Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer 2

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Pulsifer

non-notable Wikipedian hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous AfD here.--Konstable 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Though the result of the recent AfD was keep I am not convinced of notability and I think it had a great deal of bias towards Simon just because he is a prominent Wikipedian.--Konstable 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is somewhat of a nuisance VfD given that the previous one was only about 4 months ago and nothing has changed much, see previous VfD for reasons why it should be kept. -- Stbalbach 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps the only Wikipedian who automatically deserves an article. CJCurrie 04:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Editing Wikipedia a lot does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article. Adam Bishop 04:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. But that is not why M. Pulsifer has an article. Xe has an article because, as a consequence of xyr editing Wikipedia a lot, journalists went out and interviewed and researched xem. In other words, xe is demonstrably notable because xe was noted. That the case for very few Wikipedians. Uncle G 18:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Who is Xe? What does Xyrael have to do with this? —Centrx→talk • 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Your question is a non-sequitur that does not appear to be related to what I wrote above. Uncle G 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Hope this helps. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This discussion will never ever end. He has garnered a decent amount of coverage for his editing[1], I think he need to realize just because it involves Wikipedia, doesn't mean we should immedially remove it in fear of self reference or appearing to be hypocritical (that is a much different, and interesting debate). Honestly, he has been covered by sources which seem about reliable enough to just cover WP:BIO. Yanksox 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or you know, send to the Canadian-language wikipedia, unless it's being deleted like the Czech one. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The Czech Wikipedia is not being deleted. Nor has any such deletion ever been proposed as far as I am aware. Uncle G 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that Mister Manticore is referring to this.--Húsönd 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That's the deletion discussion for an encyclopaedia article, not a deletion discussion for the Czech Wikipedia. I already linked to where the deletion discussions for Wikipedias are in fact to be found. Uncle G 18:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Yanksox. GreenJoe 04:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep I don't think editing Wikipedia makes you even mildly notable, but he has been mentioned in several magazines/websites. I don't think he deserves an article though. TJ Spyke 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, flash-in-the-pan media coverage does not indicate any sort of long term significance. In a year or two, no one will care (no offense to Simon).--SB | T 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sean, we can say that about nearly 2 to 3 fifths of all the subjects that have a Wikipedia entry. It's really difficult to gauge how big or noticed something will be further down the line. Yanksox 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. There was media coverage a few months ago, and that's it. It stopped. If we covered everything that got a smattering of newspaper articles, we'd have thousands of articles on moose who wandered into parks and criminals who forget to take the money when holding up convience stores.--SB | T 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Sean, alot of things gain coverage and then quickly fade away from the public eye. Just because people's attention spans suddenly put that event or person on the backburner does not mean that we just toss aside the subject as well because that's what the fashion tells us to do so. Honestly, some people or things are highly talked about and then almost fade away before our own eyes. You would have a hardtime deleting articles about anything that was part of non-stop talk and now suddenly noone cares about it. That would be utterly ridiculous. Yanksox 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Media coverage of Simon P has been ongoing since 2004 I believe (perhaps even earlier). Search on google news or other archives. -- Stbalbach 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't see how any of this is relevant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Adam Bishop 14:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • A lot of articles on Wikipedia are about people whose only notability is that they were in the press. John Mark Karr for example. He made a false confession, but so have many other people. He committed some minor crimes, but so have a lot of other people. The only reason he has a Wikipedia article is there was a lot of press attention around him. -- Stbalbach 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
              • "For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever, since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come." (Ecclesiastes 2:16) I'm not sure what point I'm making with that, but the conversation made me think of it. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Thanks. I'm partial to Boethius "One thing is fixed, by eternal law arranged; Nothing which comes to be remains unchanged." and "Does bare acquaintance with illustrious names alone, Impart real knowledge of the dead?" -- No doubt that in 2 or 3 years if nothing has changed this article will be more easily VfD'd. -- Stbalbach 20:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Normaly a heavy editor would not be notable enough to warrant their won article but in this case, with the media coverage and the role he played in brining attention from the general population to wikipedia makes this case diffrent. NeoFreak 07:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. Punkmorten 08:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep We must be very, very, very careful about articlespace pages for wikipedia editors: it's an extremely slippery slope indeed. However, SimonP is active enough that he's actually gotten some attention in the press for it, so at least the article is notable and verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think there is confusion between notability as a prolific Wikipedia editor, and notable as someone who has received a lot of public attention. Of course, no one is notable for being a Wikipedia editor - in that case, we should all have our own article. The article is notable because of the amount of public attention paid to Simon P - this attention is notable and unique among Wikipedia editors. He has become the public face, the human interest story of the project. As far as I know there is no other editor so often mentioned in the press. -- Stbalbach 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and referenced Wikipedian.--Húsönd 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NeoFreak - Jord 18:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SB JeffBurdges 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep While, with all respect to SimonP, it may seem suspect that his notability comes from editing this very wikipedia, the article has been sourced to reliable sources. I'm afraid it squeaks by.-- danntm T C 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I mean no harm or offense to Simon, but his only claim to fame (or more accurately, notability) is being the subject of a trivial slow-news-day article (because Wikipedia is a hot topic). Other than that, there's really no claim to fame. Now, if a town erected a building or a statue of him, or got really pissed off at him, maybe then there could be a claim to notability. But until then... this is MessedRocker. 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and you know why? Try this simple test: replace the word Wikipedia and its variants with widget. In other words, don't let your opinions on the endeavor itself shade your opinion--just go by the degree of media attention as a qualifier. Does it meet notability? In my book, it does. I understand the desire to be cautious of Wikipedians achieving notability AS Wikipedians, but it can happen. And it has. P L E A T H E R talk 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO, keep per Yanksox and others. Agent 86 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite seeming not notable, he certainly seems to meet WP:BIO and has received significant national media attention. -- Chabuk 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the few very notable wikipedia editors. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, a very notable Wikipedian with many press articles written about him. --Jannex 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per notable press coverage. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: 'nuff said (per above). Ombudsman 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- media reports take this one over the line for inclusion. - Longhair\talk 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Repeating for the benefit of those who are confusing prominence within the Wikipedia community for notability that he is notable for coverage by established media sources, not for being a Wikipedia editor. He could collect moss and, if Globe & Mail and MacLean's wrote profiles about him doing that, he would still fall across the line into notability. - BT 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the subject is notable and meets WP:BIO, what more do you want. RFerreira 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon in the news

Simon's mention in the press, the article doesn't cover it all:

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.