Deletion of David Shankbone

Comment: I just read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=321665800 this comment by Jimbo Wales, which I found to be quite vague and unhelpful, in his usual ambiguous tone and style of writing.  Disappointing, really, because this biography does have sufficient sources to withstand the test of , meanwhile we have THOUSANDS of other articles which do not and will not.  Ever.   And ''those'' should be deleted without question
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Even the most significant reliable source for this article, the ''Columbia Journalism Review'', says that Shankbone is "relatively unknown outside the Wiki community". The article, as it currently stands, is an ideal illustration of why we should not have biographies of marginally notable individuals. It's currently framed to highlight how impressive Shankbone's credentials are, and mainly focuses on the Shimon Peres interview. Yet the very same sources could easily be used to demonstrate that Shankbone's main claim to fame was completely orchestrated by the Israeli government, down to a trip paid for by its consulate with an openly admitted intention to influence the coverage of Israel in Wikipedia.  The fact that the same sources can be interpreted both ways, ''without violating  or '' tells us that there is not nearly enough information about this subject to write a neutral, unbiased article on this subject. He is essentially notable for something we all know is not notable (being a Wikimedia volunteer). The ''Brooklyn Rail'' interview is hardly notable, as it's a freebie magazine with a circulation of about 15-20,000http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_271/railingagainst.html—the kind that shows up in one's mailbox unbidden. ¶ In summary, we have a BLP of someone who is at best marginally notable and whose main claim to fame is his association with Wikipedia and its sister projects, with limited significant sources, most of which are ambiguous and focus as much or more on the Wikimedia projects as they do on the subject, or themselves indicate that he is not notable. If we didn't all know David, this article either (a) wouldn't exist or (b) would place far more emphasis on the source of his fame having been derived from the efforts of the Israeli government.  It's not possible to write an unbiased article about him here. Thus we should not do so
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: A lot of the arguments being used here for deletion are questionable. For example the claim that because his notability extends from Wikipedia we should have a higher bar and not have "navel-gazing" isn't valid. Although we need to be especially careful for matters that related to Wikpedia, the bar for Wikipedia related material should be identical. Also, the claim that being described as "relatively unknown" in a major reliable source that discusses you in detail makes you not-notable misses the entire notion of what  relies on, coverage. If (hypothetically) soemthing was covered extensively as the least known example of an X, it would make it a notable X. These weak arguments need to be disregarded. That said, my keep is only weak because while I think he meets the notability criteria, I'm not completely convinced of that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I'm sticking with my "keep" above: I have been notified that Prodego has changed to ''delete'' on the basis that the "first" in ''first citizen journalist'' is not verified (and the article has been changed). For posterity, I would like to record that I have no knowledge of the politics of this situation other than it is obviously problematic when an article about a Wikipedian pops up. Perhaps  should have a section specifically for well-known Wikipedians to the effect that ''extra'' off-wiki notability is required to justify an article about a user, where the article was created after the user started editing. Meanwhile, whether or not "first" is true, my feeling is that notability is sufficiently established by the articles about the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: ''Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.'' There are a lot of arguments either discussing notability without regard to what  or  actually say, or even contradicting them. At the same time, we have plenty of Keep editors citing  on the necessary amount of sourcing, and citing the ''Columbia Journalism Review'' article as meeting the criteria for , so what value should the closing admin put on Delete comments that ignore this? Strong "delete" arguments would discuss the ''CJR'' article. (Tarc's argument does this, and I don't think it can be discounted.) Comments that amount to  should be totally discounted. This shouldn't be a popularity contest
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Please consider this simplistic question as an ironic muse and not meant to denigrate anyone in these discussions, but will there soon be a referundum to delete any article about any editor who has a notability that stems from, is a result of, or developed from their work on Wikipedia, even if they are covered by sources outside the project?  Sometimes and surprisingly, the outside world does pay attention to what goes on within these pages. Not to be ing, but I'd hate to see this escalate to the point where we have new debates over inclusion of such as Jimy Wales, Larry Sanger, or Richard Stallman.  And yes... editors may not wish to classify David Shankbone with these luminaries, but where do editors wish to draw the line? Even without Wikinews, the available off-Wikipedia sources appear to meet the inclusion requirements of ... and that would seem to indicate some rewrite or cleanup if one dismisses all Wikinews, but not deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:BIO)

Comment: Sources aren't sufficient to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I think with the kind of sourcing this article has, our |standards of notability are easily met, and we likely would not be having this conversation if the subject were not a Wikimedian
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as the Columbia Journalism Review and InformationWeek appear to constitute enough coverage to establish notability. Alison, among others, have mentioned problems with the article (tone, puffery), but that's not a valid reason to delete.  As stated by , deletion isn't for cleanup -- problems with the article that can be fixed are reasons to fix the article, not delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The CJR piece, interview  in the Brooklyn Rail, and the article in Jewish Week support notability, and the Information Week article says that ''Israeli newspaper El Haaretz covered Shankbone's visit and Wikinews' coverage stemming from the visit''. I've no interest in promotional articles, but minus the puffery I think there's enough here to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: While I would certainly not trust ''Wikinews'' as any sort of reliable source, the individual has received coverage in numerous reliable sources outside the Wikirealm for his work as a journalist, thus meeting the criteria set by . And as interesting as it might be that one reliable source might define him as non-notable in his field, Wikipedia does not use their standards.  We use our own... and it is the extensive coverage of him (despite their definition) that specifically makes him notable per Wikipedia's guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I believe Risker is misreading the focus of the CJR article. It's entirely about him, and not just the Peres interview. No other journalist, citizen or otherwise, is mentioned by name. And "relatively unknown" was before the RS, especially CJR, made him notable. That comment is not relevant. Was Obama relatively unknown before his 2007 bid for President? I don't agree with the term, but if he's marginally notable, that's still notable. It's like a passing grade in school. If the minimum passing score is 65 (the bright line) and you receive a 65, marginally or not, you passed. The majority of us participating here think the RS are sufficient. Personally I think three of the most significant are a slam dunk for establishing notability, especially CJR because of all the reasons already mentioned. I have often argued in the past that the only really acceptable reason, per , for deleting any article is if it's intrinsically non-notable. And to repeat, if we let potential problems with articles determine what articles are kept, Wikipedia and our readers suffer. Shankbone had nothing to do with creating the article, and has not asked that it either be kept or deleted. And he has wisely and properly stayed away from the DRV and this AfD DRV (up to now). And no, his request to delete obviously is not required to nominate it. But the nomination rationale referred to "spurious sources" which frames the discussion. The nomination did later refer to news sources with "insufficient coverage". However, the six sources were in the article at nomination time. Others picked up on the "spurious" characterization very unfairly, and repeated it. And to say that's it's not possible to write a non-biased article is, again,  and an opinion, and not a reason to delete. It's a reason to work hard on the article. It's also possible that because David is known, that some participants are bending over backwards to avoid being perceived as partial to him, and that the bar is unfairly higher than it would be otherwise. The Village Voice is a weekly freebie, and it's a reliable source, so being free doesn't invalidate the Brooklyn Rail
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I won't quibble with the fact that this subject technically passes the |general notability guideline. He does, but not by nearly as much as some are suggesting, and almost no one here is denying that Shankbone's notability is marginal. Were he to ask for deletion, we would almost certainly oblige him, and it's a damn shame he has not done that because: A) Given Shankbone's "controversial" (for lack of a better word) persona here on Wikipedia, the article will (indeed has) inevitably come under BLP attack, and we have unfortunately demonstrated that we cannot at the moment necessarily protect marginal BLPs from defamation; B) Simply discussing and working on the article, discussing it here at AfD, and discussing and dealing with it for years to come will take up an inordinate amount of energy, particularly for a barely notable BLP which is, to be blunt, not particularly important to Wikipedia. So on the one hand you can call this a "far more trouble then it's worth, let's apply some common sense here" delete !vote. I would also invoke the spirit but not the letter of the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs|summary deletion of BLPs principle from a 2007 ArbCom case. There is a precedent for going somewhat out of process when it comes to BLPs and I think that should be applied here. Arguably we should not have marginally notable BLPs ''at all'', but I certainly think we should delete such BLPs when we ''know'' (and we do know, because it has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Shankbone&action=historysubmit&diff=321633657&oldid=321608143 already http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Shankbone&diff=next&oldid=321634769 happened) that we are going to have difficulty keeping defamatory edits out. Rather than wasting further time and resources (and I think we all know that's what will happen, probably in both the short and long run) worrying and arguing about this article that few outside Wikipedia would give a whit about, let's delete it for the sake of the encyclopedia and David's own sake. I only wish he would request deletion for those same reasons, as that would likely make this AfD a foregone conclusion and save us a lot of trouble. I hope the closing admin considers factors beyond notability here, as  is not the only community norm relevant to this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Whilst it is always a controversy about keeping articles about people who edit WMF projects, the line " In December 2007, he became the first of the website's citizen journalists to interview a sitting head of state, Israeli President Shimon Peres." coupled with the other interviews he's done is enough to satisfy . Perhaps this is the type of thing all us Wikimedians should be striving for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: meets , having multiple sources with extensive coverage.  It's as easy as that.  I'll also add that, since he hasn't requested deletion, "no consensus" can't get us to deletion here.  A number of people have been claiming in various AfDs that no consensus defaults to delete.  That's wishful thinking at best -- the last time this was discussed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_35#Proposal_to_create_a_section_for_BLPs_and_to_default_to_delete here) a proposal to this effect failed rather definitively
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: CJR atricle is more on the notion of amateur/citizen journalism than Shankbone himself (and also notes his non-importance)/.  Thus per  we fall back on the ''"multiple independent sources"'' bit, which certainly isn't there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I don't know if anybody has pointed this out, but the sole claim to notability is his interview of Shimon Perez; this means his article falls under the '''''' guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: he is the subject of multiple articles in ''Columbia Journalism Review'' and other |reliable media; notable (if amateur) journalist. Disclosure: I read some of these articles |on my own
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: The CJR piece is 1843 words long and the entire article covers Shankbone in depth on his photography and interviews, which I believe refutes the trivial claim, since it is clearly more than "significant coverage", per the  guideline. Columbia Journalism Review—the prestigious, influential, and prominent professional journalism review from Columbia University's J-School—is clearly a |reliable source. The article is behind a paywall at CJR, but can be read in full http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/192310359.html here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:RS)

Comment: as navel-gazing that, with Shankbone's nature, is going to fall foul of , and horribly so
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Much was made of claims that BLP wasn't taken sufficiently into consideration. Although this is, obviously, a BLP article, there are '''no''' BLP problems in the article at this time. None. Shankbone has not requested deletion, there is no damaging material in the article. None. And arguing that it's a BLP magnet is  and using that as a deletion rationale has absolutely no basis in policy or guidelines. And that argument also applies to many, many other BLP related articles. Should Sara Palin be deleted because of BLP issues? How about Joe the plumber.  That was a BLP mess around the 2008 election. But it got fixed.  How about E.O. Green School shooting. That has been a BLP magnet in the past and the same arguments were attempted. But it also got fixed. If we give in to deliberate BLP violators, then we have facilitated and encouraged them to control what articles stay or go. Just waltz over to Wikipedia, BLP violate an article enough,  the system, and get what you want. Just like paying ransom facilitates and encourages kidnapping. Yes, protecting BLP articles is a pain, sometimes a really big pain, but that is the price we pay for having articles on notable people, especially controversial notable people, and in having open editing. |Flagged protection and patrolled revisions will help in protecting BLP articles from attack and a trial of that is supposed to happen soon now.  Hopefully.  Until then, we use Huggle, Twinkle, and old fashioned Mark IV eyeballs and manual editing to keep BLP violations at bay. And the other tools available.  I have become a very big proponent of removing BLP content based on knowledge of the kind of pain BLP content can cause,  and have got into passionate discussions over it. But since Shankbone is not requesting deletion, why are some of us
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GAME||WP:FPPR)