Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Terdiman


 * 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Terdiman
Judging by the title, it appears to be about some author who does not meet WP:BIO. However, the article discusses itself and how its referenced by other articles. Only source is the subject's resume. Delete as failing WP:BIO. Wickethewok 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note This article has been completely rewritten with new sources since the nomination -- the article is about a journalist. --Kevin Murray 02:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. John Reaves 09:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has experienced major improvements. John Reaves 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. My best guess is that someone decided none of the authorlinks in the Wikipedia notes should be redlinks, and so created this in an effort to fill the gap.  WP:BIO and WP:ASR both apply.  It'll be okay, redlinks are people, too!  Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) -- See below
 * Why should there be red authorlinks (rather than just unlinked author names) in citations? -- Jeff G. 10:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, when there's no potential for the target to be expanded into an article, there probably is no reason. I imagine that this name was just authorlinked for its own sake (or because the other article authors weren't aware whether or not this would be a valid topic), and so the inbound references to this page can and probably should be purged upon its (assumed) deletion.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This individual appears to meet the professor test, in that he is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors).  All information in the article can be independently verified now.  "Daniel Terdiman" gets about 105,000 results on Google, about 53,500 results on Alexa, and about 126,000 results on Yahoo!.  The original version did not reference the individual's resume, only some of the many articles he's written. -- Jeff G. 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "professor test", which I assume refers to Notability (academics) (which is excessively subjective), does not apply to this guy as his main publications are news articles, quite different from academic publications. I disagree with your notion that he's more notable than an average college professor.  There are no independant articles on him, failing WP:V.  Alexa/Google results aren't useful arguments for keeping an article.  Wickethewok 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with Wickethewok, Gooogle hits are a much more valid argument for inclusion rather than exclusion. --Kevin Murray 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that google hits are a criteria for exclusion. I'm merely saying that they are not useful information (he writes online articles, of course he comes up with a lot of Google hits).  I'm sure every writer for CNet gets thousands and thousands of Google hits, that doesn't make them all notable.  Wickethewok 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wicke, I agree, but looking past the number of hits to the quality of the content is making me think this guy is notable. Remeber that notable per the WP standards is "worthy of notice" and specifically not famous, important or newsworthy.  I think this guy makes it with his award and body of work, and growing reputation as an expert on Burning Man.  I'd sure like to see some independent reviews of his work, and am working on that this afternoon. --Kevin Murray 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, a few entries in some zines does not make one a well published author and there is no evidence of the other claims nor are there references to them Alf photoman 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, additional information should suffice WP:BIO. Alf photoman 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is a mess and need some TLC. The subject is a journalist (not really an author per nomination), and some of his articles have been about Wikipedia and controversy around lack of accuaracy in our articles.  Clearly the refererences within the article to G-hits etc. is odd, but telling as to potential notabillty.  Why is the professor test being citied above?  I don't see any reference to a teaching career. --Kevin Murray 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been a lot of work done to the article this afternoon by the original author and myself. WP notability is not a rigid nor rigorous standard.  This subject has won an award for his journalism, is a recognized expert who is invited to speak at hi-tech conferences, moderates panels, and has developed a second source of notability as an author and expert on the Burning Man festival.  Along with this there is an assumption of notability that can be inferred from the hi G-hits.  --Kevin Murray 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Better, and no longer WP:ASR, but I am still unconvinced. His award is from the local chapter of a notable organization.  I don't think this rises to the level of awards suitable for determining notability by Wikipedia standards.  As for the book, his contribution was as one of three members of the "Prose Editorial Team" and one of over 30 "writing contributors".  It is also the only product by its publisher, which appears to be basically the personal project of the book's producer, Holly Kreuter.  He has written a lot, because he's a staff writer.  He has a lot of Google hits because he's a staff writer for outlets that provide their material online.  Nearly all longtime staff writers for the Washington Post or the New York Times would have similar Google footprints, for example, but probably also do not meet the current notability standards.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that pornstars can get WP notability by accumulating a large body of work, but journalists aren't so recognized. --Kevin Murray 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, very interesting. Could it be that Wikipedians like porn better than news? :)  -- Jeff G. 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Journalists are governed by the base WP:BIO, which requires, roughly, multiple independant coverage of the person's work. Terdiman is a prolific journalist, and seems very likely to be the kind of person who will evenetually meet the standards, but doesn't yet.  Whether or not WP:PORNBIO serves the best intentions of the encyclopedia is a separate issue from the article at hand.  If anything, this might be a convincing argument for a tightening of that guideline, rather than a loosening of the main one.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 03:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Serpent, we are on the same page on the porn issue. Clearly an inconsistent set of standards. --Kevin Murray 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not going to vote quite yet until i think about this one, but I want to note that WP:BIO's mention of the "professor test" (which is included there, not simply in the notability for academics) does not specifically state that the person needs to actually be a professor or academic. The article in question does assert that this journalist is an expert in certain fields, which would seem to be close enough to argue for it on this basis.  I also note that the professor test, which merely requires that a person be more published than the "average college professor" is a fairly low bar (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the "average" professor probably publishes zilch, or close to it...) Tarinth 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - He doesn't seem any more published than any local reporter though (who normally writes a story or two every day). All of the "sources" given in the article are either written by him or merely mention him in passing, certainly not fulfilling the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" central criterion.  Wickethewok 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wickethewok, the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" central criterion which you cite above is prefaced with the statement: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." We have evidence that he is notable in other ways.
 * The references became confusing when they were moved into the footnote feature and the subjects were masking the more pertinent sources. The format has been changed so that the footnotes more clearly describe valid support for WP:BIO.
 * The most notable single item is his award -- multiple (two or more) awards or reviews would make him notable per WP BIO. Serpent disparages the award above, but WP BIO doesn't say that it has to be a national or international award. We need another award or review.
 * I think that we could to look at the Businessweek discussion of his expertise along with his mention/demonstration as an expert in game technology as a cumulative review by multiple non-trivial sources.
 * Per WP Notability, "Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness". This subject has clearly attracted notice as exemplified by the discussion of him online and many references to his work in blogs etc.
 * If I won't be chastized for citing blog material, I can give a bunch of references to his notability, but I have avoided this source. Most of what I'm hearing here is that we need to establish "importance" and that clearly contradicts the guidelines.
 * --Kevin Murray 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and continue the cleanup (which seems to be going well). Not every journalist is notable - showing up in the New York Times as a one-off contributor may not establish notability in the same way that it would if he were the subject of the article.  But here the person seems to be a widely published journalist with work in major publications.  It's possible in some cases that a person can write for one or two of these publications without becoming notable (if he were, say, nothing but a journeyman).  But I don't think that's the case here.  Given the breadth of publication of his work, it seems that he meets the WP:BIO standards.  I think it should be kept, and want to thank those editors involved in the cleanup effort - good work, guys.--TheOtherBob 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TheOtherBob! -- Jeff G. 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The following links represents the articles about Terdiman found in the first 6 pages of Yahoo listings (60 listings) on a search for “Daniel Terdiman”; there are 8 7 articles which are about him rather than by him, this represents about 13 12%,. Considering the thousands of g-hits on hundreds of pages, this demonstrates that a lot of people are talking about Dan T. and/or his work.  Some of this is nonsense, however some is critical review of his work – but is it non-trivial, independent and reliable?
 * http://www.3pointd.com/20060926/cnet-launches-second-life-site/
 * http://socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com/2004/07/29/hollywood-ads-blogs-and-young-men/
 * http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/slow_second_life_news_day_for_the_register/
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/terdiman_rosedale_resume/
 * http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?blogthis=1&p=3670
 * http://www.ericrice.com/blog/?p=116
 * http://www.metaverseroadmap.org/participants.html
 * http://www.metaverseroadmap.org/bios/terdiman/terdiman.html redundant


 * If I put these at the article I'll be damned for improper referencing, so I'm putting them here as evidence of notability. We can discuss whether more time should be spent on finding more of type represented by the better quality of those above.
 * --Kevin Murray 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - thanks for answering my previous comments; I'm persuaded by the keep arguments that he meets WP:BIO. Tarinth 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please this award winning journalist meets bio guideline Yuckfoo 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't think he meets inclusion standards by much, but I'm satisfied that the work that has been done overcomes my primary objections. There's still obviously some to be done, including pruning some peacock phrasing ("versatile writer" ... "considered to be an expert" citing an article that doesn't actually call him that), but AFD isn't for editing.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re claim of expert on Second Life. Here is the quote from Business Week: "I also owe a great debt to several writers who have pioneered coverage of what are now very real places to millions of people: Julian Dibbell, author of My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World, about his experiences in the classic text-based world LambdaMOO, and also author of the upcoming book Play Money; Edward Castronova, author of the essential book on online games, Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games; and CNET writer Daniel Terdiman, who seems to cover every significant issue inside Second Life."  Within the context of the article this seems to assert his expertise, but maybe there is a better way to describe his knowledge of Second Life.  Any ideas? --Kevin Murray 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed Peacock Phrase "versatile", substituted " He writes about a wide range of subjects. --Kevin Murray 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * keep as now revised. I really do not see why the professor test was invoked. He's ot a professor. He's a broadcast journalist. If he were a professor of journalism it might be applicable, but he isnt. Apparently there is some idea that everyone who gets a masters degree is a professor. DGG 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.