Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bwithh (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 2 March 2007 (→‎Discussion section 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia)

Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not a notable person (to anybody outside Wikipedia, that is), and doesn't have many, if any, reliable sources. For the people who don't know, the subject of this article is User:Essjay. PTO 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion section 1

  • Clearly, Numskll was saying that the reliability of Wikipedia is a notable topic. I'm not sure how that directly translates into this article, though (either way). --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, thanks for clearing up what I meant Dhartung. Moe the reliability of wikipedia is the subject of open debate. Recent studies have shown that it is more or less as accurate and comprehensive as a paper encyclopedia. The nature of the errors tend to be different however and the accuracy of a given article is not static. Given rise to the (valid) perception that WP as a whole is not reliable. Numskll 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable navel-gazing. If you want a page to read about it, see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But really, just because it's interesting to us right now doesn't mean it's right for the encyclopedia. Mak (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP concerns and lack of notability. We don't have articles for every single officer of every company, do we? ^demon[omg plz] 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the user must be subject of multiple non-trivial published works, however all of the current articles cover a single action. I could create hundreds of articles about people from Argentina that died in car accidents and were covered by three or four notable newspapers. However, the spirit of the guideline indicates the subject must do something that will be considered notable. Founding Wikipedia is a notable action, lying in a résumé (when he was not even obligated to write anything) or dying in a car accident is not. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in WP:N or WP:V have ever said that the sources have to cover separate incidents/actions. --W.marsh 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you continue reading WP:BIO below its first section, you will reach the corollary: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. If we consider lying in a user page is considered a enduring historical contribution, we have fell too low. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At worst, redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh and if you read the disclaimer above your corollary, "The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person", "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." Admittedly, I wrote major parts of WP:BIO so I might just have a leg up here! But yeah, a redirect to the Criticism article is what is called for here. --W.marsh 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (4x edit conflict) If you would have asked me about this yesterday, I would have hung the {{db-bio}} on the article myself, but things have changed and there appear to be a number of outlets picking up on this story. My suggestion is wait one week and see what happens. Closing this as WP:SNOW is out of the question, let the community decide. RFerreira 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; self-referential, plus having the article here rewards Essjay too much. He's already being excoriated all over the web (see, for example, the partial list of all the places that have already written articles critical of himself and of Jimbo at the end of this blog post); there's no need for those excoriations to be repeated on Wikipedia, too. If people are still talking about him in a few years, then write the article. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Next time I get pounced on for wanting to keep an article that's not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary criterion for WP:BIO and WP:N, I'm going to point to this AfD as an example of the arbitrary relevancy of those guidelines. --Oakshade 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles about him are really about Wikipedia and our reputation; they don't establish his notability. Chick Bowen 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Striking my vote, since I protected this discussion. Chick Bowen 05:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like User:Oakshade said, there are certainly enough sources for citations in reputable secondary locations. Smee 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, but please do not snowball close oh God please no. It's better that a snowball go through Hell than a community, although the latter is clearly starting to happen. Delete because the event is covered well enough by Criticism of Wikipedia, and only in the context of this event is Essjay... everyone knows where I'm going with this, I hope. Evenryone, visualize with me: the masses running towards the Reichstag, slipping on their Spider-Man costumes as they set up the ladder towards the stormy sky, harness their ropes, and begin the great ascent. GracenotesT § 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on the article, strongly support letting the debate run its course. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to those who argue "keep", the article makes no mention about the guy himself and what he's notable for. Would this not be easier if the article was just renamed along the lines of the Seigenthaler incident? – Chacor 05:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate keep Essjay now meets WP:BIO, and WP:N. I had hopes that there would be Wikipedians who would eventually become notable due to their contributions to the project, and if I had to make a list of likely candidates, Essjay would have been at the top of the list, but not like this. Now, if someone can argue that we don't have enough sourcing to actually be non-trivial I will change my opinion, but it definitely doesn't look that way right now. (I would not however, object to a merge to the article on criticisms of Wikipedia). JoshuaZ 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I might favor a redirect to there. I'm also beginning to think that users who have argued that we should wait and see what happens may have a strong point. JoshuaZ 07:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion section 2

Okay, here is my assessment of what is going on here; a person, whom we will call "Ryan Jordan" acted as a source in an article for the New Yorker. In it, he discussed his works as an admin on Wikipedia. However, he did so under what is now believed to be a pseudonym, and a false identity. This was then discovered, and revealed - much to the chagrin of the New Yorker, and to some extent, Wikipedia. As I see it, the question breaks down as follows:
  • Were Robert Jordan's comments in the New Yorker article sufficient to consider him a notable figure?
  • Was the subsequent coverage of Robert Ryan Jordan's "true" identity sufficient to consider him a notable, or encyclopedic figure?
  • Were the above, combined, sufficient to make Robert Ryan Jordan a notable figure.
Bear in mind that the guidelines under WP:BIO are guidelines; they are as rules of thumb as notability; not hard and fast rules.
With that said, I will have to say that he is not notable. His initial actions, as a source to the New Yorker, were not notable. The attention he later received was not, in fact, directed at him - rather at the situation itself. Ryan Jordan was entirely tangential to the real issue that was being discussed here. Furthermore, I think the charge of recentism applies here, as there is no concievable way Jordan will be remembered - the controversy, and related issue of which he became an example of, will be. However, he - himself - as a person is not notable. Thus, I will have to say weak delete.
This is by no means a clear-cut case, but I have to argue that it is incorrect to blindly apply notability guidelines here; we need to consider this case in context, and I believe doing so supports deletion. --Haemo 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Robert Jordan is a completely different person, a novelist. -- Ben 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I get for reading while editing --Haemo 07:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attention he later received was not, in fact, directed at him - rather at the situation itself." That doesn't square with the text:

    EDITORS’ NOTE:

    The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”

    Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia administrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia — a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia — as a “community manager”; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”

    Essjay and his trustworthiness (or lack thereof) are clearly the central issue of this note and several later articles. -- Ben 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't seriously doubt that this will get more coverage shortly? As regards IRC, I have no experience with it, but any rule that would prohibit the posting of logs here would not be Wikipedia community policy, which binds us, but a rule of that chatroom, which need not concern us here. Especially if such material is pertinent on-Wiki to examine WP:CANVASS allegations. Sandstein 06:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite honestly, I don't think it will get much more publicity than this. And some Wikipedians consider it an invasion of privacy to have their IRC logs placed on a public forum like Wikipedia. If it's off-wiki, keep it off-wiki, you don't need to drag it on here. We've seen happen all too recently. — Moe 06:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely pointing it out. Please try to use more polite language. Thank you. Smee 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well tell me when you bring something worth noting here and I will be a little nicer about it. — Moe 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then let's guess about what'll make us look the best, and do it, hm? Nearly sounds reasonable, but doesn't sound right. You do bring up a valid point, but before we go about doing things for appearances, many facets need to be considered. GracenotesT § 06:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're reading a lot of things that I didn't say into what I actually wrote. The point is that we should take our time and be careful to apply our policies fair and square to all cases, without being swayed by personal piques or group affiliation based prejudices. Club And Fang 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources appear to care:
  • Schiff, Stacey (2006-07-24). "Know it All". The New Yorker.
  • Farrell, Nick (March 1, 2007). "Wikipedia 'expert' lied about qualifications". The Inquirer.
  • Zaharov-Reutt, Alex (March 2, 2007). "Wikipedia: did one of its admins lie?". iTWire.
  • Ingram, Mathew (March 1, 2007). "The Wikipedia Admin Brouhaha". WebProNews.
  • Bercovici, Jeff (February 28, 2007). "Ode to Wikipedia Riddled with Errors". Radar Magazine.
  • King, Ian (March 2, 2007). "A Wiki web they've woven". Vancouver 24 Hours.
  • Ben, please don't try to assume bad faith of any participant's reasoning. I for one, second Guy's comments. These sources either discuss Wikipedia itself or are an erratum, which hardly asserts any notability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michaelas10, please assume the assumption of good faith, and don't "try to assume" the opposite when statements false to fact are shown to be false to fact. Guy says "Sources are not primarily about the subject, it's tittle-tattle about some nonsense." You say "These sources either discuss Wikipedia itself or are an erratum".... But the headlines say "Wikipedia 'expert' lied about qualifications", and "Wikipedia: did one of its admins lie?", and "The Wikipedia Admin Brouhaha". These refer to Essjay and his falsified credentials. Claiming otherwise is flatly false. -- Ben 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion section 3

  • (arbitrary break) Comment - do not close this discussion early. The last thing we need is accusations of covering up or whitewashing. Closing it early will earn my undying enmity. Proto ► 11:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the normal length of time that these things proceed? Smee 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Five days, whereupon it will then be closed by an administrator with no prior involvement. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Proto ► 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! If we can find one :-) Guy (Help!) 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cynical part of me is thinking there'll be one - or at least one - admin restraining himself, with his showboating and "groundbreaking" solution, probably named after himself, contrary to the consensus in hand, who will close the AFD after 5 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes and 0.01 seconds, closing the discussion however he feels like it should be closed, and balls to us all. But maybe not, who knows. Proto ► 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forgive me for not having read all of the preceeding comments. In my view the incident involving this person may be notable and may warrant its own article or a mention in Criticism_of_Wikipedia. However, I do not consider that Mr Jordan hismself is notable. For the record I am coming at this from a completely "fresh" perspective i.e. I am fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia and before a few minutes ago had not heard of Mr Jordan or Essjay.Jules1975 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable individual. MLA 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into criticism of wikipedia.Geni 12:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no evidence that this will be a significant story in the long run, and the subject is only notable through accident. Wikipedia's breast-beating introspection can be worthwhile but this is not one of those occasions. Sam Blacketer 12:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Merge. I don't have a clear opinion about how this should be handled, but the whole Ryan/Schiff/New Yorker incident is going to be, whether you like it or not, very notable. I entered into the discussions on this very early on when there was only a single comment on Essjay's talk page and maybe a dozen on Jim Wale's and the posts now are in the hundreds across multiple pages. Wiki activity hardly makes this notable, but you're beginning to see the same trend with outside media. The incident has already been slash dotted and commented on in a number of blogs. This is going to continue. Main stream media will pick up on this. There is going to be a bit of a feeding frenzy because the incident just fits so nicely into the stereotypes much of the main stream media has for something like Wikipedia. It's all a bit sad really. A B Carter (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Main stream media will pick up on this" But if they haven't yet it's not notable yet surely? Still means IMO the incident is notable (which I would agree with anyway) but not the individual. Jules1975 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sanction all keep voters for engaging in harassment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this is going to just be his 15 minutes of fame, and there will be no more news stories on him after a few days (other than in the context of "Wikipedia is not reliable anymore!"). Also, this is a single incident, not notable in itself (lots of people lie every day, and presenting false credentials to the media isn't that notable too), but notable only in connection with Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Wikia; it doesn't deserve its own article. --cesarb 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is about the incident not the person. In a week or so the incident may merit an article of its own, but, I doubt Ryan/Essjay will. --DSRH | talk 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the only motivation for deletion is historical revisionism. It is patently notable as proven by the numerous outside sources referenced. Do you realize how badly it reflects on Wikipedia if we try to sweep this under the rug? Matt Gies 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going to go out on a limb and say this will end up as no-consensus, so I move that the discussion be closed per Snowball clause and propose that a strawpoll be held at Talk:Ryan_Jordan_(Wikipedia)#Merge strawpoll.--LeflymanTalk 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per several above, the incident may well be notable, the individual I feel is not. Jcuk 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename. If WP:BLP is enforced rigourously, we can't use statements by the subject of the article, because the evidence is that he isn't a reliable source on who he is. Since every other source on his biography relies on him, there are no reliable sources for a biographical article. There are reliable sources to add material to Criticism of Wikipedia or to an article on the incident, so that is where this should be covered. My first choice would be to merge, and only have a separate article if it grows too long and needs to become a subarticle. GRBerry 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article. The incident is much more notable than the individual.--Isotope23 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has several independent refrences with substantial coverage of his work at Wikipedia and the controversy about claimed academic credentials to satisfy the applicable attribution and notability standards for having an article. Edison 21:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the questions we have to ask in this case are, as I stated in another wiki related AfD:
  1. is the subject notable?
  2. is the content of the article true?
  3. can we prove that it is true ?

notable, someone who embarrased the New Yorker, imo yes, true, hey we have to the sources to prove it. Embarrasing? Not anymore. And we should not forget the educative side effect, sooner or later someone is going to catch up with you ... especially if you give your name while spreading some baloney among the public AlfPhotoman 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is wikipedia disapearing up its own fundament. David Spart 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like it or not, Essjay's actions and Jimbo's responses have sparked more than enough reliable sources to cause this article to meet WP:BIO. And note well: if this article is deleted, it will only worsen PR many, many degrees. C.m.jones 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person is now notable. TonyTheTiger 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I see several reliable sources, so it seems to pass. Plus, there will be more coming as the information develops and expands, so there is a lot of potential for additional sources. — Deckiller 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient evidence of encyclopedic notability, in line with my long-standing view of the relative significance of media reports for encyclopedic purposes (Redirect to the Criticism of Wikipedia article's section on this incident if there are concerns about brushing this incident under the carpet). I do hope that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia management will take this incident significantly more seriously than they seem to be, though. But there's no encyclopedic notability evident for a separate article on this person here. Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay&oldid=112183752"