Deletion of James D. Nicoll (2nd nomination)

Comment: while there are some facts pointing to the guy being notable... theres not enough to make him pass . Most of the sources arent |reliable. Until there are more sources provided |verifiability isnt proven. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: If the rules (whether they be the notability ones, or the sourcing ones, or whatever) make this article a deletion candidate, then the problem is with the rules and the correct response is to modify them, not delete the article.  Modifying the rules is of course a huge faff, but luckily we already have  precisely to deal with these edge cases.  Further, in response to the "not a vote" tag, while I did come over here having heard about the AfD from fandom sources, the reason I came and chipped in was that I saw it as a chance to flag up my concerns about these issues, which are precisely why I no longer bother actively editing Wikipedia beyond copyedits, and normally do so anonymously
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: another one, sorry)  Separate from the issue (possibly too broad for this AfD) of whether Wikipedia needs a complete overhaul of its attitude to online sources for online subjects, can someone explain to me what the perceived problem is under ?  The notability argument appears to have been conceded; this dispute is about reliable sources.  The "Using the subject as a self-published source" section of BLP says that material self-published by the subject is an acceptable source under a number of conditions (relevant to notability, not contentious, not self-serving, undisputed authorship and lack of claims about third parties).  http://james_nicoll.livejournal.com Nicoll's blog on LiveJournal appears to me to satisfy all of them.  I am genuinely interested to know what the problem is.  (I have checked the history; these guidelines were present in BLP at the time this article was nominated for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per nom.  Doesn't meet , , totally lacks proper sourcing according to , .  Knowing of him from Usenet and thinking he's a good guy does not mean he's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.   policies are not optional at this point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:BIO||WP:V||WP:A||WP:BLP)

Comment: WP:BLP,  and associated policies are important, and that is ''precisely'' why we should not bring them into disrepute by using them to nickel-and-dime uncontroversial material out of an article before deleting it for lack of content. When somebody who is best-known from Usenet posts on Usenet indicating ''his own birthday'', and has no obvious reason to lie about it, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_D._Nicoll&diff=131124453&oldid=131123908 rejecting that as a citation and tagging it with factneeded is excessive zeal. Compare to Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Albert Einstein, and many other articles - each of which get more scrutiny in a day than Nicoll's has in its entire existence - and yet begin with uncited birthdates. The reason those birthdates have stood without being challenged is not that their editors are sloppy, it's that they understand that enough bludgeoning with the policy stick can kill ''any'' article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: As per Dd-b, this is a microcosm of all the problems the deletionist tendency is causing.  And as per Theophilus75  applies in spades
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per nom and lack of non-trivial third party sources, article fails  and verifiability standards, and miserably at that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)