Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (5th nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. Article is known good, has had notability established several times (see previous AfD collection), and the nomination at best a political statement at worst an attempt to cause drama by an account created only for that purpose. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Essjay controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notable only within the context of the project. Otherwise doing harm, and non notable in a global context. Segragate account (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I have no idea who is behind this newly created account for the sole purpose of an AfD -- and incidentally, the correct spelling is "segregate" not "segragate" -- but a GA-rated article, which is well-referenced using reliable sources from independent third-parties, is only one of many reasons why this highly stable article is still around, I suspect. Another (more important) reason is because authors are *still* talking about it. The Irish Independent, in fact, just published an article on 20 September 2008 (a few days ago) entitled "Lies, damned lies and the internet" in which the Essjay controversy was discussed. Since April 2007, writers and academics continue to publish on the "Essjay controversy" with articles not yet referenced in our article. According to Factiva, I count over one hundred articles in several different languages including Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, French, German, and Italian -- all discussing the "Essjay controversy" and what it means for the internet. You'll also find articles discussing the "Essjay controversy" in other English-language media ranging from the Bangkok Post to the Jerusalem Herald. Donna Shaw wrote an academic article for the American Journalism Review discussing the Essjay controversy this year (February 2008). Then there are the legal cases. Last year, we were discussing in the archives about the possibility of creating a legal section in which we cite all the court cases that used the "Essjay controversy" as background. I suppose that section should be created now. Overall, based on the published evidence, the "Essay controversy" is still very much a relevant topic for discussion and debate among journalists, academics, lawyers, and internet activists. Regards, J Readings (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per J Readings and also WP:SNOW. Dr.K. (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt WP:SNOW applies when yours is the second comment. The AfD has only been open for a few hours, and it is not currently showing up on the AfD log, so that may be why it is not receiving many comments. Risker (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW applies also when there is no logical way to think of deleting this article given: 1. Its past deletion debates and their results. 2. Common logic given its significance in Wikipedia's history. I could add a few more reasons but I think I made my point. Dr.K. (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No policy reason for deletion. Sources clearly meet WP:N and way way past. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (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.