Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)

AfDs for this article:
Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it goes into more detail regarding the single claim-to-fame, it's still essentially the same single-claim-to-fame. Having one's Commons photos used for other purposes does not satisfy WP:BIO or any other notability criteria. This time around, a merge discussion was started here, but it was suggested that because this relevant content is already merged a second AfD be opened.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also, the main topic of the secondary sources is the creation the bot and resulting controversy, not primarily the author, and this is/can be covered elsewhere. Also, an autobiographical article written in marshmallow tone (author/subject does not have perspective; if he ran across this article about anyone else, he would nominate it for deletion). Suggest not redirecting to List of Wikipedia controversies (current merge discussion target) or History of Wikipedia#Hardware and software (previous redirect target before article was recreated) or any page because no one is going to search for the term "Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)".added later: (OK, redirect in order to keep page history) I can see why a redirect from Rambot to one of those two article might make sense. I've created Rambot to temporarily redirect to the appropriate section of this article, but it should be redirected to List of Wikipedia controversies or History of Wikipedia#Hardware and software if this AFD results in article deletion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get the anger, I really do. But please don't misrepresent me. I thought long and hard before deciding to draft this after comparing it with others that survived AfDs. For a long time I thought it wouldn't pass BLP1E, until I actually read the policy. #1: There is coverage in multiple reliable sources covering multiple events. #2 I've given three interviews (WP:LPI). #3: It is well documented and significant enough to be included in List of Wikipedia controversies. So, no, I wouldn't nominate another article for these reasons because it doesn't apply. And on the topic of "one event", the coverage has continued over 11 year period. -- RM 19:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like it says at WP:AUTOBIO...

Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)

Assuming you're notable, you should have let someone else realize that and create the article. Eleven years + no article should tell you someothing. EEng 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It tells me nothing because someone else already did think this was notable enough to make an article. By citing a content guideline you've established what everyone already knows: it is stupid to write your own article. The least we could do is be up front that this is the real reason for deletion, and not a policy which notably does not apply. I followed the "proper way". -- RM 11:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting weird. Your "someone else" link leads to an earlier AfD which was closed 1E, merge to History of Wikipedia -- the opposite of your claimed "someone else already did think this was notable". EEng 18:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because for an article to be deleted, it must have been created. User:Margavriel created the page and defended its notability here. Considering the systemic bias at work (comment), who creates an article has about as much bearing on notability as who deletes it. There are plenty of notable subjects without articles and plenty of non-notable subjects with articles. -- RM 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Your honor, even though the jury found me guilty my lawyer stands behind me, so at least someone thinks I'm innocent. That should count for something." EEng 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Vanity biography that got promoted because of the face value precieved notability. There might be a justification for a mention on the List of Wikipedia controversies, but the rest of this belongs as a userpage or as a user's biography. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't need it. Just delete it. -- RM 19:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the subject/user doesn't want it back per previous comment. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I echo Floquenbeam's remarks. Ram-Man is an important person in the history of Wikipedia, but their sourceable notability is chiefly tied to Wikipedia, specifically to Rambot and the subsequent events. Other than the nice Philadelphia Inquirer piece (which doesn't really work to establish notability) most of the other sources are really small beer. The Wikipedia material is better covered in context at List of Wikipedia controversies and History of Wikipedia#Hardware and software than at an unavoidably shallow mini-bio. Once that's done, I don't imagine Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) would be a very likely search term, so the name should be probably be deleted.--Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Ironically you could argue the bot deserves the article and not the bloke running it ...., Anyway regardless of all that it's better covered at Wikipeia controversies so there's no need to keep this article around and as noted above no one's going to search for the author, Anywho fails BLP1E & GNG .–Davey2010Talk 19:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with the above in general. Derek may have contributed significantly in the early days and ongoing, that's only notable in terms of Wikipedia per se - and damn cool, might I add. But that grade of notability and "cool factor", for lack of a better term, do not match up with the general notability guidelines. It would have to be something else that makes Derek notable, in this case. I think his userpage pretty well covers everything, so merging content is not the Right Thing. I don't think a userfy is the Right Thing either, on the basis that (as per my understanding of the rules) this is not what a user page is for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The reference seem to be reaching. Given true notability, there would be better, higher-quality references available.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, it looks like the merge proposal is now moot. This seems like a classic BLP1E to me. He made a bot, the bot caused a bit of a stir, and then he faded back back into obscurity. Since the bot is described elsewhere, I don't see any reason why we need a vanity autobiography on the person who operated the bot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: creating the article was certainly a very bad decision, and it would need tons of cleanup, but the question is what we do now that it exists.
The thing is, there are sources out there that IMO reach (barely) GNG criteria. However, all the interviews given and pieces written were made on the criterion of "#1 article creator for a while", which is a consequence of an event (the rambot spike) that is itself non-notable. So I would call WP:MILL on it; being a top WP editor for a while is not in itself notable, and newspaper coverage based on this is not "significant" in the sense that any top editor could have been chosen. Similarly, when something big happens in a given location (violent crime, terrorist attack, whatever), journalists will interview at length the neighbours, but that brings little if any notability to them.
In any case, I disagree with the arguments that sources are insignificant, or that we should have a prejudice against inclusion for Wikipedians (though of course we should be careful not to have a prejudice for it). And I strongly object to userfying, as there is no way this could qualify under "Limited autobiographical content". TigraanClick here to contact me 11:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:EVENT exists for non-biographies. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:EVENT is regarding the notability of events. Rambot is not an event. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but any notability claim for Rambot comes from the spike in article creation it made. If anything the spike, not the bot, is notable. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should note that since the discussion here is primarily regarding the deletion of the page Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) as a biography (which is clear by the arguments made regarding it being a BLP1E violation and not meeting BLP notability policy), Rambot would require a separate AFD if anyone wants it to be deleted. It would be really silly to club it into this AFD. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a dodge tactic to me, especially considering the split is almost a move. In the hypothesis that Rambot gets AfDed and delete !votes start to pile up, will you go and create Rambot spike and insist it should be treated separately? If here, in this AfD, consensus appears that the event (not the person) was not notable, demanding that a new AfD be made would be WP:LAWYERing.
Just to be clear, I am not convinced any such consensus has been reached, and I am convinced you have good intentions. Nonetheless such actions in the midst of a heated AfD are somewhat disturbing to me. Why not simply !vote to move and refocus the article, if the basic content is to be kept? TigraanClick here to contact me 12:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "rambot spike" is a statistical anomaly only mentioned (as a term) in one source. It would have no chance. -- RM 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is about to be deleted, copying the whole thing to another article and demanding a new AFD is dishonest and cheating. If this AFD is closed as by an uninvolved admin as "move to Rambot and refocus article", then that's fine. If it is closed as "delete", then that needs to actually mean something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@103.6.159.73: and @Ram-Man: Are you the same person? WJBscribe (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks unlikely, the IP is from India (Bangalore). While former edits for that IP imply good knowledge of WP (e.g. posts at ANI), likely an editor when not logged in, they are mostly India-related. Moreover, going from a shaky self-bio through AfC to such unsubtle sockpuppetting seems fairly radical. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not socking. I'd retire from Wikipedia before doing that. -- RM 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: that the article has been selectively merged into List of Wikipedia controversies#2002, but not by me. I have redirected the original article and added the missing attribution to the edit history. The merger committed a copyvio by not doing the latter. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that now this has been merged (and to multiple locations), whatever the outcome of this discussion the actual history of this page must not be deleted because it is required for attribution. Unfortunate that people couldn't just wait for an outcome here. Jenks24 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the outcome of this discussion is that Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) should be deleted but Rambot should be kept, it would make sense to merge the history prior to the cut and paste move into Rambot and delete the rest. Ideally participants in this discussion would now express an opinion on the Rambot article, and whether its creation addresses their reasons for deleting Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian). WJBscribe (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that it's essentially the exact same subject matter, just reworded, I think previous-to-date comments in favor of deletion for this page should be interpreted as comments in favor of deletion of the article at Rambot. Otherwise it's essentially having a third AFD discussion. If people supported moving the page to Rambot they'd have said so. Rambot could redirect somewhere (I don't really care where, or even if it is); this page normally shouldn't, but in order to preserve page history I guess it should be a redirect too, so I've altered my comment above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It's not "the exact same subject matter". It's not even the same subject. The article being discussed here is a biography apparently violating BLP1E whereas Rambot is a split-off that is not a biography. Per WP:BLP1E, it is usually better to ... redirect the person's name to the event article. Most of the comments here argue for deletion of the page on the basis of BPL1E, that it's a "vanity bio", not meeting BLP notability criteria (which are of course higher than the notability criteria for other stuff), COI etc. To interpret all these as arguments for deletion of Rambot, for which they are not valid, is a desperately deletionist sentiment. 103.6.159.79 (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of clarification is needed here. Looking at the current size of Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian), Rambot may indeed look like a straight copy. But we keep the original version of the article in mind (which included a lot of material other than about Rambot) then I think it would not be unreasonable to say that Rambot is a split-off. 103.6.159.70 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively (although it looks like this may have been done already) and Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies and/or History of Wikipedia. There are some sources, but per WP:NOPAGE it's better handled elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As an aside, it's interesting how much an article being an autobiography will change these discussions. This is far better sourced than many other Wikipedian biographies (like Seedfeeder, which was somehow overwhelmingly kept at afd, or Angela Beesley, who despite being only marginally notable -- and despite her repeated requests to have it deleted -- was kept a staggering seven times before it was deleted). I mean there's a peer reviewed journal article (First Monday) about the guy and several pages in reputable books and other sources. Don't get me wrong, I agree it should be merged/redirected rather than kept...but I'm [surprised?] by all the delete !votes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge very selectively. He isn't notable enough to pass WP:GNG, but some of the sourced content can be added to the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Floquenbeam. While I very much appreciate their work on the encyclopedia, I don't think it justifies an article in an encyclopedia. HighInBC 00:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Floquenbeam. Non notable naval gazing even though I note than Raman should be recognized *internally*. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, given the historical importance of the technology developed, and its impact, and the significantly lower importance of the individual outside of that specific context. More on which articles for the merge, see following. As more a subject matter expert than a technocrat/bureaucrat, I would note that I and many outsiders would also appreciate an article on the individuals that have made significant historical contributions to WP. The bar for inclusion I leave to this august tribe, but would suggest it include various kinds of contributions, and not just page counts. (As one who has now amassed 42 edits, after sustaining 4.2 for years, I would offer to write the section on limitations to the concept of edit counting.) Otherwise, I echo the observations of Rhododendrites in their aside, regarding the quality of this stub's sourcing, over many, many others. I would further note—having come here from an Admin page discussion regarding a return of admin privileges—that some editor's comments here and there appear to reflect possible personally felt animus rather that pure WP policy-based considerations. As such, and for other reasons others have already touched on, I vote in favour of deleting this page, and maintaining Rambot and a section at Controversies. It should not be easier for the world to inform itself about the least character of the least television programme of passing interest, than to inform itself about the history, technologically and individually, of a revolutionary online encyclopedia. My opinion. And please do not count this as edit 43. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"given the historical importance of the technology developed, and its impact" - huh... We are talking about a bot on Wikipedia. Few people care about this. Don't get me wrong, it was extremely important for the community here, but the impact outside was virtually zero. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Having an article on a person notable only for their contributions to Wikipedia is too self referential. His bot to incorporate more information on cities etc in the United States explains why we still so heavily rely on the 2000 census, and the majority of locality articles have not been updated with the 2010 census data. On another matter, I have made over 290,000 edits to Wikipedia, and have never used a bot to do so. I think his actions are worth mentioning in an article on the history of WIkipedia, but WIkipedia should not have a free standing bio on Ramsey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jimmy Wales has an article, and not for his trader career. Notability by Wikipedia could be achieved (though I doubt it is the case here). TigraanClick here to contact me 07:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Derek_Ramsey_(Wikipedian)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146658884"