Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Farivar

Cyrus Farivar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Vanity page. Has been kept in the first three nominations because of the Slate article. Authoring a slate article does not in and of itself make someone notable. There would have to be another source backing up the claim that the Slate article resulted in "internet-based notoriety." Savidan 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This completely misrepresents the outcome of the previous deletion debates, which were settled on the grounds that Farivar is a journalist who has written in the New York Times. Phil Sandifer 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Cyrus has linked to this on his blog. Savidan 00:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And? Phil Sandifer 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And maybe that explains some of the new accounts contributing to this afd and the Greelighting afd. I'll let the closing admin decide. Savidan 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom. No evidence of encyclopedic notability to justify own article. No evidence that this is a noteworthy journalist (yes, journalists get articles published in newspapers, magazines and online all the time (including a-funny-thing-happened-to-me-the-other-day pieces) - that's their routine job function, if they want to make a living from it). Already mentioned sufficiently in Greenlighting hoax (which is itself of dubious notability). Bwithh 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge with Greenlighting hoax or Slate (magazine). --JJay 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Slate is obviously a ridiculous merger. Greenlighting hoax should probably be deleted as well. Savidan 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Engadget would also be a great merge option. --JJay 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really - merging a freelance journalist with multiple notable publications into any given publication isn't going to work very well. Phil Sandifer 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Jimbo is a hardworking guy and doesn't have time to decide all afd debates himself. That's why we have notability guidelines. Savidan 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No, we have notability guidelines because the community is addicted to instruction creep. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Google search of Cyrus Farivar just shows a bunch of his blogs. MetsFan76 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and Google remains the best way to learn about print journalism. Phil Sandifer 14:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh. Icemuon 14:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - New York Times and Economist published journalist - observe listed articles at [1]. Article is a stub, but this is clearly a notable freelance journalist by any remotely sensible definition of that term. Phil Sandifer 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle and Phil Sandifer. Jefferson Anderson 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is not notable. Tellyaddict 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If it has serious notability, why would you propose a delete. I think you meant keep. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having authored articles in such publications as the New York Times and the Economist is, in my opinion, certainly enough to establish notability for a Wikipedia article, regardless of the greenlighting issue. The quality of such publications sets journalists whose articles they publish above the herd. -- Jonel | Speak 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Being a columnist would be a different matter, but the fraternity of people who've published one NYT article is rather large. The WP:BIO criteria for authors seems to be reviews or awards; for a journalist, determining notability should be much the same. Savidan 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because there are oh so many reviews of newspaper articles. And WP:NOT paper - the fact that there are a lot of notable journalists does not mean we should cover fewer of them. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, he's published six New York Times articles, not one. Also two Economist articles, two Slate articles, a wealth of stuff in MacWorld, and a bunch of things for Wired News. Did you actually follow the link I posted to his list of publications, or are you just completely declining to do any actual research into this topic before you argue your case? Phil Sandifer 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. He hasn't done anything notable. Ahudson 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Except, you know, publish in the New York Times. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's difficult to search for media coverage ABOUT a journalist, because google turns up so much BY him. But I'm not seeing very much written about this person, and WP:N requires significant writing about him. Even in the greenlighting, which is his strongest claim to notability, I'm not finding examples of anyone but himself writing about his role in it. Of course, someone else might come up with the sources I'm not seeing. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What? Journalists tend to be more notable for their own contributions than what people write about them. I know of very few who would pass notability on the grounds of other people writing about them. But that's OK, since "has written for the New York Times" tends to be pretty good. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. Seems on the cusp of notability (contributing editor to a #1-ranked blog[2] isn't chopped liver). May even suggest some issues with WP:BIO having no specific guideline for journalists (or professional bloggers, for that). Very prolific, leads an interesting life in spite of being a workaholic. I'm not even bothered by the WP:COI since it predates our stricter policy. He'll be back, though. People like this ... they always achieve things .... --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I ain't buying the notability. I don't see significant writing about him. Philippe Beaudette 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. OK, so he wrote for the New York Times, big deal, that's what journalists do. Until the New York Times actually writes something about his journalism (think Judith Miller or Bob Woodward) he is not notable. Krimpet 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see anything to suggest this is a particularly noteworthy journalist yet (no non-trivial third-party stories about him, or awards he has won, or reviews of major books, etc.) We don't need an article on every NYT freelancer. -- Dragonfiend 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Quote from Mr Farivar: "Yes, I added an entry on myself to Wikipedia. Why haven't you?" - because I'm not notable of course.. Winterborn 06:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am sensing an overreliance on the argument "he's been published in the Times, he is notable." I have been published in the Times. Lots of people have. And not just letters to the editor. It is not actually a big deal.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Krimpet et al. Or are we going to have an article for ever single person who has ever written for the NYT? --Goochelaar 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, we should. Keep per Phil Sandifer's obvious reasoning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So you are advocating that everyone who has ever been published in a major newspaper deserves an article? Or just the Times? You do realize that that is thousands upon thousands of people who, like this guy, might only have that one claim to notability?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • And? WP:NOT paper. Phil Sandifer 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm advocating exactly that. People who write for major papers should absolutely be included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Are you just trying to wear us all down? I guess so. Let me repeat the argument I gave in the past two VfDs: Media sources often publish no information about who its authors are, other than their byline. Wikipedia articles about journalists allow a transparency that otherwise might not exist. At a time when even our most respected media sources, such as the New York Times, are being called out for not properly investigating the ties and backgrounds of its writers, is Wikipedia not a valid source for looking up more information on the backgrounds of the people who are shaping our impressions of the news? Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. More information is better. If even one person who wants to know more about Farivar or any other writer, including background that might influence their writing on a particular topic, gets that information from Wikipedia, it has served its purpose. Wikipedia is not Who's Who. It should be expansive. Jsnell 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just because a media source doesn't publish information about its authors, doesn't mean Wikipedia fills that niche; Wikipedia is not a directory of journalists or anything else. Just like any other journalist, until Farivar receives "multiple independent reviews of or awards for (his) work", or fulfills any of the other WP:BIO guidelines, he is simply not notable enough for his own article. Krimpet 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The previous keep vote has no grounding in Wikipedia's policies. We do not compromise our notability guidelines to combat potentially false information in other mediums. Savidan 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
        • We compromise our notability guidelines whenever we feel like it - that's why their guidelines, not policies. Furthermore, it's clearly the case that the author guidelines are poor choices for journalists, considering the paucity of meta-reporting. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. For reasons that Jsnell brought up in addition to adding arguments for transparency of reporting. The metadata of reporting is often as important as the reporting itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWJones (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
User's fifth edit. Savidan 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is, of course, irrelevant, since the post makes good points, and this isn't a vote. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Phil...an anon echoing the point of a registered user is a no-brainer...irrelevant. Savidan 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Information contained therein is not WP:Verifiable. Published or not, it becomes vanity -- all we could really say in this article is the fact that he was published in the NYT. /Blaxthos 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Published journalist in establishments possessing large international circulation, contributed to a significant event in the history of the evolution of the journalistic proffession. Also, as BWJones above. Normalphil 05:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Users only contribs are too this afd and the greenlighting afd. This is why it matters that this was linked from the subjects blog. Savidan 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Have never visited subject's blog, recent registration made in the middle of activity, should have one further comment with same IP address in 'children of the presidents of the united states', further comments made by IP address. Looking at the deletion logs, and found something interesting. Normalphil 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, are you referring to something other than the greelighting hoax as a "significant event in the history of the evolution of the journalistic profession"? Savidan 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The new ability of how using the internet a small group of individuals acting with discipline can rapidly create out of nothing news and cultural trends that are then treated and adopted as genuine, and the detailing of how this is done is a noteworthy event in journalism. It never happenned before, the sudden change in the nature information flow in past decade made it possible. It's an evolution. The person who wrote the article on how such a thing is done is then a noteworthy contributor. There it is. Normalphil 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not make the greenlighting hoax into the War of the Worlds. A few posts in a chatroom, and a fake website are hardly a revolution in journalism. Savidan 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The method is now prooven. Some one can use it as a template to accomplish some other end than a joke (example; net-roots political campaign). The public on the recieving end can have the ability to site greenlighting and be forarmed against such manipulations of information. Normalphil 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering the failure and almost total lack of media coverage of the hoax, I wouldn't exactly say the method was "proven". Krimpet 11:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Because a person caught on, and had access to the public forum. If you insist on doing your utmost to make every instance of this 'virgin field', eventually something interesting is going to occur. For an analogy, imagine if the Albanians of 1997 had the ability to click on Ponzi_scheme. Normalphil 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, and perhaps merge sourced essentials into Greenlighting hoax. This is a tricky one, but lack of coverage by non-trivial secondary sources, weak Google tests for major articles written by him or about him, and possible self-promotion seem to tip the scales. Danski14 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article as written does not demonstrate sufficient notability, and there has been plenty of time to flesh it out. Avi 19:48, 6 February 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.