This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 16 May 2007 (→[]: added to examples). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:38, 16 May 2007 by Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) (→[]: added to examples)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 as per nom. Questionable notability, and no proper sourcing. - TexasAndroid 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Take another look, two print sources have been added. Shsilver 00:19, 16 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)
- 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)
- 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)