Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West (librarian) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. John254 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jessamyn West (librarian)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, is largely self-written, and is probably supported by members of a forum of which the subject is a moderator. Note for example that user Dhartung tried to initiate a speedy keep soon after this article was nominated for deletion. This user's talk page states : "I have also been a very-long-term member of MetaFilter" Roadtotruth (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I mistakenly acted on the "close" of Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West (librarian) without reading the dates. That AFD from 2005 was erroneously listed on the AFD page. I apologize for any confusion I added to, but note that I rolled back my own edit as soon as I realized what the problem was, and that I personally added this 2008 nomination to the day's log, as the nominator seemed confused about the process. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's still something wrong, because this is the third nomination for deletion, not the second. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Here we go. The first one was: Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West. I don't understand the structure of the templates that create the previous-AfD-box, could someone who does add it to the list of previous AfDs? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first was a VFD: Votes for deletion/Jessamyn West (later moved to the AFD namespace). The AFD history box code isn't infallible; just link the missing ones when you know about them. I'm not inclined to worry about the AFD numbering as long as there are no collisions. The third that you're thinking of was this speedy closed in 2006. Not clear if there was a new AFD discussion template opened. There was also a db-bio for which this article (having been kept in an AFD) was not eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although standards have changed since 2005, West would still meet the criteria even if she had not continued to gain notability. There is a WIRED profile and numerous interviews, profiles, and discussions of her or librarian.net in technical journals and every major newspaper in the country, including the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, USAToday, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and so forth. 57 Google News Archive results for "jessamyn.west librarian.net". The references in the article are adequate but could obviously be expanded. Per an earlier overwritten text of the nomination, yes, she installed Linux on her library computers, and made a video of how to do it that attracted attention, making the event notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The nominator appears not to have bothered to check the history of the article, or previous deletion discussions, or he would not have said that the article "is largely self-written." In fact, Jessamyn West (User:Jessamyn) has made only a very few, very small edits, and even from the very beginning was reluctant to participate in the development of the article.
 * (The nominator ought to have addressed the content of the article, rather than speculating about the authorship or "supporters" of the article).
 * I, on the other hand, made large contributions to the development of this article in the early stages. If you check this April 15, 2005 version, which is mostly my work, you'll see a distinct resemblance to the current article. I am not a member of MetaFilter. I don't know what MetaFilter is. I don't follow Jessamyn Charity West's blog or websites. I don't know Jessamyn Charity West, apart from a half-dozen emails I exchanged with her while developing the article. I was originally drawn to the article the first time it was nominated for deletion, because I couldn't figure out why anyone would want to delete a biography of the famous Quaker novelist Jessamyn West. It turned out that, at that time, we had no article at all on Jessamyn West (writer). Intrigued by the identity of the names, I proceeded to work on biographies of both people. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As I noted in October 2005, with regard to 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) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability demonstrated verifiably in the article. Had there been a footnote next to the line about her being one of the first press-credentialed bloggers, I'd have weighed in with a strong keep. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough based on supplied references. Klausness (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * If this article is kept, are we to assume that the first say, 100 or 200 press-credentialed bloggers each deserve a dedicated Wikipedia page? I believe there have been several whose pages have been deleted on this basis already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadtotruth (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, why would we assume such a thing? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I see she is mentioned in the New York Times, July 8, 2007, p. 1, in an article entitled A Hipper Crowd of Shushers" about how libraries are evolving. Only a couple of short paragraphs in the middle of the article ("Jessamyn West, 38, an editor of 'Revolting Librarians Redux: Radical Librarians Speak Out' ... agreed that many new librarians are attracted to what they call the 'Library 2.0' phenomenon. 'It's become a techie profession,' she said," but obviously the New York Times is aware of her as a source to consult on library trends. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability established by references. Coffee4me (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The complete list of 37 bloggers given press credentials for this one particular convention in 2004 can be found at http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/001461.php . A search of Wikipedia shows that the vast majority of them do not have dedicated Wikipedia pages. Based on the above proposed notability criterion, perhaps they should all be invited to create one? Roadtotruth (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Roadtotruth, the fact that we have ONE article in which such credentials are PART of a notability rationale does not translate to a precedent that ALL such credentials automatically acquire notability. See the What about X? style of argumentation, which is deprecated for AFD and notability discussions. West is cited frequently in professional journals indicating her stature in the world of her profession, only part of which is related to her personal blogging. Please acquaint yourself with WP:BIO, and by the way you are making leading questions in this AFD, WP:POINT as well. --Dhartung | Talk 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am fully acquainted with the notability rationale of Wikipedia. I am also well aware that a collection of trivial second source references does not constitute notability. Furthermore unless Metafilter is considered either a "field" for the purposes of notability, or a reliable secondary source, I would suggest to you that your involvement as a long term associate of Ms West and the haste with which you wished to declare this proposed deletion a speedy keep would appear to constitute sufficient grounds for a WP:CONFLICT. My point above goes entirely to consistency of precedent of a threshold for biographical notability. Roadtotruth (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I explained my mistaken edit above. My connection with West on Metafilter is no more meaningful than my connection with her as . The assumption of good faith is perilously close to being breached. Feel free to continue to argue that being the subject of over 50% of a WIRED article consitutes "trivial", if it suits you. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article you cite above mentions Ms West alongside "many of her colleagues" who are "on the front lines of battling the USA PATRIOT Act". Clearly many librarians around the world contribute greatly each day to social causes collectively without recognition in Wikipedia. Ms West was singled out of this vast group for an interview possibly due to her self-made internet profile. I have no doubt Ms West is popular and respected amongst the circles she contributes to. However, the same could be said of many tens of thousands of hard-working everyday people around the world who do not reach the required threshold of notability as it is defined here. Roadtotruth (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And yet, the article quotes her, discusses her signs, and thereby makes her notable. This is how notability works, despite your personal disinclination to read it that way. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability established by references. Oska (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The user (Roadtotruth) nominating this deletion has as their only contributions to Wikipedia this nomination and subsequent comments. Oska (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment With a little imagination and empathy, it is not difficult to see how in such sensitive matters involving a sizeable base of loyal internet supporters, how even a well-established editor might choose to remain anonymous. Indeed Wikipedia guidelines state in several places that even "vandals" or "trolls" may be correct and as such, their contribution should not be dismissed out of hand. Notably in this instance, such a directive is provided in the WP:SK criteria. Roadtotruth (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - reliable sources exist and support notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only things I added to this article were a photo and a few minor factual edits. I don't know the user who originally created the article, who is not a MetaFilter member, and dhartung and I do not know each other except as people on the Internet together. They've both already said as much. Jessamyn (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. – joeclark (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If we have any more equally important bloggers around, yes they should get articles too. Not everyone with credentials is important, but some of them are. arguments based on But what if there were 100 or 1000 or 10,000 more are missing the point. We have room for everyone who belongs in an encyclopedia.  DGG (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed. Of course, by itself it wouldn't be sufficient; and given uncertainties about how the DNC credentialing system worked, we have no assurance of how well it would track with WP:BIO. But it's a list that's likely to include more than a few potential articles. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If anything, West is more notable now than she was the first few times this article was suggested for deletion. Is it usual for the same article to come up time and again for the same reason?--Hatchibombotar (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the things I'm trying to remedy is a long-belated overhaul of the structure in line with WP:MOSBIO. Inline citations, infoboxes, and so forth are just a start. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep She's made big contributions to the discipline of LIS. Walkingpaper (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This AfD raises no issues that were not raised in the prior AfD's.  Waste of time and space to debate this here. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (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.