Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/James D. Nicoll (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:32, 16 May 2007 editCabalamat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,528 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 21:43, 16 May 2007 edit undoAndrew Gray (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,899 edits →[]Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
***Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where the general guidelines in ] simply don't match up with reality. It is certainly true that a Usenet article (being effectively self-published and not subject to any sort of authentication as to their source) should not be given much weight as a source of facts; it is however a legitimate source of the statements of its author (even if we can't be certain that the author is who the From header claims). In this case, the long-established posting history of the subject weighs rather heavily on the opposite side of the scales, and we can be reasonably certain that all those articles were in fact written by the same person -- and if that person is notable, then these primary-source materials are likely to be the best source. (They are certainly verifiable, as long as Google and others maintain archives of the newsgroups in question, given that each article's unique Message-ID is included in the citation. One need not be able to verify the real-world-identity of a Usenet poster to have confidence in the continuity of the Usenet-identity, and from the latter it is legitimate to draw uncontroversial inferences about the former.) ] 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC) ***Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where the general guidelines in ] simply don't match up with reality. It is certainly true that a Usenet article (being effectively self-published and not subject to any sort of authentication as to their source) should not be given much weight as a source of facts; it is however a legitimate source of the statements of its author (even if we can't be certain that the author is who the From header claims). In this case, the long-established posting history of the subject weighs rather heavily on the opposite side of the scales, and we can be reasonably certain that all those articles were in fact written by the same person -- and if that person is notable, then these primary-source materials are likely to be the best source. (They are certainly verifiable, as long as Google and others maintain archives of the newsgroups in question, given that each article's unique Message-ID is included in the citation. One need not be able to verify the real-world-identity of a Usenet poster to have confidence in the continuity of the Usenet-identity, and from the latter it is legitimate to draw uncontroversial inferences about the former.) ] 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
***Alkivar, the page you quote clearly notes at the top (emphasis mine): "This page provides examples of what editors on Misplaced Pages assess to be a reliable source. '''The advice is not, and cannot be, comprehensive''', and should be used primarily to inform discussion in an article talk page with respect to sources. '''Exceptions can potentially be made'''; however, these should be avoided. Use common sense when reaching a collaborative conclusion." ] also notes circumstances in which "self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability" are acceptable, and those circumstances seem to fit most of the Usenet/LJ/etc cites under discussion here. --] 05:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC) ***Alkivar, the page you quote clearly notes at the top (emphasis mine): "This page provides examples of what editors on Misplaced Pages assess to be a reliable source. '''The advice is not, and cannot be, comprehensive''', and should be used primarily to inform discussion in an article talk page with respect to sources. '''Exceptions can potentially be made'''; however, these should be avoided. Use common sense when reaching a collaborative conclusion." ] also notes circumstances in which "self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability" are acceptable, and those circumstances seem to fit most of the Usenet/LJ/etc cites under discussion here. --] 05:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
***It is both meaningless and inaccurate to state that Usenet is absolutely not a reliable source; it was wrong when someone originally asserted it in that page, and it has not become better with time. Usenet is a medium, not a publication; is perfectly reliable for sourcing individual posts with a known author as statements by that person, and it is, generally speaking, less likely that a given was faked in their name than it would be for a letter in a newspaper. What Usenet is ''not'' usable for is any kind of bulk inferences, any "much discussion has revolved around" or "popular believe is that" material, but this is not relevant here.
***As such, with Usenet sources, we should not be considering the "publication" as a whole as we would with, say, reliable/unreliable newspapers; we should be considering the context and the author. And why, specifically, are these cites unreliable? ] | ] | 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. ], ] and associated policies are important, and that is ''precisely'' why we should not bring them into disrepute by using them to nickel-and-dime uncontroversial material out of an article before deleting it for lack of content. When somebody who is best-known from Usenet posts on Usenet indicating ''his own birthday'', and has no obvious reason to lie about it, is excessive zeal. Compare to ], ], ], and many other articles - each of which get more scrutiny in a day than Nicoll's has in its entire existence - and yet begin with uncited birthdates. The reason those birthdates have stood without being challenged is not that their editors are sloppy, it's that they understand that enough bludgeoning with the policy stick can kill ''any'' article. --] 02:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. ], ] and associated policies are important, and that is ''precisely'' why we should not bring them into disrepute by using them to nickel-and-dime uncontroversial material out of an article before deleting it for lack of content. When somebody who is best-known from Usenet posts on Usenet indicating ''his own birthday'', and has no obvious reason to lie about it, is excessive zeal. Compare to ], ], ], and many other articles - each of which get more scrutiny in a day than Nicoll's has in its entire existence - and yet begin with uncited birthdates. The reason those birthdates have stood without being challenged is not that their editors are sloppy, it's that they understand that enough bludgeoning with the policy stick can kill ''any'' article. --] 02:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. This is a small article, but a valid one. ] 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. This is a small article, but a valid one. ] 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:43, 16 May 2007

James D. Nicoll

James D. Nicoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (1st AfD)

It amazes me still that this article was able to skirt our WP:BLP policies so conveniently just 5 months ago, but try as I might, I cannot locate any non-trivial third party coverage of this person. Right now the article is pulling sources from Usenet, LiveJournal, and a couple different mailing lists depending on what time of the week you view the page. That is just unacceptable and fails WP:A policy as well. Burntsauce 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, totally lacks proper sourcing according to WP:V, WP:A. Knowing of him from Usenet and thinking he's a good guy does not mean he's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:BLP policies are not optional at this point. Xihr 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep At first glance I'd say delete, but trying to make an informed decision I was trying to figure out the history of this article and gave up. There seems to be too many people who are set on changing things on it without discussing it on the talk page (including the nom). Besides that, it already passed an Afd consensus once and, based on the history of the article, don't want to take the time to try and figure out if the nom even nominated it correctly or if it should have been put up for review. Theophilus75 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you please provide reasoning based on Misplaced Pages policy? If you're not willing to make an informed decision that takes policy into consideration, I imagine that the closing administrator would most likely discount your comments as meaningless fluff.  ;-) RFerreira 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Specifically I'm not sure that this article has been allowed to be worked on without someone participating in in an overzealous attempt at forcing people to comply with a militant view of WP:V even when the info is not challenged or likely to be challenged, while totally ignoring WP:IAR. Additionally due to extensive tendentious editing I got tired of sorting through the article history trying to figure out if the article was properly Afd'd or if it should have been put up for review. Theophilus75 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It seems that he is a notable book reviewer. But he does it in ways that do not get documented by ordinary sources. By our rules someone has to write a published article on rec.arts.sf and its daughter lists. But we know just as much about them now, & I'd accept the usenet groups as the actual main source. I do not think BLP affects this, because we are not reporting on his personal life or any controversy. He published what he published. "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced." None of this is. DGG 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete while there are some facts pointing to the guy being notable... theres not enough to make him pass WP:BIO. Most of the sources arent reliable. Until there are more sources provided verifiability isnt proven.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If anyone has established notability solely on the basis of their Usenet presence, Nicoll would be such a person. That aside, I do not understand what particular misunderstanding has caused editors now twice to delete the quotation from which Nicoll's outside-of-Usenet-and-fandom notability arises, which was cited to its primary source. To repeat: this quotation, with its history of misattribution, is what makes Nicoll notable in the world at large; to delete it is to remove the article's reason for existing. The sources are what they are, as difficult as this may be; as DGG notes, there is very little published information about Nicoll beyond that which he himself has written and published, so if this article stands (as I believe it should), one must accept Nicoll's own writing as the principal source for most of the relevant details. 121a0012 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point and all... but you missed something big... Usenet != reliable source. Primary sources as you mentioned also unfortunately are not considered acceptable as the only source of backup to statements.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where the general guidelines in WP:RS simply don't match up with reality. It is certainly true that a Usenet article (being effectively self-published and not subject to any sort of authentication as to their source) should not be given much weight as a source of facts; it is however a legitimate source of the statements of its author (even if we can't be certain that the author is who the From header claims). In this case, the long-established posting history of the subject weighs rather heavily on the opposite side of the scales, and we can be reasonably certain that all those articles were in fact written by the same person -- and if that person is notable, then these primary-source materials are likely to be the best source. (They are certainly verifiable, as long as Google and others maintain archives of the newsgroups in question, given that each article's unique Message-ID is included in the citation. One need not be able to verify the real-world-identity of a Usenet poster to have confidence in the continuity of the Usenet-identity, and from the latter it is legitimate to draw uncontroversial inferences about the former.) 121a0012 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Alkivar, the page you quote clearly notes at the top (emphasis mine): "This page provides examples of what editors on Misplaced Pages assess to be a reliable source. The advice is not, and cannot be, comprehensive, and should be used primarily to inform discussion in an article talk page with respect to sources. Exceptions can potentially be made; however, these should be avoided. Use common sense when reaching a collaborative conclusion." WP:V also notes circumstances in which "self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability" are acceptable, and those circumstances seem to fit most of the Usenet/LJ/etc cites under discussion here. --Calair 05:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It is both meaningless and inaccurate to state that Usenet is absolutely not a reliable source; it was wrong when someone originally asserted it in that page, and it has not become better with time. Usenet is a medium, not a publication; is perfectly reliable for sourcing individual posts with a known author as statements by that person, and it is, generally speaking, less likely that a given was faked in their name than it would be for a letter in a newspaper. What Usenet is not usable for is any kind of bulk inferences, any "much discussion has revolved around" or "popular believe is that" material, but this is not relevant here.
      • As such, with Usenet sources, we should not be considering the "publication" as a whole as we would with, say, reliable/unreliable newspapers; we should be considering the context and the author. And why, specifically, are these cites unreliable? Shimgray | talk | 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:BLP, WP:V and associated policies are important, and that is precisely why we should not bring them into disrepute by using them to nickel-and-dime uncontroversial material out of an article before deleting it for lack of content. When somebody who is best-known from Usenet posts on Usenet indicating his own birthday, and has no obvious reason to lie about it, rejecting that as a citation and tagging it with factneeded is excessive zeal. Compare to Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Albert Einstein, and many other articles - each of which get more scrutiny in a day than Nicoll's has in its entire existence - and yet begin with uncited birthdates. The reason those birthdates have stood without being challenged is not that their editors are sloppy, it's that they understand that enough bludgeoning with the policy stick can kill any article. --Calair 02:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a small article, but a valid one. DS 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (Overriding?) Keep. Charles Stross, Jeremy Smith and Richard Lederer refer to this bloke, apparently. 2 of those are notable enough to have their own articles. I think this destroys the not-notable argument outright. --Kim Bruning 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Kim notability isnt at question here... the fact that there are no reliable sources to back any of the data in this biography is.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I also accept Usenet as a reliable source, under certain circumstances (specifically in this case, in situations to do with usenet itself). This seems to be one such circumstance. (specifically in this case, in situations to do with usenet itself). --Kim Bruning 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Added when usenet can be reliable to examples. (also, I missed the rfc editor, so added them too :-) ) --Kim Bruning 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. What, we need to delete this or there's no room in Misplaced Pages for other articles?. This sort of prissy attitude is what's killing Misplaced Pages, man. --Martin Wisse 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and lack of non-trivial third party sources, article fails WP:BIO and verifiability standards, and miserably at that. RFerreira 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no significant secondary sources. Lacks notability by any reasonble measure. Quatloo 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. People are capable of being notable personalities within the Usenet sphere, and this is definitely one of them. If the article has structural problems then fix them in some way other than AfD.. Bryan Derksen 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Usenet post saying "The Earth is flat" is not a reliable source for the Earth being flat, but the original Usenet post saying "The problem with defending..." is certainly a reliable source for the origin of the quotation in question. It is, in fact, the only possible reliable source. That quotation alone, and the question of its attribution, are deserving of an article; the Nicoll Pledge is likewise of unique importance within SF fandom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeborah (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Didn't we go through this already? -- Metahacker 13:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Spikebrennan 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because this sort of article is useful to me. I find myself strongly at variance with what seems to be emerging Misplaced Pages policy -- you guys are ruining everything that's good about Misplaced Pages, and keeping only the parts I can find anywhere. James is somebody people will need to look up and learn about, and his original articles on Usenet are in fact the ultimate published source. Dd-b 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above and as per the previous AfD debate. Also I would like to note that merely because the notability is regarding Internet presence that notability should not be discounted; after all, Misplaced Pages itself is an Internet presence. -- Anton P. Nym 216.191.213.114 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Dd-b, this is a microcosm of all the problems the deletionist tendency is causing. And as per Theophilus75 WP:IAR applies in spades. --Bth 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons Martin Wisse gave. Personally, I think deletionists should go get their own wiki-based encyclopedia, which would, appropriately, be empty. -- Cabalamat 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories: