Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. The consensus is that the two events together push him over the WP:BLP1E threshold. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Knapp

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Justin Knapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Administrative listing (i.e. I have no opinion on the outcome). See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_20. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC, I do not feel BLP1E is applicable here. I believe that a million edits on Wikipedia is more akin to a body of work (such as that of an artist, like myself) than a single event. Knapp's millionth edit may have been an event, but the million edits as a whole are something entirely different, and I find the sourcing to focus on the latter, not the former. A single example: Many articles discuss the range of topics Knapp edits in, none that I saw says what the topic of the 1,000,000th edit was. I came across this argument at the previous DRV, looked into the sources involved, and find it compelling. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly not "a single event". Might change my stance if other editors equalled this feat. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's not the only guy with more than a million edits. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason(s) are not clearly articulated here. If the nominator can't be bothered to summarise and state a reason to delete then the proposal should be summarily dismissed. The alternative is that we start to guess at reasons to delete and then rebut a variety of straw men and other red herrings. You then get a train-wreck discussion and that's exactly what we don't want here as it will not establish a clear consensus. For example, my view is that the main reason people want to delete this is petty jealousy of a rival Wikipedian. This is a poor reason which seems contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. Do we really want to go there...? Andrew (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a DRV, the closer sometimes decides the best answer is to relist at AfD. In this case they should present both sides of the argument neutrally and the simplest way to do that is to link the preceding discussion so we can read it for ourselves. Making the closer summarise these arguments creates an awful lot of work for them just to save us a click, don't you think?—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well. If you go to DRV now, you find that the discussion has been closed up but the closer's summary provides no details of the supposed reason(s) to delete. Relisting is supposed to attract attention from other editors, so that we don't just repeat what's been said already. These new editors should not be expected to unearth and analyze the content of previous discussions. That's the job of the closer(s) who are expected summarise the discussions. If they have provided proper summaries then it should be no great labour to put the relevant reasons here too. Absent such clear terms of reference, this discussion will otherwise ramble. For example, I notice that the subject is rather beardy, unlike other prolific Wikipedians such as Simon Pulsifer or James Heilman. Perhaps pogonophobia is the issue here, as recently noticed by Jeremy Paxman? Tsk. Andrew (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Indeed, now the truth is out! Who's next, one wonders. But has James H. had an emergency de-whiskering? Having just watched that video clip of my arch ink-blot rival, however, I now see how immensely reasonable and likeable he is. Should WMF be sending out branded razors instead of t-shirts?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC) ... now we know[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:N and I don't believe we've one event here--rather an extended effort which was recognized for passing a milestone. That's not an event IMO. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is what I call a "fake AFD", with no person actually making a case that the article should be deleted. This is the first i've seen coming from DRV. Others come sometimes when an editor wants to develop a topic, and wants insurance that it will be kept, and nominates own topic. To pre-empt legitimate concern that community might or might not have later. This is also a waste of AFD attention. We ought to change guidelines somewhere to disallow these. --doncram 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As before, straight WP:BLP1E, a position not refuted by "meets WP:N" and the like. We've already established that the subject appears in reliable sources, but 1E is the exception that allows us to disregard that. "Keep he's notable!" is a failing argument here, which is why the article was deleted i nthe first place, and should be deleted again. News blips for being a prolific editor on a website is the event, and the only reason that this is getting more attention than normal around here is because of knee-jerk navel-gazing. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I gave this considerable thought during the drv. His second "event"; addressing the United Nations, adds to his first event, making it a solid two. Reliable sources verify the events, and satisfy wp:gng.—John Cline (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The use of BLP 1E in this instance is wrong. Being engaged in a continuing activity of years is not an event, but a career or an avocation,and a person can be notable for either. If he had contributed only one article here, which had attracted notice, that could reasonably regard as one-event. 1E is best seen as an extension of NOT TABLOID to those events covered by respectable sources-- the victim of an accident, for example. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the crux is whether or not he is notable as a Wikipedian per se. I do not think he is, at least per the "significant coverage". Instead, he is "notable" only for his million edits and that allows for a valid invoking of 1E. So far the sources aren't interested about his articles or what else he does on Wikipedia. The thing of note is only the millionth edit achievement. Compare the depth of coverage to that of the other (deservedly) "notable" Wikipedians like Sue Gardner or Jimmy Wales. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationales of User:Joe Decker, User:John Cline and User:DGG above. NorthAmerica1000 07:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment because I was pinged. I can see perfectly good reasons why some people think we should not have articles like this but to me the BLP1E argument seems absurd. I wish we could be more straightforward and say things like "delete – I don't think this is a suitable topic". On the whole I think we should keep this article but I don't feel strongly enough to !vote. Thincat (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete United Nations source is a "passing by" mention and is not enough to substantiate notability. Did it attract coverage from other media outlets? Nope. The rest are just repeated mentions of the same thing. I personally think that the one million edit thing might be a wonderful achievement in WikiLand, but from a non-Wikipedian's perspective it probably is just a trivial, non-impactful matter. Definitely no long lasting impact. Kill a million people, yes. Write a million books, of course. But make a million edits? A bot could too that as well. The article also fails to have much biographical focus for a BLP. 82% of the page talks about Wikipedia and Wikipedia. Early life (only an uncited birthdate)? Professional job (oh wait)? These are what a BLP should rightfully entail, at the very least. With all respect to the man, it's a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. As a weaker alternative, I suggest making a small mention at the appropriate History of Wikipedia. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did it take place? Events happen *: A misguided and feeble test I know, but "Justin Knapp" + "Wikipedia" => 14,700 Google search hits. ("Justin Knapp" on his own gets 29,400.) And I'm not sure gaps in a BLP article are ever a valid reason for deletion? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

"Bonkers The Clown" gets 216,000. Wanna compete? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks! I get only 54,100. But he's available for childrens' parties, apparently Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question For those arguing "one event": if it is a single event, on which day or small number of adjacent days did it take place? Events happen at a defined time. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the existence of multiple, good-quality sources for a notable subject. A recent academic source has popped up as well, title = Common Knowledge? : An Ethnography of Wikipedia; author= Dariusz Jemielniak; page=230; publisher = Stanford University Press; date = 05/2014; ISBN= 9780804789448. Perhaps someone with more interest in the article can make use of it. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter that the subject made 1 million edits, or that someone else has made more edits, or that someone might have more hits on your favorite search engine. What matters is that independent, reliable sources (the Telegraph, Indianapolis Monthly, et al) have decided the subject is notable by publishing articles. Dictioneer (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The person does appear to pass WP:N with significant coverage from reliable sources. Don't see how 1E applies to years of work and edits. --Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty straightforward case of WP:BLP1E, which makes the fact he meets the GNG irrelevant. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
What and when was the one event that makes WP:BLP1E apply?--Oakshade (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't address the BLP1E issue in my previous post because I thought other posters had made a good case as to why BLP1E didn't apply. However, since there seems to be some misunderstanding of the subtleties of the policy (it seems like mostly commonsense interpretations are being applied), please consider the following quote from the BLP1E: 'The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.' (emphasis added) I think multiple reliable sources covering the subject over a period of more than two years, including a reference in a newly released academic book, means that BLP1E is not applicable. Dictioneer (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think many editors believe WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are synonymous shortcuts to the same editing policy/guideline; they are not. BLP1E is specifically in place to protect and support a presumption in favor of privacy. BLP1E itself says: "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E). Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Justin Knapp has removed any need for a "presumption in favor of privacy" by his overt public appearances and granting of interviews. BLP1E should be "off the table" and every call for deletion which cites it should be discounted as uninformed. BIO1E, on the other hand, would at least be the relevant guideline to debate, but no one has cited a reason to delete under its tenets; offering nothing to debate.—John Cline (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Knapp_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1143397884"