Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West (librarian)


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was obvious keeper --Tony Sidaway Talk 00:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Jessamyn West (librarian)
I feel this is a vanity page, non-notable. --lesalle 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This article already passed an deletion vote in April. tregoweth  04:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous deletion debate
 * keep seems notable enough and no indactaion of a change since previous debate. DES (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough in her profession and takes an active role in public debate including writing two books. My understanding is that she is a Wikapedian as User:Jessamyn so this could be userfied if necessary. However, this is not a vanity page and is worth keeping. Capitalistroadster 10:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already passed VfD. Comments on two issues follow. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Notability. Having been mentioned in the New York Times, singled out for special notice in Library Journal, cited in Wired for her anti-PATRIOT-act activities, and being among the first bloggers in history to be given press credentials raises her above the bar for notability. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) With respect to vanity: she did not create the article. To most intents and purposes, I did, pursuant to what I would call a "badly executed article request" by an anon. I had never heard of her before an anon dropped in a one-line substub, "Jessamyn West, AKA the Rarin Librarian. One of Library Journal's Mover & Shakers, West is best known for her 'blog, librarian.net." I strongly doubt this anon was Jessamyn West, because a) she already had a Wikipedia profile and had done some minor work on some Vermont articles; b) all of her public writing, in Wikipedia and her blog and in emails to me, is very literate and different in style from the one-liner; c) in an email correspondence with me she displayed a familiarity with Wikipedia policy with regard to autobiography and expressed reluctance to make any direct edits to the article because of vanity/autobiography concerns. When the one-liner landed on VfD I was shocked that we did not have an article on the Indiana author of The Friendly Persuasion; in the process of working it up I concluded that the librarian/blogger should also have her own article. In emails to her I told her that I did not think minor edits would be taken amiss, and she has made a couple, but she has not done any substantial work on the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm unlisting this because it's an obvious keeper. This doesn't reflect in any way upon the good faith of the nominator. --Tony Sidaway Talk 00:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep based on point 1 by Dpbsmith and the previous deletion debate. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't write the original stub about me, and I'm not sure I know who did. Jessamyn 14:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dbpsmith. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 15:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dbpsmith. --rob 23:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to be notable. Bwithh 23:59, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * NOTE on third nomination. I'm not sure what's going on here; I'm not going to participate in the edit warring on the AfD notice, but will point out that the particular template used is invalid; if this is to be listed for deletion at all it should be listed as a third nomination. For the record, my opinion remains unchanged: the subject of the article is notable for the reasons I gave before, and the lopsided "keep" vote on the second renomination in which only the nominator favored deletion and there were seven "keep" votes tends to support Tony Sidaway's judgement. The nominator should not use the word "vanity" to describe the article, as Jessamyn West did not create it and has made no substantial edits to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)