Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Freeman


 * 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 no consensus. In principle, we have five delete votes and three keep votes, one of them poorly motivated, and the last votes are delete, so that I could have closed it as delete. However, the discussion goes not even on whether the subject is covered in reliable sources - everybody agrees he is, but on whether depth of coverage and quality of sources is sufficient (there are three high profile national media, WSJ, Washington Post, and Forbes). That is a pretty typical AfD discussion, and both sides have good arguments, so I am closing this as no consensus and we can return to this discussion in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Jay Freeman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have serious concern about this meeting GNG. The subject is a hacker/computer scientist, and a candidate for minor political office. Here are things we can consider: he has been involved in hacking Google Glass, which generated some coverage, in which he was often cited, ex, he also got some coverage for a piece of software called Cydia ex. He is now running for a minor political office which generated some local news. Except for the recent, regional political news, the coverage is not about him, but he is mentioned in passing as the hacker who did some interesting stuff. Only the recent coverage is about him, and it seems to be based on combination on Wikipedia article (there's likely some citogenesis here...) and likely personal websites. I do not believe any of the coverage, however, suffices for GNG: either it's in passing or it's too regional/trivial to merit entry in encyclopedia. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with the nominator. This is a three time speedy deleted article. Subject coverage is fairly trivial and he is not the focus of any of sources. For example, the ibtimes interview isn't about Freeman; it's about various other topics he gives his opinion on. He seems great at getting media attention, but the depth of coverage is very minor and not in depth. I don't think this meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is my friend, which gives me a COI of a kind, but I believe there's substantial enough coverage to qualify for notability. First, it's helpful to note that his main work, Cydia, is notable, and many of the articles about Cydia include more-than-passing coverage about him and his work. These include articles in tech industry publications and major newspapers such as:
 * There are two articles in a mainstream publication that focus on him and his Google Glass work:
 * There are also articles in regional newspapers that focus on him with substantial coverage, such as:
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've linked these and some additional potential sources, including New York Times and Wired articles and a new Santa Barbara Independent article with substantial coverage, at Talk:Jay Freeman. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are also articles in regional newspapers that focus on him with substantial coverage, such as:
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've linked these and some additional potential sources, including New York Times and Wired articles and a new Santa Barbara Independent article with substantial coverage, at Talk:Jay Freeman. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've linked these and some additional potential sources, including New York Times and Wired articles and a new Santa Barbara Independent article with substantial coverage, at Talk:Jay Freeman. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've linked these and some additional potential sources, including New York Times and Wired articles and a new Santa Barbara Independent article with substantial coverage, at Talk:Jay Freeman. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've linked these and some additional potential sources, including New York Times and Wired articles and a new Santa Barbara Independent article with substantial coverage, at Talk:Jay Freeman. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - he has gotten in depth coverage.
 * --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Aside from the citation to the article he wrote (which doesn't cover him at all), everything here is news reports about his latest activities: they're primary sources. I see nothing in this article of news-type documents that discuss his past activities in detail, rather than his current-at-time-of-publication activities.  Before you go pushing a fringe POV that news reports are secondary sources, go take a History 101 undergraduate intro course and try telling your professor that news reports about a person's latest activities are secondary sources about him.  Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a higher standard than policies and guidelines require for evaluations of sources for notability. WP:GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; most of the cited and listed sources with significant coverage aren't "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" - they're published by authors who are working for publications and not affiliated with Freeman. Looking at WP:ANALYSIS as policy on how to categorize sources, most of these sources (other than the Q&A/interview-style articles) provide the author's synthesis of primary information about the subject, which a normal type of secondary source. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, go take a college-level history course and see what happens when you tell your professor that news reports about current events are secondary sources. Really basic discussion of this subject.  More scholarly discussion.  Secondary sources are those produced in chronological isolation from the event in question, according to basic historical theory.  WP:FRINGE firmly states that we must not give equal weight to fringe theories, including fringe historical theory such as the concept that publications from the time of an event are secondary.  Finally, WP:ANALYSIS puts the same thing a different way, at least one step removed from an event.  These publications are concurrent, they're part of it, and not removed at all.  Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While I think newspapers are accepted as reliable sources per WP:RS, they are indeed not ideal. My main problem here is that the few that do focus on him are more local then regional, definitions to vary but the point is that coverage in outlets limited to smaller cities or university campuses (Santa Barbara Independent, Daily Nexus) does not suggest the subject is encyclopedic (in other words, I think the problem is not the reliability of sources but the notability of the subject). The closest policy I can find is this: Notability_(people). "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I don't think that cited sources satisfy this; through of course we can debate the semantics of whether two or three minor, local newspapers are "significant press coverage" and/or "multiple news feature articles". I say they are not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The politician guideline is a helpful reference (thanks!) but tricky in this case since his main notability is for his software/business efforts (especially Cydia). A lot of the press coverage about this work has significant material about him, enough that no original research is necessary to build a meaningful Wikipedia article (as guided by WP:GNG). Dreamyshade (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for another week for better attention. SwisterTwister  talk  05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I suppose you don't understand what Cydia is, and I think that him being the developer of that software is enough to make him notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. 14.203.74.157 (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED, dear anon. Whether Cydia is important or not, this doesn't mean its developer is important (nor not), not unless there are sources which, for example, discuss his role in the development of Cydia. If the entire Cydia community knows he is important, but nobody in it has bothered to write this common knowledge up for laymen so that it could be used as a reference - sorry, it does not count for Wikipedia. Also, see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is still questionable for the necessary solid independent notability, something that is not confidently being insinuated. SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still doesn't seem to be any consensus. Relisting for more participation. Omni Flames  let's talk about it  09:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames   let's talk about it  09:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete—I don't believe the sources provided above meet the threshold of either subject emphasis (about the article subject specifically, rather than passing mention or discussion of projects that have independent notability) or importance (no NYT-like profile or similar caliber.) With neither of these conditions met I don't think it meets WP:GNG requirements.


 * 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.