Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Rosenfeld 2


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Rosenfeld
Blatantly obvious, no explanation needed :) :) Ok, I'll explain. Not one single fact in this article is verifiable. It is all original research. The subject of the article is not notable. The article is Wikipedia navel gazing. Despite my amazing wonderfulness, just knowing me is not sufficient to make someone notable. Jimbo Wales 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: Please see the first Afd entry, where the community decided to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anittas (talk • contribs)
 * Strong keep - One of my greatest articles. --Candide, or Optimism 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this vote speaks for itself, both about the quality of the article and the work of this user.--Jimbo Wales 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article speaks that much; and if does, you want to shut it. What about me, as a user? I'm just a dude who likes to work for free. I don't complain much and I don't ask for anyone's recognition. How about you, as a user? Is it fair to call the article idiotic and an embarrassment for Wiki? How many articles have you written? And what do you mean when you say that not a single fact is verifiable? We are using your own words as a source. Whether they are true or not is not the case here. I'll rather not argue with you, Jimbo. You're the guy with the finger on the button. --Candide, or Optimism 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as much as I would like to vote keep, since this AfD seems unreasonable since the article just passed Afd, Jimbo is in fact right that it is original research, since the sources used are correspondence, which is pretty much as original research you can get. If the statements had been used in a printed source to support a similar argument, and that was referenced, it would not be. As it is, it is original research. I maintain that it could well be notable in the future, however, with better sourcing. Mak emi 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo himself added that guys' name to his own article. In fact, he replaced Larry's name with Jeremy's name. Wasn't that original research, or does that rule only apply to bio articles? Please reconsider, Makemi. --Candide, or Optimism 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, similar to the (fictional) person who introduced Sergey Brin and Larry Page to the concept of a search engine in college. Ral315 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wow, the guy who rode the elevator with Richard Nixon in 1970 could have an article! We could expand the section on his relations with Nixon later...how he voted in '72, what he thought about the resignation....  If the person has not achieved notability by his own actions, words, publications, or artworks, then he is not an appropriate target of a biography.  This article is set up as a biography.  Information about him might exist in a clause in a sentence in another article, but then the name shouldn't be red linked, and there is no biography of a chance meeting or a single conversation.  Geogre 23:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - the article survived AfD few days ago. It's nice to have a Supreme Leader watch over us, but isn't it even nicer if the Supreme Leader doesn't use his authority (let's be honest: can any of you imagine AfD started by Him resulting in keep) on petty things having direct connection with himself? This article is interesting. It's a piece of Wikipedia history. A piece of disputed and tricky Wikipedia history. A reason more to keep it on Wikipedia. Damn, nobody ever heard of this guy, and his AfD's going to be a keep just because he's somebody. And this guy didn't use Jimbo's elevator. He sugested him to use wiki. Which is most inovative thing regarding encyclopaedias since Diderot. Now, somebody was mentioning notability... --Dijxtra 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggesting the use of a technology that had already been around for five years at the time, and which had already proven its usefulness for building specialized knowledge bases in various implementations, is hardly the most remarkable achievement in the world. Everything was there -- the failing encyclopedia project with the funding, the social connections, the technology. It was natural for things to fall into place. Hence it is no surprise that Larry came up with the Wikipedia proposal independently one month later. If you want to give people credit, think more about Ward Cunningham or Clifford Adams (the developer of the original wiki software used by Wikipedia, who also came up with one of the first CamelCase-free implementations). But fundamentally, Wikipedia is a collaborative achievement, and this fixation on every single individual who played any role whatsoever is more harmful than useful. Credit Jimmy and Larry as the co-founders and be done with it.--Eloquence* 23:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apples were falling even before Newton. So, everything was there. It just had to wait for Newton to realise that everything was falling. --Dijxtra 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Diderot. We don't have an article on the guy who took a carriage ride with Diderot. Gamaliel 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My last comment on this AfD, as I like my time spent in more constructive ways: Jeremy didn't take a ride with Jimbo. He sugested to use a wiki. And, not just that: this suggestion is controversial as Larry denies it. That's a whole lot more than taking a ride with Jimbo. Now I'll go do something useful. --Dijxtra 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having a separate article about Rosenfeld doesn't bring any clarity into the history. The matter is already summarized in Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, and Bomis. What could be usefully added to the article about Rosenfeld that could not be added to any of these articles? His personal notability is not established and details from his personal life are therefore irrelevant. While having a Wikipedia article about you can be considered an honor, it can also be a huge PITA, and there's no reason we should inflict it on someone whose claim to fame is very doubtful at best. I suggest that those who are interested in digging into the history either improve the consistency and NPOV across the aforementioned range of articles, or start tracking down Rosenfeld and work on a nice story about the early days of Nupedia and Wikipedia for Wikinews, which welcomes original research like that.--Eloquence* 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we then use Wikinews as a source? --Candide, or Optimism 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We could certainly cite a (reviewed and published) Wikinews article in the form: "In February 2006, Wikinews interviewed .. According to Wikinews, .." In that way it should be no different from any other published news source. There are very strict standards of documentation for original reporting on Wikinews, stricter than for most print publications.--Eloquence* 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not to show my solidarity with anyone, but because, even if the content of the Jeremy Rosenfeld article is accurate, it wouldn't merit a separate article. The information can be discussed in an existing article. I do think you Wiki-fan boys are getting out of hand with this one. What's next? Alexander 007 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete due to stunning irrelevance and lack of notability. A footnote to a footnote. Gamaliel 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As per my vote on the last AfD. The "guy in the elevator" arguments just weaken the deletionists' position. Rosenfeld was clearly more than that. IronDuke 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the "guy in the elevator" comparison, but I still find that the info on this fellow doesn't merit a separate article. It's nerdy fan-boy stuff. Wikipedia is not a fanzine, and let's not turn it into one. Alexander 007 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'guy in the elevator' argument very much is apt. Jeremey was the first person to show me a wiki and suggest that it be used to solve the problems we had with Larry's Nupedia design.  But Larry and I both agree that Larry showing it to me at a later day was causally relevant in a way that Jeremey's happening to show it to me was not.  There are literally dozens of people who are very important to the history of Wikipedia, including for example Eloquence who has joined this thread, and who was instrumental in a number of ways in the entire process.  (Did you know that the final formation of the Wikimedia Foundation was prompted when he called me on the phone to tell me to hurry up and do it?)  Unless we're so strangely inwardly focussed that we think that every single person who played any small role in Wikipedia should have an article, this one clearly should go.  It isn't even borderline.--Jimbo Wales 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, Jimbo, I'm theoretically happy to change my vote, but I'd be doing so on the basis of the idea that Rosenfeld had absolutely nothing substantive to do with the creation of Wikipedia (and I would also then be inclined to remove mention of him from the Sanger article, given that his mentioning the idea of a wiki to you prompted no action). Fair? IronDuke 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a source that is not deemed as 'original research', thus, Jimbo's first argument is no longer valid. See this. --Candide, or Optimism 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimmy's original research reasoning is incorrect (the article is as based on published sources about Wikipedia's history; that these happen to be Wikipedia mailing lists is irrelevant), that does not invalidate the AFD nomination. The issue is notability, not OR.--Eloquence* 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for my own understanding, do mailing lists really count as published sources? They're clearly not physically published, they're not "peer reviewed", I'm a little confused by this. Frankly, I consider neither mailing lists nor blogs acceptable sources. Notability was the criteria for the last AfD, and it passed. Saying that the issue now is once again notability makes this seem like even more of a questionable Afd. Mak emi 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, mailing list posts are not published sources, and using them is original research.--Jimbo Wales 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on what you're trying to source. Otherwise you might as well throw away virtually all of the references on Wikipedia. Something you said on a mailing list does not become more factual because someone who writes for a peer reviewed journal decides to cite your mailing list post in a paper (as Joseph Reagle recently did); in fact, if you review his recent paper, you'll probably disagree with some of his interpretations and might even find yourself quoted out of context. Why not, then, quote the mailing list posts he himself cites directly? It is where sources are interpreted and judgments of notability or truth are made that we go into POV and original research territory, and this is where we should refer to authorities.--Eloquence* 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is to get as close as possible to a primary source for a factual claim without adding elements of original research (results of personal interviews and studies that have not been published, hypotheses that have not been verified, valuations that are subjective, and so forth). If you want to make the factual claim "Climate models have been used by the IPCC to anticipate a warming of 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100", then of course you need a scientific publication which backs up this claim. If you want to source the claim "Andrew Sullivan has argued that the Republicans should take a more liberal stance on same-sex marriage", then of course Andrew Sullivan's blog is a good source for that (though an unalterable copy might be desirable in some cases). Virtually all our articles about Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects are, by necessity, based on Wikipedia's own electronic publications and project websites as sources; using some academic reference to make a claim about Wikipedia's history would actually be less useful in many cases, since you're moving further away from the primary source.--Eloquence* 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree to a certain extent. Encyclopedias are supposed to be based on secondary material, with the occasional openly available primary info to back up the claims made by the secondary material. This article is entirely based on primary source material, it's not just quoting Jimbo to support assertions made by secondary sources. Also, I don't know about the availability of this material. Could most people go on the internet and find it, outside of the wikipedia site? I think that's a real problem with original research. For instance, let's say that I went to a library in the middle of nowhere and looked at the papers of Athol Fugard. I could quote stuff that he said in his letters and stuff, it would be true, it would be verifiable if someone could get to the middle of nowhere and look at those same papers. But it's original research, because it's not published, it's not reasonably verifiable. If, however, the letters of Athol Fugard have been published, and a score of libraries has them, it would be reasonable to quote them, because they're publically available, verifiable, no longer quite such original research. Thus I maintain that although I find this article borderline notable, since I think that a person who started something notable on a particular path is thereby notable, it is original research and should be deleted. Mak emi 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge any information/references which may be useful into Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales, Origins of Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia. Esteffect 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect to History of Wikipedia) since there is nothing verifiable to say about him other than a comment Jimmy once made which isn't enough to base an article on. Angela. 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This survived an AfD just 2 days or so ago... I hate to level this accusation but... Bad Faith Nom? Theres no way that something like 48 hours after a failed AfD another can be made to look legit. We kept it. Pretty much end of story. -AKMask 04:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see how this meets WP:BIO. Any salvageable content can be put in History of Wikipedia Agnte 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is absurd. If more than 50% of the vote here is to delete, then I will delete it myself. If somebody undoes my deletion, then I will be convinced that the AFD process is broken and will work to fix that. We have an absurdly high standard to delete that biases us to include clearly non-notable subjects. All the encyclopedic info in this article can and already is in other places. --mav 18:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: And here I always thought that Wikipedia is not a democracy and Articles for deletion is a place for disscusions, not "votes". Silly me. Pepsidrinka 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Material should be covered in History of Wikipedia ok with redirect Trödel&#149; talk 18:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Deletionist / Cabal Delete and whatnot. Fails BIO, needs to go.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if we defined some Wales number (which would be OR anyway), simply having a low one wouldn't and doesn't make one encyclopedia-worthy. Lupo 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep How can Jimbo say nothing is verifiable when the article claims something about him. It either happened to him or not and by virtue of it still being in the article, I'm assuming it is true (and thus verified). Invalid nomination. Pepsidrinka 04:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Other than rattling Jimbo's cage, there is no compelling reason to keep this article. Simply because Mr. Rosenfeld suggested that wiki be used does not warrant an article written about him. No evidence that he did anything notable. Jcam 17:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mukadderat 18:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Until someone writes an article about the first guy to suggest that Ronald Reagan run for president, this is just silly. Is there an article about Wikipedia Origin Controversy?  If so, dump this in there.  Otherwise, just stop it.  Everyone loves Wikipedia so why do they have to poke its creator with a stick?  Leave the poor guy alone...  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim to notability --Ryan Delaney talk 04:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Smerge to History of Wikipedia. -Colin Kimbrell 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my vote in the previous AFD. Stifle 23:46, 27 February 2006 (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.