Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete --Celestianpower hablamé 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Shell

Ok, I happen to have a lot of respect for Tim, being a board member and such. And I don't believe much in the notability thing. But, Tim doesn't seem notable to me. His assertions to notability are being the Bomis CEO and being a Wikimedia board member. We should not make special exceptions for people who work with Wikimedia, this is bad. It seems like a huge self-reference to me. And, it uses information from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I feel this is original research because it's written by Wikimedia. I hope to soon become as notable as Tim Shell, and I would make a self-nomination for VFD if an article was written about me at the same level of notability. --Phroziac(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Just as notable as Sonja Elen Kisa. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 21:05, 12 October 2005 (CDT)
    • Humorous comment - ...which is also on AFD... --Phroziac(talk) 05:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. CEOs are notable, and board members of the 45th most popular web site further increases notability. Unfocused 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... the Sonja Elen Kisa argument isn't very compelling. Regardless. I don't think every CEO is notable; there needs to be auxillary reasons for notability (notable company, media coverage, etc.) Bomis fall just short of notability IMO, so I don't really see Mr. Shell as notable as a CEO. Board Membership does not confer notability in and of itself. I wonder if we would even be havign this discussion if Mr. Shell had no involvment in Wikipeida and was just a CEO of some random dotcom with a board membership on some other random project...--Isotope23 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • My own opinion regarding the value of this article has nothing to do with Bomis or Wikipedia. Any CEO and/or Board member of similar sized organizations should have an article. Tim Shell's relationship with Bomis and Wikipedia means he has an article sooner than other similar people. Please don't make comments that don't assume good faith on the part of people whose opinion is opposite your own. Unfocused 15:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I have to concur with unfocused. --Phroziac(talk) 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • My musing on whether or not we would be having this discussion if Mr. Shell was not involved in wikipedia was not an assumption of bad faith on your part Unfocused and I'm sorry if you took it that way... it was just a comment and it wasn't directed at you. I simply don't agree with your contention that every CEO of a mid-sized company is notable. In my opinion that is extremely low bar to set for notability. That's just my 2 cents and you are certainly entitled to disagree with me. On another note, I would support a merge of this information into the existing Bomis article as has been suggested here by others.--Isotope23 18:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Just so you know, I hadn't intended to "get in your face" over this, but only to point out that your sentence beginning with "I wonder if we would even..." seems to presume improper bias on the part of the article author and all subsequent "keep" voters. It really was a very minor point, perhaps I should have put it in small text. Unfocused 20:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
            • No offence taken. Sometimes my writing comes off more abrasive than it was intended.  :)--Isotope23 20:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakest keep ever. Bomis doesn't fit my "deserves an article on every CEO ever" criteria, and Wikipedia, in terms of the prominence of it, doesn't deserve an article on every board member ever in my eyes. And yet, we are Wikipedia. Obviously. And, honestly, I'm voting to keep because Mr. Shell is so notable in a Wikipedia context that it will help the project to have an article on him around. Did that make a lick of sense? Lord Bob 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - if this is kept, I want to see articles on Magnus Manske, Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, Michael Davis, Florence Nibart-Devouard, et al. Rob Church Talk | FAD 15:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow...a quick preview shows we do have Mike and Anthere. Rob Church Talk | FAD 15:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Bomis] and redirect --SPUI (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The best guide to notability, be it of people, companies, software, products, or web sites, is whether other people, independent of the subject itself, have considered the subject to be notable. The litmus test for that, outlined to greater or lesser extent in all of our various notability criteria (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and so forth) is whether the subject has been written about in multiple separate published works that whose sources are independent of the subject xyrself. (WP:BIO talks about press coverage and independent biographies. WP:WEB talks about media attention. WP:CORP uses the broad term of published works, and is explicit about excluding self-promotion.)

    Furthermore, as Geogre says, it is a disservice to AFD and to the encyclopaedia as a whole to apply criteria erratically and inconsistently. It is wrong to hold the Wikimedia Foundation, its board members, and its web sites to standards that are different to the standards to which one holds other companies, people, and web sites.

    Researching this person, I have yet to find anything published about him by someone independent of Bomis or the Wikimedia Foundation that isn't a straight one-sentence mention, as an aside, that parrots Wikimedia:Board of Trustees, Bomis (from the version before Jimbo Wales removed mention of Tim Shell from that article), or Wikimedia. See the one-sentence mention of Tim Shell in this article in Florida Trend for example.

    Additionally, Lord Bob's argument is wrong. Claiming that someone is notable within the group of users of a web site does not wash for Wikimedia board members and Wikmedia project editors any more than it washes when people assert that their BBS sysop is notable within the users of their BBS, or that a web discussion forum participant is notable within that discussion forum, even though unremarked upon elsewhere. Other people, independent of the subject, have to regard the subject as notable, and have to demonstrate the extent to which they find the subject notable by creating and publishing works of their own about it.

    As such, this person does not satisfy the criteria for notability. Delete. Uncle G 16:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't asserting that he was notable because he's notable within Wikipedia, I was asserting that, for the sake of smooth operation of Wikipedia as a website, it would be valuable to have articles on the board members. It's not that he's notable as such, it's that he's notable enough within Wikipedia that Wikipedians would have an easier time of it knowing who he is. Not that this article is that great, but it might get expanded. As you might have guessed from the weakness of my keep, I'm not entirely sold on this argument but it's stuck in my head and I cannot ignore it. Lord Bob 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The place for the Wikimedia Foundation to publish articles on its board members is the foundation's own wiki. And that's where it does publish them. See the hyperlink given above. As for the possibility that this article could get expanded: the immediate question is "expanded from what source?". As I pointed out above, the only source of information on this person that provides anything more than a sentence of information is the Wikimedia Foundation, and the article already contains everything available from that source. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Xoloz pretty well summed up what I'da said in reply to this below. Lord Bob 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Xoloz is applying a double standard on the false grounds that Wikipedia needs to be the primary source in this particular case in order to provide administrative transparency, and doesn't answer the question that I asked above. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care. Or maybe that would be Neutral. Slightly leaning towards Merge and redirect. He is notable enough to be discussed somewhere for sure, but I don't know if that somewhere is his own article or not. I'll let other people answer that question. Bushytails 17:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I just voted to keep some article on a website that sells wristbands for fans of Crystal Palace, so I pretty much have to be an inclusionist for the next week or so, so yes, keep. Youngamerican 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with non-notable CEO of non-notable company regardless of establishment of wikipedia -- wikipedia does not have sweeping credibility to put itself in a posistion of notoriety. as far as it is concerned, it is self promotion which is most often grounds for deletion. final reason: vanity. Fsdfs 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Unfocused. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-14 T 07:17:28 Z
  • Delete. Verifiable does not equal encylopaedic. Proto t c 08:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Bomis and WMF. Delete, article does not establish notability. Alphax τεχ 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that Jimbo 1 removed mention of him from Bomis. See above. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'm convinced. Alphax τεχ 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Note that in the same edit where Jimbo Wales removed mention of Tim Shell as "minority stakeholder", he also removed himself as "majority owner", so it's either a correction regarding ownership, or that in capacity as "minority stakeholder" he didn't think Tim Shell warranted a mention. This shouldn't be assumed to mean he isn't notable in the article as CEO. Unfocused 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Lord Bob. For me, this is about user convenience. A user might want to know about the people who run this place, and WP seems like to a logical place to uncover such information. As I see it, it isn't about a double standard as much as full disclosure of what makes WP run. Xoloz 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The Wikimedia Foundation has its own wiki for full disclosure, and the page where it publishes information about its board members is hyperlinked to above. We also have Meta for foundation-wide things. The main article namespace at Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all. We should not be basing our judgements upon what meta-information about the foundation it might be handy to disclose, since that is a decision for the primary sources (e.g. what the foundation decides to disclose on its own web site about its board members), not the encyclopaedia. We should be basing our judgements upon whether this biographical article meets our criteria for inclusion of biographical articles. It is not about full disclosure, and is about double standards. Your argument is employing the very double standard that we shouldn't be employing. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree, Uncle G. While I was dimly aware that there other Wiki sources for this info, WP is the first place I (and I suspect most casual viewers) would look for this information. It needs to be here to be easily accessible, and I take easy accessibility to be part of full disclosure. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote very carefully, but I knew my logic was endorsing a kind of double standard in the interest of this easily accessible, full disclosure. As with all policies, when there are conflicts of interest, one must decide which one believes to be more fundamental, and I take the view that administrative transparency mildly trumps or, at least, augments this case for, WP:BIO. In any event, either because you did not read carefully, or because I was unclear, I do feel your tone was unduly harsh. Xoloz 16:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You are arguing on the flawed basis that Wikipedia is, and should be, the primary source for information on the Wikimedia Foundation, to the world and to Wikipedians. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and, as I've already pointed out, there are other wikis for that. Those wikis exist for the very administrative transparency you are looking for. We aren't here to host and publish primary source material for the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for the Wikimedia Foundation any more than it is a hosting service for anyone else. It's clear, from the existence of the Foundation's wiki, that the Foundation doesn't expect us to be its hosting service, either. As I said, whether to have this biographical article in Wikipedia is not a matter of administrative transparency and full disclosure, and is a matter of double standards. If we had this little information about an executive of any other organization, which was only available from the person's autobiography on that organization's own web site and not verifiable from an independent second source, the consensus to delete would very probably be unanimous. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep based upon the comments made by Lord Bob and Rob Church. Hall Monitor 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Martg76 07:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The text is mostly from the Foundation wiki, which isn't really an external source, so not verifiable. (I voted deleted for Anthere and myself too). Angela. 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? The point of the externality of sources is whether they are trustworthy; if a source is trustworthy, then the information is verifiable. Are you suggesting that the Foundation wiki isn't trustworthy? Xoloz 11:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this." — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth.

        Looking for multiple independent sources is just as much good encyclopaedism as it is good journalism. The problem with the source is not that it is external. It is that it is not independent of Tim Shell himself, and is tantamount to autobiography. As Wikipedia:autobiography says, and as the preceding quotation implies, autobiographies have verifiability problems. Furthermore: They definitely cannot contribute towards notability. Self-promotion does not automatically make one notable. Other people have to regard the person as notable. See above. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

        • I'll respond here to all your points, though some of my counterpoints will be brief. In the case of a Wikimedia board member, WPians are uniquely positioned to maintain a verifiability check on the content that is posted in these articles, as least as it relates to relevant professional details. Zaphod Beeblebrox' autobio was not subject to Wiki revision; patently false claims are likely to be removed, given the dilligence and active interest of the community in its leaders.
As for the rest, I simply disagree that I proceed from a false premise. Experience indicates to me, and the Keep votes here do also, that Wikimedia's board members are more likely to remain unknown if some provision is not made for their information to be listed in article space; if your concern for a double standard is not calmed by a faith in the ability of our board members to be reasonable (and to be overseen by the Wiki editing community), then -- by all means -- tag them with a special disputed tag, highlight them in a caution color, bemark in any appropriate way to suggest that they are different. In the final analysis, though, I find that their special status within the Wikimedia world creates a special need for WP articles. I make this finding based on a firm belief that their biographies should be transparent, and that -- without WP articles -- they are not sufficiently so. Feel free to disagree, but I find the suggestion that my analysis is "false" to be strangely positivistic. We aren't discussing a bare philosophical theorem. We are considering alternatives for the priorities of the WP. You value more the strict enforcement of a guideline; I, an interest in making our leaders' information very easily viewable to even the most casual user. No one has a "false premise"; these are simply competing values in tension, each value with its own merit to recommend it. Xoloz 05:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep CEO of notable company.  Grue  17:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Meatpuppets-be-gone! —Cryptic (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So who's your meatpuppet, Cryptic? (And are you assuming good faith? I recognize the user names of every participant in this discussion.) Unfocused 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I also recognize the username of everyone who's commented, but only because I happen to frequent the same web site they do. —Cryptic (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Tim_Shell_1eb8.html"