II story on George W. Bush's alleged problems with the Texas National Guard. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redir as above. Radiant_* 13:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Free Republic. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. There is very little information on the man- most of it is about the website. --G Rutter 07:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Jim Robinson has no notable personal life except for his dealings with Free Republic, and the information about the funding controversy added a great deal to the Free Republic article in which it belongs. I love how an insignifigant article can generate thousands of words of debate on Wikipedia :-) --Halidecyphon 18:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - He's the founder of a very notable political website of undeniable importance, and there's enough info out there about his life and past to make a decent, informative article that is of interest to anyone who is curious about how the site came to be. Not all of it belongs in the "Free Republic" article. I did an article about this guy at another site (negative POV) and would be happy to expand this article here (keeping it neutral POV, of course). Mcsweet
  • Merge and redirect. Neutralitytalk 04:16, Apr 29, 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/Jim_Robinson&oldid=487143249"