Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Snell

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 03:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jason Snell
Mr. Snell has been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia and he did not start this article although his acquaintance User:Cfarivar, who is lately infamous for surviving the longest VFD discussion since GNAA, did. Mr. Farivar has advocated an atroucious use of Wikipedia -- as personal space with self promotional benefits. He suggested readers through an article in Slate do likewise. And he has now directly exhorted a collegue to follow by starting his article for him to pick up. Self written or acquaintance vanity, just like any other low-verfication item, only weakens Wikipedia's credibility. Let's not tolerate this anymore. We must hold the line here.

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Snell seems relatively notable, at least by the low wiki standards. I hate vanity articles as much as the next guy. In general, don't worry too much. An article with no links from other pages gets little or no attention; once it does get linked from other pages (or if for some reason it generates interest elsewhere), the wonderful wikipedia world intervenes to balance things out. Take a look at CF's own article: Cyrus Farivar. It's just how things go. Sdedeo 06:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I should add that vanity articles that survive usually get their just recompense; real, unbiased information is added to them that often doesn't reflect well on the subject. Sdedeo 06:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, in substance, the Cyrus Farivar article is little changed (the Wikipedia section will be jettisoned eventually). Use of Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle is a new challenge that will only be more tedious (patrol new articles and see for yourself).  If we choose to keep promotional/vanity articles, then we should accept our lack of control over the article.  We can't verify most of the claims, leaving editors just the task of snipping egregious self aggrandizing prose, but we will be powerless to challenge the actual information.  If the nature of an article is known, I say aggressively stamp it out.  You can shrug dozens or hundreds of instances of unlinked vanity but that number will grow and it would be foolish not to expect damage to Wikipedia's reputation.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 08:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am happy to accede to the wishes of the community either way -- only you all can judge whether I am a worthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. I did not create the page or ask for it to be created (and I have a user talk page, regardless), but I did modify it in order to add some facts about my background that the page's creator did not know about. (And actually, it make me consider that the early days of publishing on the Internet are not well-covered by Wikipedia, which may lead to further articles regardless of the results of this particular vote.) Thank you for your time and consideration. Jsnell 21:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One addition: I ask you to please vote based on the merits of this article and its topic. As is clear from lots of issues's introduction, this VfD has been generated because of the politics of Cyrus Farivar's Slate article and the ensuing VfD discussion there and here: #vfd_I_think_you_should_see... Jimbo Wales: vfd I think you should see... Jsnell 22:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep based upon existing precedent. Hall Monitor 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Issues of politics and reputation aside, the subject is of very minor interest.    Contributor details should be kept to user pages. Dottore So 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
 * I guess it has to do with what you consider "minor interest." To members of the Macintosh community, I'm a pretty well-known figure. The key here, in my mind, is: what is Wikipedia supposed to be? A source for information on as many possible subjects as possible, even those that are fairly obscure but still relevant to a wider audience than a small circle of friends and family? Or a source for information that's both broad and extremely narrow. As Jimmy Wales has put it himself, it's not as if there are space constraints on Wikipedia -- that's one of its assets. If this article is truly of interest to nobody, it should be deleted. But how do you define "minor interest"? Is Adam C. Engst interesting? Frankly, I am getting quite confused about Wikipedia's VfD subculture. What's the point of Wikipedia if not that I can look up someone obscure like Carl Steadman (who founded Suck.com and should have his own entry), as well as looking up Albert Einstein? Jsnell 01:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do understand your point, but should every reporter and every columnist from every major and minor newspaper and magazine have a separate entry since they can, by defining their own ground, claim to be a "pretty well-known" figure? It seems unnecessary, particularly when we have user pages for contributor bio info.  Dottore So 17:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User pages are for bios of wikipedia contributors; articles are for topics that someone might come to Wikipedia to learn more about. I think an argument could be made that everyone who has a byline for a major publication/web site should be a candidate for a Wikipedia entry, just to promote transparency -- that way, readers would have the ability to find out exactly who is writing the articles they're reading. (It's even more important since many newspapers and magazines print only a bare byline, with no other biographical information to tell you anything about the perspective of the person in question.) I guess the question is, what's the true definition of someone "important enough to be in Wikipedia"? And should the community be extra vigilant in deleting articles about people, or extra lenient in giving articles the benefit of the doubt because what's unimportant to you may be very important to someone else? I'm obviously trending toward the lenient side, but I do see both sides. Jsnell 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Snell provides a very reasonable argument. In addition to Cyrus Farivar, see Jesse Liberty (and the accompanying VfD debate), who is also a contributor to Wikipedia.  Is there a list of Wikipedians with articles available?  Hall Monitor 18:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points. But I think it should be a question of lingering or lasting importance and some kind of reasonable standard with this regard should be iterated.  I note that there are almost no entries that I can find for New York Times reporters or even critics (whose role as arbiters of popular tase elevates them to a higher importance in terms of who they are).  This is also true of someone like James Taranto, editorialist for the WSJ.  If they are deemed by the community (through omission) to be below threshold, I think surely the same applies in this case. The existence of other entries of marginal interest does not promote the point. Anyway, just my $0.02 Dottore So 19:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I want Wikipedia to become the last reference of all interests. As an inclusionist, I bulk at the suggestion that an article should be deleted due to limited interest.  However, there can be no compromise between inclusive interest and factual integrity.  Whenever Wikipedia includes a low-verifiable subject with even a minor interest in becoming better known, quality chips away.  Not surprisingly the author will be an acquaintance or the subject.
 * I don't want to eliminate these journalists because only Mac users will query their name; actually, I am upholding neutrality and verifiability, which are some of the central tenets behind how Wikipedia works. lots of issues  | leave me a message 07:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I think that any published figure should have a Wikipedia page--if someone chooses to create it--as all writers have bias. The more information about a writer, the better the context in what they write is placed. This is true for computer journalists and writers at small local papers as for New York Times writers. The case that more well-known print journalists don't have Wikipedia entries demonstrates a bias by Wikipedia contributors, who are certainly multifarious, against mainstream media. This is well-known as Wikipedia is itself a stance against mainstream, single-voiced/publication-voiced media. If you remove Jason Snell, then Wikipedia also has to have a VfD for every single figure of any sort that someone believes hasn't contributed enough. There should be a very weak test for adding a biography, because the mere presence of a biography doesn't confer any authoritativeness nor an expectation that anyone will ever find such. Insufficiently well-known people will never have their biography read. They may post inaccurate information, but this is true on any obscure topic that no one ever reads. Any biography of anyone with sufficient reputation will be read and corrected. Further, there's nothing wrong with the subject inserting their own opinion because Wikipedia is designed to push toward the mean. A subject who persists in perpertuating known lies will not be able to persist if they are sufficiently observed. Disclosures: I found (did not create) a stub entry for myself, and fleshed it out. Someone had added Adam Engst and put a link to me. I did not create the entry. It has since been edited, showing that I have at least some minor interest to someone, otherwise no edits would have taken place. Disclosure: I write for Macworld and know both Jason and Cyrus. I have no vested interest in their particular biographies appearing or disappearing, nor my own. I edited my own biography with the expectation that it might be deleted. User:Glennf:Glennf 09:44, 13 August 2005 (PDT)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.