Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Nicoll (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jcfiala (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 16 May 2007 (→‎[[James D. Nicoll]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

James D. Nicoll

James D. Nicoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (1st AfD)

It amazes me still that this article was able to skirt our WP:BLP policies so conveniently just 5 months ago, but try as I might, I cannot locate any non-trivial third party coverage of this person. Right now the article is pulling sources from Usenet, LiveJournal, and a couple different mailing lists depending on what time of the week you view the page. That is just unacceptable and fails WP:A policy as well. Burntsauce 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, totally lacks proper sourcing according to WP:V, WP:A. Knowing of him from Usenet and thinking he's a good guy does not mean he's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:BLP policies are not optional at this point. Xihr 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first glance I'd say delete, but trying to make an informed decision I was trying to figure out the history of this article and gave up. There seems to be too many people who are set on changing things on it without discussing it on the talk page (including the nom). Besides that, it already passed an Afd consensus once and, based on the history of the article, don't want to take the time to try and figure out if the nom even nominated it correctly or if it should have been put up for review. Theophilus75 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please provide reasoning based on Wikipedia policy? If you're not willing to make an informed decision that takes policy into consideration, I imagine that the closing administrator would most likely discount your comments as meaningless fluff.  ;-) RFerreira 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specifically I'm not sure that this article has been allowed to be worked on without someone participating in [tendentious editing] in an overzealous attempt at forcing people to comply with a militant view of WP:V even when the info is not challenged or likely to be challenged, while totally ignoring WP:IAR. Additionally due to extensive tendentious editing I got tired of sorting through the article history trying to figure out if the article was properly Afd'd or if it should have been put up for review. Theophilus75 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It seems that he is a notable book reviewer. But he does it in ways that do not get documented by ordinary sources. By our rules someone has to write a published article on rec.arts.sf and its daughter lists. But we know just as much about them now, & I'd accept the usenet groups as the actual main source. I do not think BLP affects this, because we are not reporting on his personal life or any controversy. He published what he published. "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced." None of this is. DGG 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while there are some facts pointing to the guy being notable... theres not enough to make him pass WP:BIO. Most of the sources arent reliable. Until there are more sources provided verifiability isnt proven.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anyone has established notability solely on the basis of their Usenet presence, Nicoll would be such a person. That aside, I do not understand what particular misunderstanding has caused editors now twice to delete the quotation from which Nicoll's outside-of-Usenet-and-fandom notability arises, which was cited to its primary source. To repeat: this quotation, with its history of misattribution, is what makes Nicoll notable in the world at large; to delete it is to remove the article's reason for existing. The sources are what they are, as difficult as this may be; as DGG notes, there is very little published information about Nicoll beyond that which he himself has written and published, so if this article stands (as I believe it should), one must accept Nicoll's own writing as the principal source for most of the relevant details. 121a0012 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point and all... but you missed something big... Usenet != reliable source. Primary sources as you mentioned also unfortunately are not considered acceptable as the only source of backup to statements.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where the general guidelines in WP:RS simply don't match up with reality. It is certainly true that a Usenet article (being effectively self-published and not subject to any sort of authentication as to their source) should not be given much weight as a source of facts; it is however a legitimate source of the statements of its author (even if we can't be certain that the author is who the From header claims). In this case, the long-established posting history of the subject weighs rather heavily on the opposite side of the scales, and we can be reasonably certain that all those articles were in fact written by the same person -- and if that person is notable, then these primary-source materials are likely to be the best source. (They are certainly verifiable, as long as Google and others maintain archives of the newsgroups in question, given that each article's unique Message-ID is included in the citation. One need not be able to verify the real-world-identity of a Usenet poster to have confidence in the continuity of the Usenet-identity, and from the latter it is legitimate to draw uncontroversial inferences about the former.) 121a0012 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alkivar, the page you quote clearly notes at the top (emphasis mine): "This page provides examples of what editors on Wikipedia assess to be a reliable source. The advice is not, and cannot be, comprehensive, and should be used primarily to inform discussion in an article talk page with respect to sources. Exceptions can potentially be made; however, these should be avoided. Use common sense when reaching a collaborative conclusion." WP:V also notes circumstances in which "self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability" are acceptable, and those circumstances seem to fit most of the Usenet/LJ/etc cites under discussion here. --Calair 05:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is both meaningless and inaccurate to state that Usenet is absolutely not a reliable source; it was wrong when someone originally asserted it in that page, and it has not become better with time. Usenet is a medium, not a publication; is perfectly reliable for sourcing individual posts with a known author as statements by that person, and it is, generally speaking, less likely that a given was faked in their name than it would be for a letter in a newspaper. What Usenet is not usable for is any kind of bulk inferences, any "much discussion has revolved around" or "popular believe is that" material, but this is not relevant here.
      • As such, with Usenet sources, we should not be considering the "publication" as a whole as we would with, say, reliable/unreliable newspapers; we should be considering the context and the author. And why, specifically, are these cites unreliable? Shimgray | talk | 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also accept Usenet as a reliable source, under certain circumstances (specifically in this case, in situations to do with usenet itself). This seems to be one such circumstance. (specifically in this case, in situations to do with usenet itself). --Kim Bruning 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added when usenet can be reliable to examples. (also, I missed the rfc editor, so added them too :-) ) --Kim Bruning 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What, we need to delete this or there's no room in Wikipedia for other articles?. This sort of prissy attitude is what's killing Wikipedia, man. --Martin Wisse 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of non-trivial third party sources, article fails WP:BIO and verifiability standards, and miserably at that. RFerreira 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant secondary sources. Lacks notability by any reasonble measure. Quatloo 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People are capable of being notable personalities within the Usenet sphere, and this is definitely one of them. If the article has structural problems then fix them in some way other than AfD.. Bryan Derksen 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Usenet post saying "The Earth is flat" is not a reliable source for the Earth being flat, but the original Usenet post saying "The problem with defending..." is certainly a reliable source for the origin of the quotation in question. It is, in fact, the only possible reliable source. That quotation alone, and the question of its attribution, are deserving of an article; the Nicoll Pledge is likewise of unique importance within SF fandom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeborah (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Didn't we go through this already? -- Metahacker 13:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Spikebrennan 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this sort of article is useful to me. I find myself strongly at variance with what seems to be emerging Wikipedia policy -- you guys are ruining everything that's good about Wikipedia, and keeping only the parts I can find anywhere. James is somebody people will need to look up and learn about, and his original articles on Usenet are in fact the ultimate published source. Dd-b 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above and as per the previous AfD debate. Also I would like to note that merely because the notability is regarding Internet presence that notability should not be discounted; after all, Wikipedia itself is an Internet presence. -- Anton P. Nym 216.191.213.114 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Dd-b, this is a microcosm of all the problems the deletionist tendency is causing. And as per Theophilus75 WP:IAR applies in spades. --Bth 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons Martin Wisse gave. Personally, I think deletionists should go get their own wiki-based encyclopedia, which would, appropriately, be empty. -- Cabalamat 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Valuable material is being deleted from Wikipedia by people who don't appear to understand what kind of things are valuable to literary scholarship. Nicoll is an aphorist and raconteur well known to--and influential upon--several different overlapping circles of professional SF and fantasy writers. As a frequent first reader for the SF Book Club his editorial judgement has a non-trivial impact on the field as well. If we were talking about American writers in Paris in the 1920s, rather than the professional SF world today, by now there would be at least one full-length book about Nicoll written for a popular audience, a fistful of academic papers, and innumerable references in various interviews and memoirs; he's that kind of eccentric but important figure. If there's currently a dearth of print references to him, what that tells us is that the print-SF subculture lives more and more on the internet these days. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden Pnh 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Jcfiala 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_D._Nicoll_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=131407187"