Talk:Brendan Loy/Archive 1

I'm Brendan Loy, the subject of this page. To be clear I did not create the page, and I don't know who did. But somebody brought it to my attention earlier today that this page existed, and so I came here and added the relevant links. Then I saw that somebody had added a request for more information explaning the "importance" of this entry, so I added the information that seemed the most relevant to answer that question. I express no opinion about whether I am, in fact, "important" enough to be on Wikipedia; I'm obviously unqualified to make that decision because of my blatant bias in the matter! I am simply trying to make this page as accurate as possible, but whether the page belongs on Wikipedia or not is up to the broader community.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.133.222.170 (talk • contribs) .

Arguments for deletion

I'm not Brendan Loy. There is no possible reason Brendan Loy should be in wikipedia. He is irrelevant and his 15 minutes are over.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.254.226.29 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know what 65.96.39.163's problem is. Loy has repeatedly and consistently acknowledged that he got his information from the National Hurricane Center and other publicly available sources. Time and time again, he has given credit to the Times-Picayune, the NHC and the various other sources. When media interviewers have credited him with "predicting" the storm, he has consistently corrected them and pointed out that he didn't "predict" anything, he merely publicized information that was already available from other sources. So there is no substance to 65.96.39.163's charges. Regardless, these repeated blatant POV edits are an obvious abuse of Wikipedia and 65.96.39.163 needs to stop. This page, the Talk page, is the proper place for such discussion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.98.195 (talk • contribs) .

Brendan Loy should not be in Wikipedia. There are plenty of other snobby spoiled brats from Connecticut that should be featured here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.106.255.30 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed, this article should be marked for deletion. If anything it should be deleted for his posting on whether he is "important" enough. Seriously, page one of the wikipedia standards says that one should not create articles about themselves. I'm going to go on record and say that he's also the one 'defending Brendan Loy' against 65.96.39.163's assertions. Give it a rest Brendan, you are not even on the D-list. Admins?--Kingwiki 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, follow the deletion procedure. It's not rocket science and it's far more dignified than carrying on ad hominem attacks and ignobly inserting unsubstantiated claims into the article. Swarthington 20:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's right because nothing is more dignified than defending brendan loy from ad hominem attacks on wikipedia. Home of 750 years of American Independence--Kingwiki 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear Kingwiki, did Mssr. Loy abscond with your girlfriend? Have you come to fisticuffs with the mop-headed web-logger? What is the source of your vitriol? -- Swarthington 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed] --24.33.247.101 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is Brendan Loy again. As clearly stated in my original comment above, I did not create this article, so the rule that "one should not create articles about themselves" has no relevance to this discussion. Also, I did not comment on whether I'm "important" enough to be on Wikipedia; in fact I explicitly disavowed any intention to comment on that debate. As I wrote above: "I express no opinion about whether I am, in fact, "important" enough to be on Wikipedia; I'm obviously unqualified to make that decision because of my blatant bias in the matter! I am simply trying to make this page as accurate as possible, but whether the page belongs on Wikipedia or not is up to the broader community." I'm not sure how I possibly could be more clear. I did NOT create this page, I did NOT express an opinion about whether I belong on Wikipedia, and I have NOT taken an active role in the policing of this page; I am NOT one of the people who routinely reverts abusive edits by vandals. I'm not sure who those folks are, though I appreciate their efforts, since entirely irrespective of my own personal bias, it's obviously true that vandalism of this or any page on Wikipedia is inappropriate. If you want to mark this page for deletion, go right ahead. It's none of my business whether it gets deleted or not; that's the Wikipedia community's decision, not mine. My only contribution was to make sure the page was factually accurate, and I was forthright and honest about my role in doing that. If I inadvertently violated some Wikipedia policy in the course of trying to make the page accurate, I apologize. Certainly, though, I didn't violate a policy against people "creating articles about themsleves," since (again) I didn't create this page. Nor did I insert any POV information; my critics have been the ones doing that. --Brendan Loy, Sunday, August 6, 2006, 11:41 PM EDT

I'm proposing deletion. A handful of stories on the blog connected to a single event a year ago don't warrant this article, and the constant flaming by what seems to be a very few number of people with personal vendettas (both for and against Mr. Loy), along with his own lengthy contributions to this page, indicate that this page is more of a vanity war than anything of note. I don't believe Mr. Loy meets any of Wikipedia's guidelines as to notability, and this page is little more than a sandbox for half a dozen kids to tussle in.205.134.0.39 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I too propose deletion. He writes a blog. So do 100,000 other little kids. Plus he contributes to his own wikipedia page and lectures the rest of us on the discussion page. Mr. Loy does not meet any WIkipedia guidelines as to notability. This is a vanity page User:216.242.223.31 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I join the calls for deletion, so he writes a blog? who cares.Stevenscollege 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, he has been recognized by MSNBC, the AP, Spike Lee, and many more people and groups as an important part of the historical documentation of the events of Hurricane Katrina. He has been on television and radio numerous times to describe his experiences, motivations, and opinions on the subject.Wickerjk 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)wickerjk

Who the hell cares about spike lee, msnbc, and the ap. wikipedia is for notable events and people. I'm sure spike lee has a bathroom attendant and towelboy he really feels strongly about yet there is no article in wikipedia about them!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.250.152 (talk • contribs) .

Or, you could respond to the part about the historical documentation of the events of Hurricane Katrina, and not just attack me and the subject of the article by the use of random profanity and strange comments about Spike Lee's personal life. I think the other readers of this sight recognize the importance of the AP and other news agencies, including MSNBC. It is up to them, hopefully not you, to decide whether these agencies' respect for Brendan Loy's work on the preparation and impact of the hurricane qualifies Brendan to have a Wikipedia page.Wickerjk 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article should stay. One of the benefits of Wikipedia is the documentation of events that other places will forget. It's bits and bytes. The room is there, so why get rid of a piece of history?

Why did I look for this page? The Spike Lee documentary. I wanted to know more about Brendan Loy and why he is important to Hurriance Katrina. I found my answer.

Right there you have two article that will reference this page: Hurricane Katrina proper and the Spike Lee documentary page.

Don't delete the page and lose this thread of history. Pgrote 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Brendan Loy is a blogger whose blog, at one specific moment in time, got a lot of traffic and he now has a wiki biography. Read that last sentence because I wrote it and I dont Believe it. Stevenscollege 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stevenscollege ... now you're starting to understand the flexibility of Wikipedia. Those threads of history can be collected and documented, so that they aren't forgotten in the future. I infer that you place a low value on blogger's contribution to history. That, in and of itself, should not mean deletion. Erase your inflexibility and understand the process of documenting history today. Pgrote 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

wow, it gets better and better. Wiki`s own rules state blogs should not be used as sources, this on top of the fact Mr Loy has all ready said he edits his own page, another no-no, does anyone care?Stevenscollege 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Loy's blog wasn't the only source, there are several independent sources cited. Additionally, citing a specific post on the blog is citing a primary resource, which is okay, according to WP:RS, considering that the secondary sources cited also reiterate the claims. And while WP:AUTO states that one should "Avoid writing or editing articles about [one's] self," it also explicitly states that one should "Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts." Contributing to an article about yourself is not prohibited by any rules. -- Scientizzle 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stevenscollege is on the money. Are we going to now put wikipedia bios for every little blogger? Seems like a waste of bandwidth and time. Plus it increases wikipedias notoriety for having a plethora of useless trivial information. See e.g. the onion article from a few weeks ago. The site needs to be pared down to the essentials. No stupid bands from Terra Haute, no firemen whose claim to fame is that they rescued a kitten from a tree, and no bloggers who get to go on tv just because they, along with the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE predicted Katrina's path. It just shows that Ray Nagin and Mike Brown are idiots, not that Brendan is smart. Finally, the kid and his wife have GOT to stop editing his article and posting here. This article should be deleted immediately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.180.186 (talk • contribs) .

If you find any articles about firemen that have done nothing more than rescue kittens, let me know & I'll nominate it for deletion. As this article meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO & WP:WEB, you'll need to come up with better argument for deletion than "It just shows that Ray Nagin and Mike Brown are idiots, not that Brendan is smart." -- Scientizzle 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article truly is a joke, in the "Other media attention" section it is reported apparently with a straight face that our hero`s blog is linked to other blogs !!! bloggers linking to bloggers, bloody hell what next? people leaving comments on blogs or something. Stevenscollege 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw this guy on MSNBC. Thought it was a joke. GreatDay 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This articles continued existence is an affront to Wikipedia, horrible self promotion on a galactic scale, no attempt at neutrality and as iv said Mr Loy edits his own page, unbelievable.Stevenscollege 22:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is completely asinine; I thought self-promotion was looked down upon in the wikipedia community. I'm going to create a page about my dog.GreatDay 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete this article

Something is rotten in South Bend, Indiana. And it's not Mrs. Loy's sock drawer. Rather, it's the continued atrocity of Loy's presence on Wikipedia. There is no earthly reason why this page was not deleted. Numerous posters articulated fair and reasoned arguments in support of its deletion. To wit, Loy is not notable as defined by Wikipedia standards. Solely due to the efforts of his closest friend, Scientizzle, we are now subjected to the continued presence of this horrible vanity page. I challenge anyone to think long and hard about Wikipedia's policies, apply the facts of this matter to those policies, and find that this entry's existence is consistent with those policies.

This is a sham of a vanity page. It should be removed and its existence is an affront to the scholarly purpose of this site.

The above should be kept on this page to show some of us actually care about wikipedia`s reputation, I didnt write this but I agree with every word.Stevenscollege 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Stevenscollege, could you explain how Loy doesn't fit the WP:BIO requirements for notability, particularly "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"? All you've done is through out there that it's a vanity page and a sham without explaining why. Loy did receive claim from various news and media sources directly relating to Hurricane Katrina. Yes, he's got a blog about other stuff. Yes, he's not a mega-celebrity. But he certainly meets the threshold for "notability" that Wikipedia sets forth. Zz414 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

His claim to fame is that he linked to and wrote about information that was released by other sources, the article itself says "he pointed out repeatedly that the information was already out there" and he gets his own wiki page, this is utterly ridiculous. I refuse to believe Mr Loy fits WP:BIO requirements for notability, you can read it any way you want.Stevenscollege 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, he wrote about information released by other sources. That's what a lot of reporters do, too. But he also was known for particular unique compilations of the news, and he reached conclusions that many in retrospect found to be a correct analysis of the data at the time. He was then made popular in the media for those conclusions. So had he just aggregated and made conclusions, he wouldn't be notable. But because the media looked at his conclusions, picked up on them, and broadcast them in various outlets (yes, mainstream media and Spike Lee among others), he achieved notoriety. Zz414 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless, nothing you say will convince me Mr Loy deserves a biography and to say he fits WP:BIO requirements is to take the definition to breaking point. All I can hope is more people join me in wanting the page deleted.Stevenscollege 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are partialy right. It's the entire talk page that is pointless, as it will make no difference to the keeping or deletion of the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No talk page on wiki is pointless, its how the community does what it does. Maybe someone will see this talk and think im a lunatic with a chip on my shoulder or maybe they`ll want the page deleted too.

Stevenscollege 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You've made your point--you think the article should be deleted. You even put it up for deletion. Feel free to do it again, if you're so inclined. But just filling up this talk page with declarations of your disgust, and posting removed article vandalism is bordering on disruptive. -- Scientizzle 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I get other people to join me if they dont know what I think? I havnt touched the main article, I feel I have raised valid points on this page. Who is being disrupted? why cant you just ignore me, as I said the main article has not been touched and I make my points on the talk page.Stevenscollege 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Stevenscollege has a right to be heard despite how disruptive Scientizzle seems to find Stevenscollege. I'm a newbie and I'm just learning the ropes, but I applaud your continued effort to remove this page, Stevenscollege. Scientizzle says put the page up for deletion again. I say make it happen. Brendan loy created a mock wikipedia on his own blog. He doesn't need this page and neither does the wikipedia community. Just waiting for loy himself to jump in here and accuse us of character assassination again.... GreatDay 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You'll have to keep waiting. I only accuse people of character assassination when they are actually assassinating my character, which was happening a while ago, but is not happening now. Now, you guys are having a legitimate discussion about whether the page should be deleted, and I have no problem with that, nor any opinion about it. It's only when people spread factual untruths about me that I have a problem with it. --Brendan Loy

OMG, why are you here?67.177.180.186 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I periodically check on the discussion over here, mostly because I find it freakin' hilarious that some of you people are so obsessed with getting my page deleted. Honestly, why is it so important to you? It's kind of sad. Yet funny. --Brendan

"obsessed" ? "important" ? I'm sorry but you aren't that important to anyone save for a few of the lesser wikipedia admins. The point is you are irrelevant. Spike Lee is not an arbiter of wikipedia relevance. (well...should not be) And you contribute to your own wiki-page and pick fights with other people on the site. Anyone else who isn't you should be deleted too. Thus it is you who are sad yet funny.

I think those who want to delete this article are idiots. I enjoy having Wikipedia as a site that...you know...contains information about stuff. I don't care much about arguments regarding the vagaries of Wikipedia standards of what is worthy of inclusion and what is not--common sense dictates that one should err on the side of inclusion in Wikipedia or else one is doing a dis-service to those seeking information here. If no one in fact cares about Loy then no one will see this entry; consequently, it will accomplish nothing as a vehicle for Loy's self-aggrandizement as some have argued he seeks above. Keep this article, you jerks.

This page is an affront to wikipedia. if you look at brendanloy.com, scientizzle is listed as one of loy's 'USC Trojan friends'. Thus, scientizzle is clearly biased in his defense of loy's inclusion in wikipedia. Anyone other than scientizzle and brendan's wife want to say why he should be in wikipedia.