Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Moore (writer)


 * 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 procedural close. Moved to Draft:Jason Moore (writer) as a recreation of an article which was moved to Draft:Jason Moore per WP:DRAFTIFY. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Jason Moore (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedians don't automatically become notable. He is mentioned quite collaterally, mainly for his large number of edits. Very little, if any, of it is WP:DEPTH. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep semi-notable coverage in reliable sources, almost seems like he's using the tragedy for his own ends. Unsure of notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "almost seems like he's using the tragedy for his own ends" -- oof, that hurts. :( --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this accusation, ? This...is not an autobiography, so it's unclear who exactly you're accusing of what here... Sergecross73   msg me  18:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * keep Wikipedia is a rules based encyclopedia, just like a rules based country. A non-rules based country is like North Korea and Russia. Even if you don't like it being an article, it meets the Wikipedia rules of having reliable sources. The CNN article, in particular, is really about Moore, not Wikipedia in general. (Therefore, I disagree with Ari T. Benchaim, who claims that Moore mentioned "quite collaterally" when, in fact, Moore is the main subject of the CNN article). Charliestalnaker (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note this user (the article's creator) has been blocked for sockpuppetry.  Hut 8.5  17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not really sure what to say or do here, but I'm the subject of this entry. Recently a subpar stub about me was created, then moved into draft space after being nominated for speedy deletion: Draft:Jason Moore. Given my conflict of interest, I shared a more complete and sourced draft on the talk page (Draft talk:Jason Moore) for editors to review and implement appropriately. Now this second page has been created and nominated for deletion. I guess I'll just step away from this for a while and revisit once the dust has settled. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't pay it too much mind. Have faith in the process and let others decide if they are willing to AGF or not. DN (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I do think the subject is notable, but this current article stub clearly doesn't make the case for that. I'm confused why it was recreated when it was moved to draft space just yesterday and editors are working on creating a much more comprehensive article here). Obviously if editors are looking at that version, it would be a completely different discussion than the live stub. I see a couple courses of action: 1. Moving over the draft talk page version (which is much more comprehensive) to the live page; 2. !Voting on this article in this current form; 3. Deleting this article and recreating with the draft talk version at a later time. I'd prefer option 1, as the subject meets notability criteria. I'm sure other editors can come up with other options, and I'm happy to hear those as well. For what it's worth, I'll be !voting 'keep' if this discussion continues in anticipation of the sourcing and content from the draft talk page version being incorporated. --Kbabej (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The drafted one is a mess. While this does seem like a low-importance article, nothing here seems contentious or poorly sourced. Kire1975 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the subject of the article has requested deletion. The deletion policy says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is "no clear consensus to keep" may be closed as delete. While Moore has been the subject of a few news articles, he is an unknown person and definitely not a public figure, and I think we should grant the request. In any case most of the sources which have been put forward are about the 2020 Capitol insurrection, suggesting he falls under WP:BLP1E as being a person known only for a very minor role in a single event. The only source provided which isn't about that event and gives him significant coverage is .  Hut 8.5  16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Hut 8.5. Can you point to where the subject is requesting deletion? I actually see the subject asking for the draft on the draft talk page to be considered. --Kbabej (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Retort What an insult, calling Moore "non-public". He obviously cooperated with the news articles over nearly 10 years and gave interviews. He is a public person. That rule cited does not apply. In addition, Kbabej is correct. Moore cooperated with the WP article. He should not be allowed to game the system and not want it if he doesn't like a later version. That would be the subject person manipulating Wikipedia (which Moore hasn't done yet). Charliestalnaker (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * How am I gaming the system? All I've done is provided a more complete and better sourced draft for editors to consider, if there's going to be an entry about me. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * sounds like a deletion request to me. "Public figure" does not mean "gave an interview to a news article". Wiktionary defines it as "A famous person whose life is the subject of public interest". Our article defines it as "a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society". Moore is not famous, there is no public interest in his life, and he his not remotely influential in society. He's an ordinary guy who was covered in a few news articles about Wikipedia. "Non-public figure" is not an insult, the vast majority of people are not public figures, including me.  Hut 8.5  17:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank for the reply. As I noted on the admin noticeboard, Moore doesn't request deletion. In a reply on the noticeboard, I wrote, "In reviewing what they wrote, I don't see them asking for a deletion. Instead, on their initial post here, they ask for updates to the page with the sourced draft talk page twice: 1. "I disclosed my conflict of interest and shared a complete and sourced draft on the talk page for editors to review and implement appropriately."; 2. "Would someone be interested in helping to update the live article based on my draft?". I'm confused where editors are coming up with a deletion request when that doesn't appear anywhere. --Kbabej (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The comment mentions removing the mainspace version, which is this article. I read that as a deletion request. I'm sure that Another Believer can speak for himself if that wasn't his intention. In any case even without the request I don't think the sources given are enough to justify an article because they almost entirely cover him in the context of the Capitol insurrection.  Hut 8.5  17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the sourcing on the current AfD'd live version (5 sources), the draft version (2 sources), or the draft talk page version (33 sources)? Obviously I'm aware the number of sources isn't indicative of notability, and that's not my point. My point is I don't see the editor asking for deletion (and yes, they may need to weigh in, if that's the perception), and also that there are three versions to assess here. --Kbabej (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit overwhelmed by all of this but I'll try to clarify. I don't feel like I should have any say in whether or not I'm "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. That's for other editors to decide. However, I've provided a COI draft in an attempt to correct inaccurate and unsourced information about me, which was added to the project by two now-blocked editors. One bad entry was created, then flagged for speedy deletion and moved into main space for improvement. Then, a sockpuppet created a second bad entry, which was flagged for deletion. Between the draft, the live page, the sockpuppet investigation, the admin noticeboard, and this ongoing deletion discussion, I don't really know what the next steps should be. I just want there to be an accurate entry about me, if there's going to be one. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly sounds like you don't want this version to exist in mainspace, and I think we should honour that request. I hadn't seen the version on the draft talk page but I don't think it's much of an improvement in terms of demonstrating notability, while it has lots of citations they turn out to be to trivial mentions, news articles which don't mention the subject of the article or only do so in passing, blog posts and the Wikipedia Signpost.  Hut 8.5  18:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, I do not want this current version in the main space, but I'm not saying I'd never want there to be a Wikipedia entry about me if editors think I meet the site's notability criteria. I'm very torn here -- I never thought I'd "earn" a Wikipedia entry and I'm completely flattered to have one, especially at a project I care about tremendously and for which I've dedicated so much time and energy over the years. However, you better believe that if editors put up incorrect information about me then I am going to submit COI requests to address those issues, which is what I've done and what I'll continue to do if the article is kept. Right now I don't even know if I'm supposed to be submitting requests to Talk:Jason Moore (writer) or Draft talk:Jason Moore. Is there even a reason to submit COI edit requests in the draft space? I assume a history merge is not applicable, but ideally we'd all be working off a single page here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments. First of all, this AfD is off to a very poor start. The tone of several of the comments made so far is shockingly bad. Claiming that the article-subject "almost seems like he's using the tragedy for his own ends" is blatantly offensive, as is analogizing the deletion nomination to "North Korea and Russia", and as are references to the subject's "gaming the system", even if accompanied by a backhanded acknowledgement that he has in no way done that "yet". These kinds of comments would be BLP violations if made against anyone, and the fact that in this case we are discussing an article on one of our editing colleagues in no way excuses them. On the notability issue, the only claim of notability seems to concern the subject's Wikipedia editing. There are only a handful of people with mainspace articles based primarily or exclusively on their editing here, and it's not clear how common that should be. If the subject is requesting deletion, this is a dubious enough case of notability that his preference should be decisive. (Clearly notable subjects do not get to decide whether they have articles, but borderline-at-best ones should.) Ironically, if the subject were pushing us to keep the article, he'd be accused of improper self-promotion. It's also possible that he's refraining from requesting deletion, or conversely from requesting that an improved article be kept, out of concerns about being accused of COI. If so, I sympathize, because I've been there as a BLP subject myself, discouraged by policy from making even non-controversial factual updates in my own article. It's not an easy place to be&mdash;but as our critics point out, having an unwanted or an inaccurate Wikipedia article is just as problematic for our borderline-notable BLP subjects who do not have their own voices here as well as those of us who do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well stated, @Newyorkbrad. I'm just thinking out loud here, but as the article was created by a sockpuppet after just being moved to draftspace yesterday, is there a way to wash this AfD? Not sure if that's even a possibility. I think there's a lot of confusion with three versions of the article (the live version, the draft version, and the draft talk page version), all of which are very different. I agree that the subject is in an unenviable position. --Kbabej (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, Newyorkbrad. I'm offended by more or less being called an ambulance chaser because I sometimes work on Wikipedia entries about disasters. Sometimes I speak to journalists when they have questions about my work and how Wikipedia operates in general, but I'm not sure how that gets warped into me using tragedy for personal benefit. And you're right, I'm quite frustrated by having to defend myself across multiple pages because of actions by now-blocked editor(s). I understand healthy COI skepticism, but getting fellow editors to review BLP issues should not be so difficult. Like I said above, I don't really know the best next steps so I think I'll let the dust settle. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (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.