Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (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 keep. Renaming or merging the article can be discussed on the talk page. --Coredesat 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy

Essjay controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The purpose of this AfD is to give the community a chance, for the first time since the controversy erupted, to (try to) have a cool-headed discussion about whether or not the subject of this article meets our standards for inclusion. This is a good-faith nomination, that needs a full conversation.

The first AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay, was closed as no consensus: the article was nominated for deletion at the height of the controversy, on the day the article was created. The AfD seemed to go off the rails, with much heated debate about Essjay and the whole situation, rather than merits of the article, which itself was in extreme flux, renamed several times over the course of the AfD with more than 500 edits on the article and a ton of discussion all over the place. The closing admin, A Man In Black, noted that the AfD was quite "messy," and his decision was without prejudice to the article's renomination.

Unfortunately the article was renommed the same day as MIB's close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy was procedurally speedy-closed, as was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (3rd nomination) which appeared four days later.

There has been time for the article to find its balance, and there has been time for the community to breathe a bit and calm down, although this issue is still quite contentious, no doubt. No matter what, the focus needs to be on the article and if it fits our standards for inclusion, not the subject of the article.

Now this isn't a procedural nomination with no opinion about whether or not it should stay - I do have an opinion on the matter, and I feel the article should be deleted. The media coverage that surrounded the controversy is undeniable. But two months on, one must question the significance of the events. Yes, it is significant to us, but after the initial media brouhaha, the outside world could care less. The (main) space is not for self references, I don't feel the issue is universally notable, and the issue of credentials on Wikipedia can succinctly be discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with Jeffrey. This was significant at the time, but more for Wikipedia than beyond it. Ultimately it was news for a while. But we are not here to report news- that is what Wikinews is for. We cannot dedicate entire articles everytime someone does something newsworthy. Image how many "George Bush controversy" articles we would need to do that... The problem is all the more acute where the person concerned is not in themselves notable. A valiant attempt has been made to write an article here, but it remains a lenghty discussion of an incident that hard short-term media attention. No doubt some reference to this incident (or more importantly to the issue of credential verification) can be made at Criticisms of Wikipedia, but I see no future for this as a stand alone article. The fact that it concerns Wikipedia is to my mind a red hering- we should neither delete because it concerns us or keep for fear of comment should we delete. Its simply a matter of news vs. encyclopedic content. This was the former and keeping it sets a bad precedent for our willingess to cover events of short-term newsworthiness (as opposed to true notability). The number of sources are not the issue here, but their nature and the short timespace they cover are. Fundamentally I don't think this is an encyclopedic subject. WjBscribe 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or (if we must) redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. This is not an event deserving of its own article. Yes it seemed/seems like a big event to us, but lets step out of our little wikibubble for a moment... delete per nom Glen 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And let me make it clear, in case anyone was wondering (as there is bound to be some), this is not an attempt to save Essjay from having a negative article on him (I was never a big fan of him) nor an attempt at sparing the Foundation or certain higher-ups from criticism (I'm not too fond of the Foundation, either). This is here because I feel the subject does not meet notability guidelines. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:ASR specifically allows for "Articles about prominent people involved in Wikipedia and 'Essjay' was the subject of articles in the New Yorker, the New York Times etc etc because of his involvement with Wikipedia. How is this not notable? Nick mallory 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It was the subject of discussion in lots of independent, non trivial, reliable sources and I was under the impression that that was the criteria for notability. Just because it reflects poorly on Wikipedia is no reason to delete it, that indeed would smack of censorship and would leapt upon anew by Wikipedia's detractors. Just because the media attention was 'short term' doesn't mean it's not notable. Nearly every news story is 'short term' because that's the nature of news. Nick mallory 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, the deletion rationale has nothing to do with the article giving Wikipedia a bad name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Our notability standards are clearly different to our requirement of multiple verifiable sources. You are conflating WP:N with WP:V. Every item that makes the news each day is usually reported by a number of TV stations, newspapers and there will be a few editorials. In other words, if our only requirement is sources, people would be free to write articles about each item in the day's news. But Wikipedia does not as an encyclopedia carry such articles. We have a separate Wiki for that, Wikinews. Its coverage of this controversy is very good (and is where such coverage belongs). WjBscribe 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Question: What makes a news story notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia rather than Wikinews? Sancho (Review me) 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Good question. I would expect there to be (a) ongoing reliable coverage sometime after the event, (b) some sort of wider effect/ change caused by the incident in question and (c) to have an impact on more than small community (ie. not be too local). Things like natural disasters or (for a recent example) the Virginia Tech massacre have a clear longevity that makes them worthy of encyclopedic coverage. A lot has been written about George W Bush choking on a pretzel. We don't have an article on "Bush and pretzels", but we do have one for the massacre. It seems to me a matter of commons sense. WjBscribe 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So there's no article on A Million Little Pieces or other 'here today, gone tomorrow' fabrication flaps then? If, for example, exactly the same amount of coverage had been given to an otherwise unnotable Government official fabricating their qualifications, would we be having this discussion about deleting an article upon them? Nick mallory 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope so. If a non-notable person is involved in scandal that gets some press coverage for a while and then passes, but no great change results from it- we as an encyclopedia would have no reason to cover it. And every reason not to - ie. WP:BLP. WjBscribe 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Where's the Wikipedia policy that says all that exactly? It sounds like you're making that up as you go along to be honest. This incident has multiple etc sources - it got a LOT of press attention - and that's the criteria for inclusion. It is important in how it affected Wikipedia's credibility at the time and, who knows, in the future. If this had affected any other organisation and got a similar amount of coverage it would be covered here, no question. Nick mallory 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment WP:N says "Note 3: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." A former proposed guideline which is now an essay, WP:NOTNEWS, has further thoughts on this issue which express the views of several editors, that something can be highly newsworthy, a veritable "water cooler story" or "must see video clip" without belonging in an encyclopedia. Edison 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Is the subject of mulitple non-trivial published works by very reliable sources. A very WP:POINT AfD. --Oakshade 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon? I see no reason to suggest that Jeffrey is "trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", which is the policy you link to. Please reconsider so casually making a serious accusation against an editor in good standing. It was throughout the previous processes made clear that it would be a good idea to reconsider the status of this article once the dust had settled and tempers had calmed- the nomination should come as a surprise to no one. WjBscribe 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service. An item like this blew up on the internet because it took place on the internet, and events there tend to explode out of all proportions. At the end of the day it is a simple case of a person misrepresenting himself on the internet, without really damaging anything except perhaps the credibility of Wikipedia (which is very dented anyway), a very common occurrence and without any long-lasting significant implications. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Lots of things blow up on the internet. The point is this was covered by a host of major newspapers and broadcasters. The New York Times [1], BBC News [2] and The Daily Telegraph [3] for example. What exactly are Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair notable for again? Nick mallory 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But they are notable. Coverage in each case lasted for years afterwards and Glass was even the subject of a film. If someone decides to make a film about this a year down the line (or if those publications are discussing this by then), I will concede notability. Though it would be one hell of a dull film. WjBscribe 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I have not heard about the Glass incident, but regarding Jayson Blair, we are talking about a whole different perspective. Blair damaged the credibility and itegrity of a well-respected, generally reliable newspaper by printing fake stories. Essjay damaged the perceived credibility of a already somewhat tarnished website by misrepresenting himself, not by writing fake articles or hoaxes. Indeed, there are no reports of Essjay's contributions being bad. The Essjay story is less notable because the damage caused was much much much smaller, and because I cannot believe that creating a false persona on a website where people can edit anonymously is as big as a journalist getting employed in a company where there should be some serious controls going far beyond a wiki-like all volunteer "RC patrol". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So Wikipedia doesn't want to be "well-respected" or "generally reliable" then? If Wikipedia doesn't matter then what are we all doing wasting our time writing articles for it? Nick mallory 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The nature of anonymous contributions without peer or editor review means that Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable editor-reviewed and publication the same way the NY Times is. It is for this reason Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. I am not saying Wikipedia is useless, because as a starting point for research, it is brilliant. However, a person writing up nonsense on Wikipedia is not a big story, it is a part of daily life here. But someone adding nonsense into a finished product like a newspaper, which ought to have a review and fact-checking process beyond anything we have on Wikipedia, and gets the nonsense published and sold, is a bigger issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It passes WP:N. There is no reason to exclude this article, so... why exclude it? --Dookama 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite my heart saying delete, a dispassionate view sees it as notable and referenced. --Dweller 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would prefer this as a redirect, but would weakly accept keep. I don't think there is really debate about whether the content should be included. It is well-sourced and a valid aspect of Criticism of Wikipedia. The question is whether it should be an article or a section in the Criticsm article that is its parent. I am inclined to think that the section in the parent article (currently ~700 words) is more than adequate. This isn't the Seigenthaler controversy, I don't think; instead of defamatory comments about a public figure, this was basically a "personnel issue" -- an employee with a padded resume. But in the end, the decision of what to make articles and what to make article sections is an editorial one (and not an AFD topic, strictly). If this is retained on its own, however, the passage in the parent article needs to be condensed considerably to avoid the impression of undue weight and recentism. Serpent's Choice 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a balanced and properly sourced record of a notable incident. We might not want to remember it, but many others do and will keep bringing it up, so that alone is good reason for the topic to be properly covered. We don't delete historical incidents when they're out of the news for a month or two. .. dave souza, talk 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The length and depth of the article is way out of proportion to its importance, but in light of its wide media coverage I don't see anyone offering a compelling reason it doesn't fulfill WP:N. dharmabum 11:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I originally voted delete at the last nomination, but since then I feel the article has been improved to the point where it would no longer be reasonable to suggest merging its content into Criticism of Wikipedia as I supported at the time. I don't see any reason why the topic shouldn't be covered in this much depth: wikipedia is not paper, and the article is well-enough sourced to support its content. JulesH 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because it happened here, doesn't mean we can't have an impartial article on it. Personally, I'd rather someone searching for information on the matter found out about it here, rather than from Daniel Brandt — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was a major and transforming event for a top ten website. WAS 4.250 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Extensive media coverage, significant event for a major Internet site, meets any reasonable notability standard, careful sourcing for every assertion. Casey Abell 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment By the way, any fond hope that this controversy will fade from the media is badly mistaken. Within the last two weeks, the Google news cache picked up references at PC World, History News Network, and The Sydney Morning Herald among others. This will endure in the media like the Siegenthaler incident, and will rise again in force whenever there is a publicized dispute over Wikipedia's accuracy. In fact, the Herald reminded everybody of the incident just because Jimbo happened to be in town. When public disputes over Wikipedia's reliability occur - and they will occur, don't kid yourself - we better have articles on both of the Wikipedia trauma twins, Siegenthaler and Essjay. Otherwise, there will be justified charges that Wikipedia attempted to bury the less savory episodes in its past by deleting either or both of the articles. Casey Abell 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable topic, appropriately sourced article. This thing is part of Wikipedia's history. However, it would be interesting to delete it and see the clumsy cover-up make the news too. Then someone would write an article about that, which would be nominated for deletion ... . Stammer 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whether or not the media attention has passed on is irrelevant, as notability is not lost over time. Tarc 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a major event worthy of coverage in its own article. This is the backlash result of an overzealous desire not to talk about internet or wikipedia-related topics, when about any other organization they'd be considered legitimate. Complaints about 'short term newsworthiness' are BS. If it's got enough coverage, we can cover it, we're not paper, don't worry about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any issue with the notability of the event. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well-sourced article about an event with more than short-term notability. NawlinWiki 17:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a sufficient number of stories with substantial coverage from reliable and independent publications to satisfy WP:N and WP:A, so it would look like a case of censorship to protect Wikipedia from criticism if we went deleted the article on the subject. If the stand-alone article were deleted, then the section in "Criticisms" talking about this controversy would need to about double and would grow excessively long. The same principles apply to Essjay as to Stephen Glass ,Jayson Blair and more recently Marilee Jones. Edison 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per comments by nominator who wrote in part: "The media coverage that surrounded the controversy is undeniable." and snowballing of keep votes. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakkalle. Not everything that makes it to press is noteworthy of an encyclopedia entry. -- Psy guy Talk 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is clearly WP:N, part of a longstanding thread of criticism of Wikipedia in the press -- and indeed probably the most noticed Wikipedia-related controversy since Siegenthaler. Wikipedia is a global top 10 website, so it's entirely reasonable to treat this as a notable controversy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. It happened, it's well documented, and it happened to WP, what's the problem? Frankly, it should be here, so if people have questions, there's an answer. If anything, put it in WP: space. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename with Wikipedia in title WatchingYouLikeAHawk 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and ban nominating for 6-months. These are just attempts to game the system. Keep nominating until you catch people off guard and get a delete vote. It can be nominated and be saved 999 times, but all it takes is one voting session to get it deleted, and make it forgotten. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to further this statement, I find it curious that this AfD began at what was the middle of the night in the United States (7:26 UTC) and 3 of the total 4 delete votes in this AfD so far occurred in the first hour of it. Not saying that this AfD was "gaming the system" to get a speedy delete, but it certainly does raise an eyebrow. --Oakshade 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Intimidation, that's the way to go! See WP:AGF. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, nothing to intimidate. Just an observation about this AfD. --Oakshade 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:N, the "no self-refernces" argument is a straw-man; I suppose the nominator with equal vigor would want to delete the Wikipedia article because of the dreaded self-reference. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, stable, well-sourced article on a notable topic that isn't going away. Risker 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have asked WatchingYouLikeAHawk to move the page back to its original title during the course of the AfD, or at least until it has been discussed for more than five minutes on the talk page. Risker 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not a feasible option right now. If the name of an article is sufficient to sway votes on this AfD, then this signifies a major problem, wouldn't you agree? WatchingYouLikeAHawk 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I've moved it back because the new title was not supported by consensus and was inconsistent with our house style. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say The New York Times and ABC News qualify as non-trivial sources. Quadzilla99 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Not to say it's not notable or not important, but it doesn't stand well on its own, but it reads like overblown journalism, complete with a timeline and quotes to flesh it out. The whole thing spanned a very short time and would fit better in an article with a broader context. --Wafulz 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The controversy is still being discussed in the media, according to this April 24/07 article. Risker 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say it was discussed- it was more just mentioned in a sentence along with every other criticism the project has faced. --Wafulz 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's a whole paragraph devoted to the Essjay contoversy, not "just mentioned in a sentence." --Oakshade 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Fine, a paragraph out of several dozen. You get my point. --Wafulz 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It is a notable event, and no significant problems exist with the article any more now that the potential BLP problems of having an article on Essjay himself (rather than the event) have been dealt with. I previously supported merging into the general criticism article, but doing so now would detract from the encyclopedia either due to loss of cited information or making the criticism article excessively long. --tjstrf talk 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This can be linked to as an article off of Wikipedia Criticism, but it is both notable (number of media references) and provides valueable history for new Wikipedia contributors like myself. Ibanix 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I had thought (or maybe just hoped) that this subject had been settled. There are unimpeachable media references, and that is sufficient for the basic N. (dozens more could probably be found, and I expect them to be coming in for years). Let's face it--like it or not, the major things that happen at Wikipedia are notable, and so are the major personalies. We have no more right to delete coverage of our worst moments or the people whose deeds have been the most unfortunate to us, than any other organization has. There is WP:COI in trying to delete articles on the subject. I share the COI, but we can all deal with it by objectivity. The media sources are sufficient, and that should be the end of the argument. Incidentally, I would consider that the Wikipedia Signpost is a RS. It's coverage is unbiased, it is carefully edited, there is a named editor in chief, and the articles carry by-lines. DGG 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has became a notable event. Don't reopen till next year.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of coverage that demonstrates notability. Maxamegalon2000 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep we kept details on the Siegenthaler Incident... and this incident got way more media coverage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this story got world-wide coverage (e.g. I saw it in several Danish media), but rename to include "Wikipedia" in the title. Valentinian T / C 09:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but move to Wikipedia: "space". I don't really think this is appropriate for our encyclopedia as if this was an event centering around another website, i.e. Digg or Slashdot or something, it would probably be deleted as "non notable". It's only really here because people on this site heard so much about it because it affected this site directly and therefore I think you guys have a skewed perception of the media coverage. I do, however, think it should be kept around so that people who are new to the site (like myself) can find out about what happened (because I've seen it mentioned all over the place) from a non-POV perspective (i.e. negative or positive spin on the controversy by wikipedia editors). Kamryn Matika 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I really can't see any reason why this should be deleted. Pathlessdesert 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable event which made the news, important in the history of Wikipedia, deletion would seem like Wikipedia trying to sweep it under the carpet. SynergyBlades 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't worry about appearances. The reasons for keeping or deleting should be separate from whether or not it seems like we're trying to hide something. Sancho (Review me) 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Comment: Although only a guideline, the notion that notability is generally permanent seems to apply here. However, it is a confusing point considering that many topics are deferred to Wikinews. I guess without guideline clarifying what news stories are encyclopedic enough for inclusion in Wikipedia rather than Wikinews, the only thing we can do is exactly this — case-by-case discussion. Sancho (Review me) 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is important WP history. - grubber 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is notable. I have seen it mentioned in Time magazine, it was on the front page of CNN fopr two days, and so on. Agree with suggestions that this should not be nominated for de;etion for a period of time. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest speedy keep. As deletion now seems to have a snowball's chance. Sancho (Review me) 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article clearly meets all standards of notability, and all of the information can be verified by reliable sources, we should not have special standards of inclusion for Wikipedia related content that is notable to the outside world.--RWR8189 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This incident has been covered extensively outside of Wikipedia, and unlike articles about individual student victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, contains much that cannot easily be placed elsewhere. Nyttend 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Formative event for Wikipedia, excellent sources. Quatloo 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - although the nomination was made in good faith, it still doesn't merit deletion, as the article demonstrates multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Therefore it meets WP:N. Walton Need some help? 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to... some other article, and trim heavyhandedly. Just because we can write about this based on extensive press coverage doesn't mean we necessarily should make it extensive enough to warrant an article of its own. We had an event; You can describe the event succinctly in a paragraph at most. We had implications; we can and should discuss those in context of the common Wikipedia criticisms and history, but just explaining what this thing lead to makes me Not Care. When we describe current events, we forget the idea that succinctness is gold. We're not a current news portal. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I really urge people who are !voting "Keep" here to consider the mergeability, especially if all you're concerned are the media visibility and importance of this topic. I think it's pretty clear that there's no question of notability and sourcing; however, take a good look at the article and ask yourself "do we really need yet another split off article about Wikipedia history?". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a major event in Wikipedia's history. If you are going to ask "Do we really need" questions, perhaps you might start with more pressing matters, such as, Do we really need an article on each of the 400 Simpsons episodes? Quatloo 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Essjay Controversy It is important in the history of Wikipedia but not notable in the wider world. A1octopus 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Clearly a notable topic. DickClarkMises 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Anything that gets major attention from the New York Times (as this did), and altered the view of a major website (I.E. Wikipedia), is very notable. I heard about this from several sources. The Star Tribune mentoined it, and so did the Signpost and Wikizine. THe times had an article on it, and of Course, the New Yorker had something on it. It's totally Notable. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but in Wikipedia:Essajay controversy like A1octopus. Essjay thing is very famous now so more ppl, especially Wikipedians are interested in this topic.--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not having a login, I won't vote - I know that's not the wikipedia way, but I just dropped by to comment on this via a link from a friend. I just wanted to say that I think it should be kept, as it can prove instructional for other users - "Verify your sources, because we don't want to go through this sort of a thing again. I'm sorry, nothing personal, we just can't afford something like that again." Or perhaps something that doesn't sound like it has potential for sarcasm - I lack the way with words I used to have. 69.109.185.239 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Amply covered by mainstream news, so I don't think there'd be any doubt that it meets WP:N if it hadn't involved Wikipedia. It joins Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Lee Siegel, Binjamin Wilkomirski, Laura Grabowski, Gerd Heidemann (of the Hitler Diaries), and Clifford Irving's fake Howard Hughes autobiography, as a cautionary tale of hoaxing. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good grief; passes WP:WEB indisputably. --Gwern (contribs) 03:21 4 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep - Prominent imposture. If we delete this we will be surely accused of hypocricy and hiding our mistakes - Skysmith 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the reasons already stated. It passes the test of notability, without question. --pIrish talk, contribs 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Slow news days does not make this notable. Only shows that the mainstream news still doesn't know what they're talking about (regarding Internet coverage), they just like to jump on whatever is "hot" at that moment. The moment has passed. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been a while since I've seen the "reliable sources are unreliable" arguement. I'll use only one example to counter the non-sensical "slow newsday" charge. When this story was in BBC News on March 6 [4], they also reported an extremely deadly earthquake in Indonesia.[5] Slow news day? --Oakshade 04:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess we'll have to make some amendments to WP:RS. How about: when citing an otherwise reliable source, one must check whether there were significant news stories occurring on that day. If not, then the source fails to be reliable, due to WP:SLOWNEWSDAY. I guess we'll need guidelines to objectively determine whether competing news stories are siginificant enough too. Well, let's get to it. --SubSeven 05:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Oakshade, where in my message did I say anything about reliable sources? Oh wait, that had nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.... My comment about slow news days was tongue-in-cheek, which apparently when over a few people's heads. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Ned Scott, "Only shows that the mainstream news still doesn't know what they're talking about ..." came accross as an attack on what WP considers reliable sources, ie "mainstream news." WP believes "mainstream news" to be reliable unless proven otherwise. --Oakshade 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That is not what I am saying. The news reported facts, but gave undue weight to the situation because they didn't know what they were talking about. They're so quick to jump on the idea of someone lieing on Wikipedia, even though it happens all the time. One report that was televised didn't even mention why it was a big deal (that he lied in debates or that he held a high position of access). My point is that just because someone reports something doesn't make it a real issue / notable / whatever. So again, while they can be used as a source, they are not always the full story and can give undue weight to a situation. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this article meets and far exceeds all of our inclusionary standards. Give it a rest. RFerreira 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage in mainstream press, and the incident is still being brought up. I was just at a conference a couple weeks ago, where "the Essjay thing" was mentioned as part of someone else's talk. The controversy was clearly notable. --Elonka 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia per Wafulz's comment. – Rianaऋ 07:11, 6 May 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.