User:Balloonman/afd/Jim Jagielski

Jim Jagielski

Weird I know, but this is not a request for undeletion, but rather a true deletion review. This AFD was a "non-admin closure" citing WP:SNOW when the AfD was barely 18 hours old (if that). The article was deleted once before, and overcame CSDG4, however I have a problem with both the closure and the article itself. You may find a detailed rationale as to why this should still be deleted here:

The subject of the article has re-created this article (about himself!) with no reliable sources that establish any sort of notability, and a very clear conflict of interest in which the article serves to promote its subject rather than give any sort of encyclopaedic treatment. The largest claims to notability seperately (apache.org founder and Slashdot editor) are both tenuous at best -- they each seem to fail WP:N individually, and I just don't see how combining the two comes any closer to true encyclopaedic notability. Regarding WP:RS, the sources listed all fail... the first source is a self-published list in the subject's own web directory; the second source is a self-published usenet FAQ also by the subject himself. The third source is a self-published press release. The fourth source is a self-published Slashdot announcement. The final source is simply a list of the Apache BoD's.

The AfD should have at least been allowed to run its course, especially given the fact that it was recently deleted having failed a previous AfD. I know open-source advocates like this guy might be lauded as high-priests of the slashdot community, but let's not rush to reward his actions simply because he's attached to everyone's favorite /usr/local/apache/bin/httpd. At the very least, this shouldn't have been closed so hastily. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support early closure I support the closing users's use of SNOW, it is there for when an AFD has no chance of working, as this one didn't. A quick google news search reveals a good number of sources. Instead of trying to get this article deleted, perhaps you could improve it with them? Or if you don't have time to do it, put some {{fact}} templates where you think citation is most critical. This is all said with respect, and my intent has not been to insult you. - Fosnez (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, none of this is personal, and discourse isn't made into insult (in my mind).  ;-) I do question your statements, however. "SNOW... is there for when an AFD has no chance of working, as this one didn't". How could you possibly know how an AFD will end after it is barely 18 hours old? Only five editors had expressed their opinion... hardly a snowball (if you would like some actual examples of a snowball, I'll be glad to find some). Regarding your google news search... none of the results I checked are about Jagielski (which would help establish notability), they simply have one or two lines mentioning the subject en passant (not quite the same thing). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Relist I think the article should be kept, and will be kept, but this is too short a time. Considering the previous AfD, a non-admin should not have closed it SNOW--tho I think it was closed with good faith., seeing the initial pile-on keeps. During this week, with many people away, moving rapidly is not a great idea. DGG (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Right result, wrong process, so endorse snowball keep. So why try again to delete the article? If there's a problem with NPOV, COI, or article quality, better to simply address it.Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that these issues should be addressed as editorial matters outwith the deletion process. For that reason I have tagged the page and started a discussion. BlueValour (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see no harm in a re-listing if someone feels the deletion nomination wasn't properly heard. Out of fairness everyone deserves a fair hearing - though my personal opinion is that it's an obvious keep, other people are entitled to express theirs in an AfD if they wish. As someone has pointed out above, it is the holiday season and some people have no access now, so we ought to go kind of slow on these things. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I will not comment on relisting or not as I closed it, but to explain my rationale: I really did not feel that the article had much of a chance of getting deleted. DGG is probably right, though, in talking about people being away this week, and I really did not consider it. At any rate, for full disclosure, I will say that this is only my third non-admin close and that in the future I will be more careful about closures. SorryGuy  Talk  19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I think that out of process closures should be made sparingly and this one was too rapid. For many editors, real life intrudes in the period 23-25 December and I think those should be given a chance to comment. I agree that the result will highly probably be the same but I think that we should do it right. BlueValour (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, should not have been closed early as there was no indication the nomination was made in bad faith. There were also no indications the concerns were being addressed. --Coredesat 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)