Talk:Jim Jagielski

Notability & RS objections
I still have a problem with both the notability of this individual and the article's compliance with WP:RS. 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 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. Second AfD notwithstanding, expect another in the near future. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability & RS objections Response
Despite the clear CoI, I feel compelled to respond, since the above contains several inaccuracies which one would not expect from someone who supposedly is concerned about the truth and validity:

''I still have a problem with both the notability of this individual and the article's compliance with WP:RS. 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;''

FWIW, also check out 'http://www.apache.org/foundation/members-projects.html' which also canonically references the ~jim page, which is used in various places both within and without the ASF to link ASF committers and project. It is built using ASF SVN info and direct access to the committer info.

the second source is a self-published usenet FAQ also by the subject himself.

Wouldn't you expect the FAQ that someone is editor to to actually be "self-published"? How does that diminish the validity of the wrote/edited the A/UX FAQ reference? Also see http://www.snakeoillabs.com/downloads/aux-guide.pdf and http://christtrek.dyndns.org:8000/doc/aux/faq.html (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=jagielski+a/ux&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

''The third source is a self-published press release. ''

Not true. Subject did not release the PR. Zend did.

'' The fourth source is a self-published Slashdot announcement. ''

Again not true. Note: Posted by CmdrTaco on Fri Oct 15, 1999 09:59 AM

 The final source is simply a list of the Apache BoD's.

Umm... If one reason for notability is the aspect of being on the BoD of the ASF and the chairman of the ASF, then why is a pointer to the canonical list of directors and officers not appropriate? Certainly the official list of ASF BoDs and their officers is relevant?

The subject of the article has re-created this article (about himself!)

Again, not true... (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Jagielski&action=history)


 * Jim: I think you have some confusion about what I mean when I say self-published... It appears you believe self-published means published by the subject of the article (ie, you - Jim Jagielski).  What we mean in the Wikipedia world is that we require third-party reliable sources, not sources that publish themselves -- the specifics are covered generally by WP:RS and specifically by WP:SPS.  To quote:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

- WP:RS


 * "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources."

- WP:SPS


 * Hope this helps explain what I mean. I again encourage you to actually read our policies and guidelines before repeatedly creating an article dedicated to yourself.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

COI
The tone is understandable considering that the subject wrote the article. However, some sourced content would be desirable that assesses the value of his contributions rather than just enumerating his achievements. For NOPV also a note of his failures would be useful; if there were any that is! BlueValour (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly creating
I have not "repeatedly creat(ed)" the article. Instead, when deleted I had asked for a review which passed as KEEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Jagielski_%282nd_nomination%29). I do not see how that constitutes "repeatedly creating" the article, which implies direct bypassing of the intents of the editors. As far as self-publishing, you are correct. I misunderstood the distinction between the subject providing links and others providing the exact same links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjag (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Recusing
In any case, I am recusing myself any further from this discussion. It places me in an uncomfortable position of "self promotion" which is something I tend to strenuously avoid, especially regarding peripheral associations. Placing myself in positions of COI is not a behavior which I subscribe to. Jimjag —Preceding comment was added at 23:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
1. The phrases co-Mentors and Mentors are not defined in an encyclopaedic sense... further definition or citation is needed, or these terms need be made plain to the reader.

2. An appointment is an appointment; 'Leadership' needs to be substantiated in encyclopaedic terms, and that section doesn't meet that definition. Participation might be the appropriate term.

3. 'making him likely the longest active contributor within the ASF' - to which there no less than 8 other claims to that title. 'likely' is not encyclopaedic... either this is consensus of those founders and the word 'likely' deleted, or this statement should be struck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codewyrds (talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)