Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Jagielski (2nd nomination)

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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Jagielski

Jim Jagielski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Article was previously deleted at AfD and nominated for deletion review. Deletion was not overturned, but a new draft in userspace was created with additional references. Consensus at deletion review was that new references improved article beyond qualification for CSD G4, but questions remained if the new references did indeed satisfy notability requirements. Conflict of interest issues may also be present. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, being chairman of the Apache Foundation board is good enough for me. Lankiveil (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep – Believe he has established notability as shown here [1]. Shoessss |  Chat  13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable and the article is referenced. Fosnez (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Might need some style editing still, but it's worth keeping. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, some of the refs are a bit mushy but article could be improved. Subject is notable as an important advocate for open source and running one of the most important open source orgs. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been reopened as it was closed early and (in the opinion of at least three administrators) in error by a non-administrator. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24 for further information. Daniel 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not beyond saving, and I think the subject is notable. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable individual with strong claims of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Do a little due diligence, guys... Anything more than a cursory examination of the "reliable" sources reveals the following (reposted from talk, from when AFD was inappropriately closed):

  The subject of the article has re-created this article (about himself!) with no reliable sources that establish any sort of notability, and a very clear conflict of interest in which the article serves to promote its subject rather than give any sort of encyclopaedic treatment. The largest claims to notability seperately (apache.org founder and Slashdot editor) are both tenuous at best -- they each seem to fail WP:N individually, and I just don't see how combining the two comes any closer to true encyclopaedic notability. Regarding WP:RS, the sources listed all fail... the first source is a self-published list in the subject's own web directory; the second source is a self-published usenet FAQ also by the subject himself. The third source is a self-published press release. The fourth source is a self-published Slashdot announcement. The final source is simply a list of the Apache BoD's.

Also, please read WP:SPS, which is directly on point: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the efforts of Blaxthos, which make a clear cut case that this is in contravention of our policies. Eusebeus (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am the current maintainer of the A/UX FAQ, and can attest to notability of the subject in regards to that. The current references may be deemed a bit "squishy" but they are all true. Being the lead member in a number of (mainly online) communities, a number of references may indeed seem "self-published"—he's the guy responsible for publishing for the community in which he is notable! I don't understand how this can be seen as a liability to the article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Just because he is notable within the A/UX community (or even in the open source community) does not mean that he automagically meets our requirements for inclusion in this encyclopedia. WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS all mandate delete. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  Then those policies are in error—insofar as they do not account for situations like this—as they do not reflect the reality of the internet age. I think it is quite clear that this person is worthy of note—if those references were from anywhere else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Just because the noteworthiness comes from segments that get little third-party coverage (hence necessitating self-publishing) is not a good reason to exclude him. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  Notability and existance of reliable sources are inseperable; a lack of reliable sources is indicative that a particular subject truely lacks objective notability (one outside of a particular niche (A/UX users, perhaps)). As time increases, the probability that WP:IAR will be invoked infinitely approaches 1. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. The lack of independent sources is a major problem. He does appear notable in a general sense but until that can be verified by citing independent sources, I think that deletion is the better course. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 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.