Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (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 merge and redirect. Let me explain: many keep arguments were based on assumption that an executive of some notable organisation is automatically notable, which fails to comply with WP:BIO#Basic criteria that requires independent sources. Also, third-party sources are required by WP:V and WP:BLP, and the article has none of them. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shell

Appears to not meet our current notability standards. Having reviewed the recent AFD of another Wikipedia volunteer staffer, I came across this article. Appears to be an executive of a company of minor notability Bomis (removing Wikipedia from the equation limits their notability substantially), that provided initial seed money and hosting for Wikipedia. Which is makes Bomis arguably notable, but not this individual. Searching for him under relevant bits turns up extremely minimal independent sourcing. WP:BLP1E also likely applies, as this private individual only appears to have attracted some extremely minimal news attention in passing because the company he was a figure at did at one point support Wikipedia in it's early days. Independently, I see no indication that he meets WP:BIO. Relevant searches: Tim Shell & Wikipedia; Tim Shell & Bomis; Tim Shell & Wikipedia. Delete per failing WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Note: in previous deletion discussions, the argument was advanced incorrectly that a connection to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation "enhances" notability somehow. It simply does not, and is not part of any notability guideline I have seen on this website. Lawrence § t/e 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Last nomination was less than two months ago. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. There were a total of four !votes previously, and the article is practically speedy-able as there is insufficient sourcing. This is a valid AFD. We have no evidence of notability or compliance with WP:BIO. Lawrence § t/e 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a month generally considered to be the reasonable minimum time period between AfDs? Guest9999 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Lawrence § t/e 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The timeline isn't as important, persay, as the result of the prior noms. Seeing as how both prior AfDs resulted in "Non consensus" with a minimal draw of editors, I agree this is a good faith nom. One month seems to be ample time to allow for improvements to the article. That being said, this article is drawing the attention of people and motivating them enough to continue to nominate it for deletion, which of course begs the question: has anyone attempted to improve the article between now and the last AfD, and closely related, is it improvable? General questions, not aimed at any editor in particular. Abstaining from a !vote here (I haven't even looked at the article, how could I know?) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first AfD for the article took place over two years ago, since then no independent sources have been added. Currently of the three sources used in the article two are from the subjects personal website and one is an internal company document that names him as a trustee. Independently produced, reliable sources are required to establish the notability of a subject, I do not think that such sources exist to support this article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Bomis. He doesn't meet WP:BIO and any relevant information can be mentioned at the Bomis article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bomis. No notability outside of Wikipedia history, but substantial notability in that history. Deleting would create a large number of redlinks; redirecting preserves the main bits of information. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this won't create a lot of redlinks. Only 40 total articles link to Tim Shell in main space, which is all that matter. Almost all are from Template:Wikipediahistory which is featured on 41 total articles. We'd only have to remove Tim Shell as a redlink from the template, and the one leftover article. Lawrence § t/e 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see an advantage in deletion rather than redirecting? It would seem that we should modify the template anyways if we make this a redirect since Bomis is on the template, but I don't see any advantage in outright deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That idea has theoretical merit; lets see how consensus forms. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if not redirect to Bomis. Is the nom saying this person is less notable than Florence Devouard, Angela Beesley, Larry Sanger, or even our esteemed Jimbo? Ursasapien (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because other similar material exists (links to essay) it doesn't mean that this article or even those articles meet with the current policies and guidelines. Consensus can change and every article should be judged on its own merits. In this case the comparison made seems dubious, the article on Jimmy Wales has over fifty references and the one on Larry Sanger has almost double that - many from reliable, independent sources. There may be some questions over the other articles mentioned but that should not be relevent to this discussion. If the article was about any buissness person not related to Wikipedia which was referenced entirely by their personal website and internal company documents it would be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed what I say. Where are the multiple, independent sources that assert or show his notability? Current or former status or involvement with Wikipedia has no extra value in and of itself in establishing notability. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bomis per the points I made in my prior nomination. Picaroon (t) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bomis is a significant internet company regardless of its relationship to us, and therefore its CEO is notable. DGG (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the independent coverage for this person? Notability for a private individual of a borderline notable company is not a sufficient demonstration of notability. Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Bomis. Company is notable, but not true of the CEO independently, which can be amply covered at the company's main article. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable CEO of a notable firm who played a key role at a major not-for-profit company that is responsible for the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His past service to Wikipedia/WMF is irrelevant to notability; we don't reward service here with articles ever. How is "Tim Shell" notable? Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alashon. --Oakshade (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His past service to Wikipedia/WMF is irrelevant to notability; we don't reward service here with articles ever. How is "Tim Shell" notable? Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect There seem to be some confusion about the use of the word "notable". Notability and fame might be considered synonyms by some, but in wikipedia policies the words have very different meanings. From Wikipedia:Notability: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note WP:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."" The crucial question is not if we think he is important, it is if we think that we can find "substantial coverage in reliable sources". Since the article has been up for quite some time and there is still not a single proper reference (just 2 links to his personal website and 1 link to a document he signed), my conclusion is that there seem to be no such sources. If reliable sources are found I'd be happy to change my mind. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Wikimedia Foundation: from a brief search and looking at the spare article as it stands, Mr. Shell's notability rests upon his relationship to Bomis and, subsequently, Wikimedia/Wikipedia. I have not come across mentions of Mr. Shell which are not in connection to one or both of these organizations. Also, as for reliable sources, these are hard to come by; consider adding http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss, which is on the borderline of reliability ... at least it is not a self-published website. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't this be an identical argument for merging Jimmy Wales, an individual for whom it would be nearly impossible to find a source that doesn't mention Wikipedia? After all, doesn't Mr. Wales' notability rest exclusively on Wikipedia? Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the first half of Ceyockek's argument is weak, it doesn't matter if a person is famous for just a single thing. What does matter (and what Ceyockek also mentions) is reliable sources. The Jimmy Wales article has plenty and the Tim Shell has not a single one. No sources=no article, that's basic Wikipedia policy (WP:PROVEIT). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a significant difference in the scope of activities of Wales vs. Shell. Trying to say that Wales is associated with a single thing is denying the obvious. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, should have been deleted long ago; and would have, I suspect, if not for a certain vain assumption that all Wikipedia-related execs are notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note For the folks implying that notability is inherited for CEOs, is it really? Doubtful. Bomis is only really notable for helping Wikipedia once. Add in that we have literally no real independent coverage of Tim Shell, how does Wikipedia or readers benefit from a perma-stub about a non-notable fellow from a company that is almost never in the news? Past service to Wikipedia is not rewarded with an article. Lawrence § t/e 14:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stubified per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not valid or applicable. No sources appear to exist that we can use to expand this. Shell gets no ongoing coverage. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 6 March 2008 (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.