Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim geraghty

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 KEEP. As the content has already been merged to Jim Geraghty, I'm redirecting it there. —Korath (Talk) 12:55, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jim geraghty

[edit]

Just another blogger. Author didn't even capitalize his last name. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, only contributes to one group website, nothing notable about him--nixie 03:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • He mainly writes National Review Online, which Googles 1.2 million hits [1]. He also writes for the print version of National Review, which gets 3.1 million hits [2]. This isn't some obscure group, it is a very widely known publication. Carrp | Talk 04:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • There are heaps of people that write for the popular media, it doesn't necessarily make them notable. I could find no biographical information, birthdates etc. for this guy, with the information available he doesn't qualify for a biography. Also google isn't the ultimate measure of notability. --nixie 04:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • If Geraghty got a few hundred hits or even a few thousand, I'd agree that the Google Test might not support his inclusion. However, he gets over 40,000 hits. If that's considered non-notable, there's quite a few articles that will need deleting. Carrp | Talk 14:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • In Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, one of the reasons for inclusion is "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Geraghty has had numerous articles (such as these [3], [4]) published in the print version of National Review, which has a much higher circulation that 5,000. There are also his articles from States News Service, which have run in very large publications. Carrp | Talk 14:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • You still haven't shown any biographical information. There are many other bloggers with more readers, and more google hits that aren't included in wikipedia. --nixie 23:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Keep. A Google search for "Jim Geraghty" AND "National Review" [5] gets almost 44,000 hits. National Review is one of the most notable conservative publications. Besides his blog, TKS [6], he also writes articles for National Review Online [7] and the print version of National Review. The actual article should be moved to Jim Geraghty to capitalize his last name.Carrp | Talk 03:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since all his important work seems to be related to National Review, why not merge/redirect there? Radiant! 13:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Geraghty has mainly worked for National Review, but he has also worked for States News Service [8] and his work has been in major publications such as the Washington Post, Boston Globe and Slate. National Review has many contributors and trying to include all their information on that article would be impractical. We keep obscure writers with a few hundred hits and schools that no one has ever heard of. Geraghty is a notable writer for a major publication. Someone with over 40,000 hits on Google deserves their own page. Carrp | Talk 14:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also note that Geraghty has been highly involved with the controversy over Eason Jordan and has appeared on television for debates such this very recent one on PBS [9]. Carrp | Talk 14:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ironically, Geraghty is linking to this page, gosh could this be a ploy to swing the vote? Hardly worth a debate unless you think censoring out people without your own viewpoint is a worthy endeavor. TKS[10] (added by anon)
  • Keep. Perhaps I'm overcompensating for my own bias by falling frequently on the keep side of pundits whose opinions I do not agree with, but this guy does seem notable: when PBS wants a conservative blogger voice, it sometimes picks him. <POV>Personally, I would have chosen Allah is in the House (except it appears to be offline, darnit) or Little Green Footballs, but that's because I prefer my right-wing nutjobs funny.</POV> Anyway, he clears the notability bar for me. HyperZonktalk 17:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in my view. JuntungWu 19:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's a fantastic writer, has done much for the conservative movement, and is read by tens of thousands of people a day. The only people who are trying to get him deleted are those who are politically motivated and want to stifle free expression.
  • Keep. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Ellsworth 01:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another blogger. Contrary to the article's claims, he did not play a key role in the Killian documents story, he was just another voice in the chorus. Gamaliel 05:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete. Haven't found evidence of him appearring in print. His name, by itself, gets >50k hits, but if you try to get rid of the online-only hits, eg "Jim geraghty" -online -nro, it quickly drops to 6k hits, many of which still refer to his online presence. Anyone can boost hits via blogs/forums/rss. Niteowlneils 18:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DEFINITE KEEPER because he is a part of the history of the 2004 Presidential Election. He had scoops about the CBS story and the internals of the Bush 2004 campaign that will be important for future historians to know just how the Blogosphere was developed and how it became a force in American Politics. Liberals may disagree with him but I would say he is just as important to add to the wikipedia as probably Kos is. Because without telling either of those two names how are future historians going to know about this election? unsigned comment from 70.21.52.143
  • Keep only if merged with Jim Geraghty. No need for separate articles. Jonathunder 22:21, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreeing with his politics should not be a criteria, it is whether he was involved with or has done anything significant. He was involved in the CBS document story and other stories pertaining to the election and his a current writer for NRO. All the other writers for NRO are considered worthy of Wikipedia. Needs to be merged with Jim Geraghty.unsigned vote from 24.18.59.229
    • No one is suggesting his politics should be a criteria. Many writers and reporters were "involved" with the CBS document story, he was not involved in any significant way. See Killian documents. Gamaliel 21:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Geraghty did not break the forgery story but he reported it extensively on a day by day basis (essentially running the story) for NRO and National Review. That is what reporters do. While I would agree it was not to the same level as Powerline and LGF, it was significant. Most of the writers for The Nation have seperate pages as do all the other contributors for National Review. To describe Geraghty as "just another blogger" is not true.
  • KEEP: He's influential.
  • Keep, primarily on the basis of being regularly published in print. RadicalSubversiv E 20:38, 2 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/Jim_geraghty&oldid=49854125"