Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Möller (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:07Z

Erik Möller

edit
Erik Möller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The secretary of a charitable not-for-profit company, who once self-published his own non-notable book. Of course, expect a wave of 'keep' votes as this is the exec secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation! If Moeller were on the board of trustees of any other NPC, the article would have been deleted within five minutes of creation. We should be striving to avoid self reference, not ignore our own policy because the NPC this guy is secretary for happens to be the one that is behind Wikipedia. If anything, we should have higher standards. Please, look beyond the fact that this man is an editor of Wikipedia, and consider that whether or not you believe the assertions of notability - secretary for a charitable not-for-profit company, and a book that appears nowhere except for buried in a website for the German National Library (not bookstores, not amazon, nothing). note, it's on amazon.de The article has been deleted in a previously AFD found here, but was recreated after Moeller attained the secretary post, and despite being tempted (as it's not significantly different from before) to delete it under CSD G4, I brought it here instead. Applicable policies seem to be WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:ASR. Strong delete, as I don't believe this article would exist if Moeller were secretary of any group other than Wikipedia, and so is a clear pooping all over avoid self reference. Proto::► 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 74,000 (though only 269 of first 1,000 unique) Google hits for "Erik Möller"+Wikimedia, but so many of the hits are for Wikimedia-related sites (i.e. Wikipedia user pages of various languages) that I can't sift through them to see if there's any notability asserted by outside sources. -- Kicking222 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for not G4ing it. I'm going with keep as one of those WP:BIO "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" situaitons. It may be a borderline (or blatant) self-reference, but it's not really self-referential, which is what WP:ASR is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikimedia is not "any other NPC", but a fairly significant one. It's not a self-reference; any secretary of a similarly significant NPC should be kept as well. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, I get over 20,000 Google hits for the book title, and it is on Amazon [1]. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll hold my hands up, I didn't look on amazon.de. Proto::► 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although my feelings here are quite mixed, I think it ought to observed (which observation Bramlet himself probably makes) that the proposition of Proto that this article would exist if Moeller were secretary of any group other than Wikipedia and that of Bramlet that any secretary of a similarly significant NPC should be kept as well need not to be understood as contradistinct; it is quite possible that the Möller article exists principally because of our knowledge of and familiarity with him but that an article about any similarly-situated secretary/board member ought to exist as well. I wonder whether it might be useful to remember the oft-repeated injunction of Monicasdude that the absence of articles apropos of a given topic ought not to be construed as evidence of the non-notability of such topic (I recognize, though, that Proto doesn't make such argument here, but others may). Joe 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The interview seems good, so I'm neutral now. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless outside sources are provided to show notability which we could use to write a verified, NPOV article about him or his publications. A Lexis-Nexis search shows exactly one result: a single quote from him in the NYT. The Wikipedia article links to "Works by and about" him -- but no, it's only 2 works by him. We need works about him or his publications. Pan Dan 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Precedent established in the AfDs of other board members. 1ne 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A precedent is not always correct, plus it's not exactly the same situation. The other board member articles (and note Brad Patrick became a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation) assert notability, due to mentions of the subject in reliable media sources etc - this does not. Proto::► 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A precedent isn't always correct. I never said it was. 1ne 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto's well made points. Eusebeus 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am tending towards deletion because I cannot find any reliable third party sources indicating notability. If those could be found, I would favour retention. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet Professor test. Wikipedia is no more or less notable than anything else on its own. Just H 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found some other press on him - [2] - and this New York Times article about Wikinews (with a gigantic photo of Jimmy Wales) cites Mr. Möller and his concerns about the project in the middle of the article [3]. He appears notable enough for inclusion. --Oakshade 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Theser are not articles about him - these are articles about Wikinews and/or Wikimedia, not Erik Moller, containing only passing mentions of him. Proto::► 09:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's in most of the first one and quoted throughout most of it, not a "passing mention". I trust editors read them and judge for themselves. --Oakshade 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. The substantive content of the article is already included there, and so a redirect is more useful than a redlink. Should Möller become independantly notable through his actions or publications at a later time, the article may be split back off. Serpent's Choice 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above - it's almost all there in one shape or another. SkierRMH 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Executive Secretary role is largely irrelevant in practice; it's the Board member role which I spend most of my volunteer time on. By now we have 7 Board members and we'll probably have 9 soon, so being a Board member of the Wikimedia Foundation is no longer as significant as it used to be e.g. when Angela and Florence were elected to the Board. NB: This is all volunteer work. And yeah, my book is available in stores of course, but its total print run so far (two editions) is only 4,000 copies.--Eloquence* 09:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As he is not the primary subject of any of the news coverage found. He is a primary source for one piece, but that is different from being the primary subject. And WP:BIO says that we need coverage wherein the individual is the primary subject. GRBerry 02:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That appears to be splitting hairs in attempt to discredit his interview. That almost the entire article is him being interviewed makes him the subject of it. I'm beginning to wonder if ther's an unspoken agenda in deleting this article. --Oakshade 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the criteria requires coverage about the subject for a reason. The article is supposed to be about the subject, and coverage about the subject lets us write an article about them. (I'm sure this is discussed somewhere in the archived history of WP:BIO's talk pages, but WP:BIO was established before I became an editor. It is also visible in essays like Uncle G's one on notability and WP:INDY.) A publication where they are a source lets write an article about whatever they are talking about, assuming that they are a decent source. (Being a decent source discussed at WP:NPOV and WP:RS among other places). GRBerry 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this interview, the subject is he and what he has to say, not just what he has to say. If he wasn't there, there would be no article. I've never seen a reference attacked like this. I'm suspecting something else here. --Oakshade 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Mr. Möller is a great contributor, but I have not been able to find sufficient news coverage to justify an independent article.-- danntm T C 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Serpent's Choice and Danntm above. Chick Bowen 05:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep his books (see [4]) and his position as a board member are both not enough by themselves, but together they pass the bar in my view. I would not strongly object to a redirect untill and unless more independent, non-trivial coverage is found, but would be just as happy (or happier) with a full article. Eluchil404 09:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've written one book (which appeared in two editions). The other hits you get are either articles I wrote for Telepolis and c't, citations, or works by a different person.--Eloquence* 11:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the detail; I did understand the results for the most part (though I didn't realize the top two hits were different editions of one book), but I couldn't find a better way to filter them. While the book and articles don't appear to meet WP:PROF for academic notability, they are enough, IMHO, to make your notability broader than just the Board membership and thus worth more than a redirect. Eluchil404 13:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also thought I should mention that the book is held by three college libraries in addition to the German National Library[5]. Certainly its obscure but not quite as obscure as implied by the nomination. Eluchil404 13:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the decision makers at the world's most important source of information. That alone is sufficient, but there are also enough press mentions and personal accomplishments to justify an article. It would be nice if we had bios on the board members of every corporation/public organization worldwide. That will take time, but for now there is nothing in WP:ASR that precludes this type of article. Wikipedia has nothing to be afraid of. Our standards are fine, the problem is getting people to write/edit articles (as opposed to longwinded AFD nominations + comments and other assorted blah blah). --JJay 13:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per arguments above. --SandyDancer 01:27, 24 December 2006 (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/Erik_Möller_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1090685623"