Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (third 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 delete. Most of the sources provided are only passing mentions, self-references, or articles not about the subject of the article itself, and do not work as reliable sources in this case. --Core desat  02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Despite two afds, there is still not a clear settled position on this one. I closed the last as delete - but it was borderline and there's more argument proceeding on DRV. So I'm listing here in the hope of a full debate and settled conclusion. Please give full explanations for every !vote, so that the consensus can be clearer. Abstain myself. --Docg 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous AfDs one and two--Docg 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Beat the nom support... All kidding aside though, there are more than enough reliable sources to construct a decent article. There's the AP article but also, has badlydrawnjeff pointed out this article in Die Welt. Pascal.Tesson 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy delete (G4 - recreation of deleted material) This is over already. Stop it. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can keep making this argument forever. The first deletion debate was probably correct in recommending deletion. But now that reliable third-party sources have taken notice of Mr Kohs, it's only natural to reconsider. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Speedy Delete WP:IAR -> this article is not helpful to the encyclopedia. This debate is less so. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Spam. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; (out of laziness, I'll just copy here what I said on DRV) The only claim of notability of this individual is in relation to Wikipedia. If this episode is considered sufficiently interesting in the context of Wikipedia, it can be added to History of Wikipedia; otherwise, I see no point in keeping something that is not considered sufficiently important in its own context. Tizio 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, delete, spam, advertising, etc.-- Wizardman 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Pascal.Tesson is correct that there are enough sources to build a barely serviceable article. However, considering the marginal notability, and the past differences between Mr. Kohs and the Wikipedia community, in the spirit of WP:BLP AND WP:IAR, I think it is best if this article does not exist.  Delete -- danntm T C 19:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and a hearty troutslap to all of you who think that IAR has any place in this discussion at this point. Let's look at it this way.  First, check the sources.  We have one oft-reprinted AP article that stemmed from the Microsoft issue where Kohs is a primary subject.  We have the German article linked above which is non-trivial as well, so he meets the WP:BIO standard, as well as any WP:V questions that may crop up.  Some claim that the article is spam, which is patently false - I know of no evidence that Kohs is currently editing the article, being banned, and if he is, we can certainly edit to fix that.  BLP isn't an issue here, either, I'm not sure why that's being brought up.  In full, there's absolutely no policy reason to delete this - he's "notable" by our standards, he's verifiable by our standards, and the only argument that seems to be permeating throughout this protracted debate is that since he did something that some Wikipedians didn't like, he should be held to a different standard.  That's simply absurd, and should be treated as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, can you disagree with people without praying for their damnation?--Docg 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not for IAR, but I'll amend anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete still junk. WP:SELF applies. JuJube 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELF: "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important...the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." WP:SELF clearly doesn't apply. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree WP:SELF dosn't quite apply. I say delete per WP:AUTOBIO (article was created by subject of page), linklessness, and recreation without deletion review. This page, at it's core, is a promotional page / product of current events. Yes, he was mentioned or quoted in a few news sources recently, but that does not mean he needs a wikipage all of a sudden. Danski14 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC), update 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things: One, WP:AUTOBIO does not require deletion, and instead points to the various "notability" standards.  Two, even if WP:AUTOBIO did require deletion, this article no longer appears to have any information that was added by Kohs, and did not at the time of the second AfD.  In fact, much of the information added by Kohs and removed would make a better article anyway, but that's not a discussion for here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Bear Fell Out of Tree in Santa Cruz" style news reporting makes this a primary-source based article. Don't we have a "Minor controversies surrounding Wikipedia" article somewhere? ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who majored in history (and that should mean very little in this discussion), I often point to this discussion on primary and secondary sources. Essentially, it's my belief that these are not primary sources regarding Kohs as much as a secondary synthesis of information already available.  Besides that, I think we'd be going down a very hard road if we started considering articles like this as primary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The other hard road is the one we go down if we accept RMS Queen Mary 2 docks in San Francisco, California and RMS Queen Mary 2 undocks from San Francisco, California style articles based on the fact that these events were subject of multiple news reports. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But that road is much easier to deal with, is it not? "When in doubt, don't delete" has been a guiding light since I got here, and your latter example protects content better than this scenario. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No I don't think that road is easier to deal with. It's littered with COI problems, erodes collaborative work since we're stretching ourselves thin, and undermines the not-for-profit basis of Wikipedia since we're essentially turning into a free self-published Who-is-Who. On your library link, I would say the sources fit quite squarely in the primary camp, although I agree the primary-secondary distinction is itself a false dichotomy. ~ trialsanderrors 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a reasonable disagreement at least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not often I agree with Badlydranjeff but he's absolutely correct in arguing that many of the appeals to various policies are flawed. Sure, there would probably not be a page about Gregory Kohs on Wikipedia if he hadn't gained attention for his actions on Wikipedia. This is a completely routine phenomenon: articles tend to be created because some editor cares but that does not make it an automatic WP:SELF problem. This is like saying that the article on Jimbo is a self-reference. (Yes I do understand the relative unimportance of Gregory Kohs) The only debate worth having here is "do the sources provided constitute multiple, non-trivial published works?" If the answer is yes, we should keep this regardless of the fact that we don't particularly like the article or its subject. Pascal.Tesson 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once again, an article has to go prove itself repeatedly, and we have more bites at the apple until the desired result is obtained. There are multiple non-trivial published sources. That the guy became notable for abusing Wikipedia is, if anything, an argument that we should bend over backwards not to delete, lest we be seen as biased (or more so than we already are). -- Jay Maynard 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a couple of passing mentions, some sourced from the Village pump(!), self-referential, and not much evidence that anybody but us cares about Mr. Kohs. Oh, seems I'm one of the admins that blocked him, in one or more of his guises.  Doesn't change matters as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, although the one we deleted in August was created by Kohs, this version was not, unless he has been using User:Jacob Poon since 2005 without tipping us off, which somehow I doubt since part of Kohs' MO is to put up some articles and then say "there, look, it wasn't a problem at all, was it?" to make his point. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All three are reprints/copies of the Washington Post/AP piece linked at the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) ", and thought the Die Welt article was one of those. I also read several newspaper articles which used only the first few grafs of the AP feed, content about Microsoft and Wikipedia that had no mention of Mr. Kohs.  I first learned of the topic through hearing an NPR radio report, where Microsoft and Wikipedia were the focal points I heard and where if Kohs' name was mentioned I didn't notice it; it certainly wasn't featured.  Barno 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Two short articles and a picture make him borderline notable. Tenuous notability combined with WP:SELF make deleting the article the better choice. JChap2007 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for precisely what Sean said a few days ago: "WP:BIO, WP:POINT, and WP:DENY." Picaroon 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO is met, this doesn't disrupt anything to make a point, and this has nothing to do with vandalism. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the first and second counts, and the third, too, if advertising counts as vandalism. Picaroon 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject is non-notable, sources are not reliable. Maybe mention it in that silly article about wikipedia in the media.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you judge "notability?" And since when is the AP unreliable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as I said at the DRV, this is a news story, not a biography. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm completely stunned by the deletion rationales here, almost completely across the board. Not a single one that cites policy accurately reflects it, and only a couple have provided any legitimate non-policy rationale.  What is this going to take? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter comment in all fairness, not all rationales are illegitimate. For instance, I disagree with Sam but it's reasonable to argue that the AP article isn't what one would consider something whose primary subject is Gregory Kohs. But still, I feel that people first make the instinctive judgment that they don't want this article on Wikipedia and then find an interpretation of policy that matches their instinct whereas the argument should work the other way around. Pascal.Tesson 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple adjustments made for clarity, but as I said, not all of them are bad. The problem is essentially your second statement - I'm just not that talented a wordsmith. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Subject meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Let's take a close look at WP:SELF: In a nutshell, "To ease reusability, never allow the text of an article to assume that the reader is viewing it at Wikipedia, and try to avoid even assuming that the reader is viewing the article at a website. There may also be stylistic issues with using phrases such as this article unnecessarily." This article does not assume that the reader is viewing it at Wikipedia or on a website, or make any statements about "this article." Therefore, WP:SELF simply does not apply to this article. The reason I voted "weak" is that I wonder if we should deny recognition. --N Shar 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or merge into Controversies related to Wikipedia if there are enough to split it from History of Wikipedia. This guy's name isn't even in the story cited as a reference; it appears only in the caption of a photo.  The article itself mentions another guy.  (The article also says "The imbroglio will soon pass", which sounds like "trivial" and "not notable" to me.)  All the other stories I've seen or heard on this topic don't mention Kohs' name at all, although I haven't checked out the one from Die Welt.  The incident is notable, but I have to stretch to consider this person even at the edge of notability under WP:BIO.  A better analogy for trialsanderrors' complaint would be if people were arguing to keep a biography of the Queen Mary 2's captain because there were news stories showing RMS Queen Mary 2 docks in San Francisco, California.  (While I was researching this, the ref link was changed and now points to a story that does contain Kohs' name.)  I still have the opinion that the person hasn't achieved enough notability to pass the hundred year test or even the one year test.  Scraping the edges of one part of WP:BIO doesn't make something a mandatory keep.  The second AfD was closed as delete (albeit borderline) and people should not keep hollering for multiple chances to get their desired result if they want "keep" any more than if they want "delete".  If you want it kept, improve a poor article with sources and substantial content, instead of putting more "no no no I insist" text into the AfD than is in the article.  Barno 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The piece in Die Welt is substantial (so not having checked it before offering an opinion is rather strange, to say the least). The AP piece is rather less interesting, but between the two of them, plus the SdZ article, I think there's enough to build on. Since WP:N and WP:V are met, and WP:NOT doesn't apply, consider the other alphabet soup offered in support of deletion arguments: WP:DENY and WP:AUTO are irrelevant; WP:ASR likewise (why are Daniel Leslie Brandt and History of Wikipedia in mainspace if ASR is prescriptive?; clearly it's not); it is hard to see how WP:ADS could be applicable to the article in its current state. Additionally, a number of delete opinions are based on erroneous assertions (only two articles; articles do not mention Kohs; not much evidence that anyone but us cares). The long-term solution should be a merge somewhere, preferably in wikispace when all the other navel-gazing wankery is removed there too, but that's not a pressing matter. Unlike Hipocrite, I can think of nothing less helpful to the encyclopedia than deleting an article on a minor celebrity on the basis of a collective and conscious WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing less helpful? Are you sure you want to reach for that bit of hyperbole? --Calton | Talk 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Die Welt article was described in the Deletion Review debate (after the second AfD as just a reprint of the AP piece. Angus, are you saying that every editor is required to perform a translation of a reprint of known material just to comment validly on sources for the English-language Wikipedia?  Are you saying that a translation of an existing article is separate and helps meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement?  And why !vote "keep" if you think the correct action is "merge" which I also supported?  Maybe one or two people are arguing IDONTLIKEIT (or finding a policy justification to back a predetermined position) but the rest of us are interpreting the facts and the policies differently than you.  Please apply WP:AGF.  Also note that over a half-dozen respected editors have commented that they "rarely agree with badlydrawnjeff" (in terms of his interpretation of notability policies, esp. WP:BIO) in the last couple of months of AfD and MfD and DRV.  (That's not intended as a personal attack, just evidence that his positions are not community consensus even if he states them eight or nine times in one debate.)  Barno 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My positions do reflect community consensus, I'm just not as quick to abandon it. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Die Welt article was not mentioned at all in Deletion Review. It covers some of the same ground as the AP article but is clearly an original piece, with stuff that isn't in the AP article (and vice versa).  Uncle G 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What Uncle G said. If editors haven't read the relevant material, why would they feel the need to comment? Offering an opinion at any particular AfD is not mandatory. Deletion policy seems to presume that editors will have informed themselves before opining. It is nice of Calton to acknowledge my rhetorical finish, but poisoning the well beats hyperbole any day. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I misread the comment referred to by "Jeff, the links Elaragirl gives above were not provided in the AFD discussion. Why do you say they are? Proto::► 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion. Still non-notable, still self-referential, still the not-primary subject of multiple trivial works, no matter how much air Badlydrawnjeff tries to pump into the minor news articles or how much (as he did at WP:DRV) he pretends not to understand "self-referential". As sources for anything even resembling an actual encyclopedia biography, pretty worthless. As bonuses, throw in the fact it's thinly disguised spam, of no importance outside Wikipedia, and a big honking example of why WP:DENY is needed. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. (To an extent as a reply to badlydrawnjeff's concern at the DRV): I think that WP:SELF applies, although in a supposedly contrived way: the events are reported through several outside sources because the case has raised some dust and contoversy here, and we're big and important enough for that to catch attention of journalists. But all the references are not about Kohs as an individual, but about Wikipedia—Kohs might as well be a John Doe. Other than that event, I see no claim of notability; we routinely merge e.g. articles about otherwise unremarkable victims, scandal-causers, criminals, and similar into articles about the events they participated in (and which are the sole cause of their notability); I don't see why this case should be different. At best, his name and the event should deserve a couple of sentences in Wikipedia article or one of its subarticles. Duja ► 09:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They're mostly about Kohs in the context of his associations with Wikipedia. That does not make the article about Wikipedia, but about Kohs, thus invalidating any contrived concerns regarding WP:SELF.  Meanwhile, his claim to notability is the attention his business got, and I'm not sure he's exactly unremarkable given the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's circular. If his marketing business becomes notable enough that it earns a WP:RS article not related with Wikipedia (and/or WP:CORP), I'd agree with inclusion. But it's crystalballing, and there's no claim of such thing in the article. Duja ► 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That, of course, is impossible, since he and his business are concerned with Wikipedia. You can't have an article on a company designed to create articles on Wikipedia without mentioning Wikipedia.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And why should we have an article about that company at all if it doesn't pass WP:CORP? Duja ► 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever issues i have with WP:CORP aside, MyWikiBiz undoubtedly would meet it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * we routinely merge e.g. articles about otherwise unremarkable victims, scandal-causers, criminals, and similar into articles about the events they participated in &mdash; Then why is it your opinion that this article should be deleted, instead of similarly merged? Uncle G 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I said something along that line in the last sentence of my initial post. I bolded delete because I see that as a primary option; I don't actually see where the information, if merged, should be retained, but I'm open to suggestions. Duja ► 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another small area of note: Kohs on G4. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per N Shar. However, do the sources meet the criteria on third-party sources?? --sunstar nettalk 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Associated Press, Die Welt and the Süddeutsche Zeitung? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems to be enough for a stub at this time. - Denny 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep the claim and its reporting are notable, whether or not he actually got anything in. It looks very bad for WP to be deleting articles about those who show it in a bad light. There's COI alright, if we delete it. DGG
 * Delete- 1. Not everyone who appears in a newspaper is notable. 2. WP:DENY. 3. All he is notable for is running centiare.com andhaving an exceedingly (on-wiki) controversial (like having an article about Willy on Wheels) 4. CSD G4. 5. WP:AUTOBIO. Jorcoga  ( Hi! / Review ) 07:54, Friday, 9 February '07
 * Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, while the Biz should be a footnote at Wikipedia, Mr. Kohs is NN. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-10t17:14z
 * Delete - its still a terrible article, just because someone does something stupid like this does not make the notable, as Jorcoga says. Cannot see why it should stay. Possibly a candidate for a redirect but I cant see where to. TSMonk 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per media referencing, I fail to see how WP:DENY is even remotely applicable here. Yamaguchi先生 07:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. --Myles Long 18:29, 11 February 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.