Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (4th nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (3rd nomination))
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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer

edit
AfDs for this article:
Simon Pulsifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As Wikipedia's popularity grew, more and more newspapers and other media outlets wanted to write pieces about the site. Using a common tool, the profile piece, they picked a random "high profile" editor on the site and talked not only about Wikipedia but also focused on the editor himself, to give the article a more "personal touch." This is a pretty standard journalism practice.

Subsequently, editors created an entry on the editor, claiming that he is notable due to his coverage in various newspapers for being a Wikipedia editor. Quite simply, this article does not meet our accepted standards for inclusion. The subject is notable for one item: editing Wikipedia. He wasn't a founder of Wikipedia or a member of the Board or anything like that, he was just a regular editor / admin who was featured in news stories during Wikipedia's growth.

Similar to the recent David Gerrard article debate, this article doesn't cut the mustard due to its surrounding facts. For background, Gerrard acts as Wikimedia's spokesperson and has frequently been cited in the press in articles about Wikipedia / Wikimedia. Like Pulsifer, that does not mean that Gerrard himself is notable.

I believe it is time that we delete this article and I hope that the community agrees. After eight years, it's time to start re-examining some of our entries to determine whether they truly meet our inclusion guidelines and whether we want to be creating a free online encyclopedia that contain entries like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Unlike Gerard, Pulsifer is the subject of the sources. It may be a journalistic touch, but it passes the GNG nonetheless. Whether it passes BLP1E... I think it may, just. Sceptre (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable as an early public face for Wikipedia, and as Sceptre points out, he actually was the primary subject of several news articles. In addition, the article was unanimously kept in late November. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, there is no lasting encyclopedic notability to be seen here. JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, like last time, no new reason has been presented for why this person is not notable. Given the coverage given to this person, he passes WP:N and WP:BIO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pulsifer is the subject of multiple publications which makes him notable through WP:GNG. The reason he's known for one thing only seems to imply the nominator wants to invoke WP:ONEEVENT, but that is supposed to be applied for single events, not long term stuff. (If someone is known for his role in one film, you wouldn't invoke that rule either), it was specifically designed for victims of crimes, trivial coverage and copied coverage between publications. - Mgm|(talk) 12:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Looking at the name, I knew it looked familiar, then checking through the past afd's i realized i'd voted keep in the previous one, which was little over a month ago. (That's not my argument for keep btw, the following is.) Fact is, notability is clearly established by the references in the article. There really isn't much else that needs be said. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ultimately he is NOT the subject of many published sources, wikipedia is. He's just the media's chosen case study. Perhaps merge the article into soem article on wikipedia and the media. The bottom line is that he's not famous, and whatever he goes on to do next is not encyclopedic by virtue of it being him. Thus he should not have an article. He's less that BLP1E - he's "BLP1Case study"--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Pulsifier isn't notable for events outside of Wikipedia, and anything covered in the article refers to the exclusivity of the user as a "high-profile editor", which at the time must've been rare for such reporting. Additionally, as Scott correctly states above, it appears that the editor is only referred to as notable in the context of him being an administrator early on in Wikipedia; not forgetting that BLP1E hasn't been fulfilled in this instance – "the fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry". Caulde 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is slightly ridiculous. This is a "human interest story" and despite the usual mantra that "notability is not temporary", yes it bloody is. The article is totally unencyclopedic as it stands. That SimonP was at one time in Time might be a fact worth recording in an article on wikipedia and wikipedians in general, however it does not mean the subject should have a biography. Will those arguing to keep this please read the damn thing, and consider a) chances are that Simon will never again feature in the media - there's no reason to believe there will be any continuing interest in him. So, if articles are not temporary, you will have a bio that will be unchanged in 40 years. "His mother, Diana Pepall, works at the Ottawa Public Library, acting as manager of collection development services. His younger brother, Andrew, was a member of the Ottawa area band, Place, before leaving for the Toronto scene." Even today, we've no way of verifying whether that continues to be true (unless we do OR and trudge through staff directories), and it is not encyclopedic anyway. Since passing media interest is our only source, the "biography" will never be completed or updated. The fact is that single incidents or news cycles where they give no lasting fame to the person should NOT merit articles (hence BLP1E) NOT simply because the subject isn't notable but because the article cannot ever be a biography - there are no sources to complete it or update it. His appearance in Time may be notable - so record that by merging to "Wikipedia in the Media" or somesuch.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "the chances are". The point stands, due to the lack of continuing sources, some of the information currently in the article may well be wrong already, and we have no way of checking or maintaining the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always date the problematic statements. (E.g., As of 2006, Pulsifer's mother...) Or just remove anything that seems like it might be out of date. I think most of the article can stay as it is, though. Pulsifer was in Time - that's always going to be true. He was born in Canada - that's always going to be true, too. Zagalejo^^^ 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is more than enough significant coverage over several years to establish notability. The coverage goes into the details on the person not just the event (his editing on wikipedia) giving enough information for a biography to be valid and is also spread over several years so personally cannot see this coming under WP:BLP1E. I strongly agree as per our guidelines that notability is permament, people should be able to go back and research this sort of thing. I also do not think that there would even be a debate over the inclusion of this article if it was not for the fact that it is related to wikipedia - just like we should avoid self referencing, we should also avoid deleting articles that we would otherwise keep just because they are related to wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage established notability. A very small percentage of Wikipedians (not me) are notable for their contributions at this notable website, just like a very small percentage of YouTube producers should have articles. Royalbroil 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep...er.....he was mentioned in TIME? Sounds significant to me. K50 Dude ROCKS! 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While Simon's fame may have been fleeting, the very fact that the media chose to make him a celebrity is very notable. I honestly don't believe from now until the end of time there will be any Wikipedia volunteers that will achieve celebrity in the English-speaking world, solely for their editing. Ryan Jordan and Mr. Puslifer are the only ones who will ever achieve this. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryan Jordan isn't notable for his editing of Wikipedia, and you can't help but notice that his association with a notable EVENT is covered in an event-type of article. This biography is not notable either, and should receive passing mention in a another Wikipedia article at best. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (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/Simon_Pulsifer_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1138768957"