Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Pater


 * 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 delete. --Core desat 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Pater

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP stub. ^demon[omg plz] 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You're kidding right? Hansonc 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think I prodded this a while back, cause it was on my watchlist. Anyway, no mention of notability, no sourcing. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You mean other than being a founding member of the most popular tech news site on the planet right? Does this mean I should AfD Jimbo Wales because all he's done is create an online encyclopedia? Hansonc 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, if Jimbo had not been in multiple press interviews and had hundreds of reliable sources. There is no verifiability here, so there is no content here, so there is no article. What has Pater done lately anyway? - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah but if you are going to ignore Cowboyneal's reason for notability (Slashdot) you have to ignore Jimbo's too (Wikipedia) and the only reason he was interview was for Wikipedia so those sources are useless too. Seriously he's famous for what he's famous for why does he need to be famous for something else to pass your notability test?  Hansonc 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't give a damn about notability, I care about sourcing. Jimbo has been in press. Pater has not. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

delete Hansonc, the reason it should be deleted isn't nec. because he's not notable; it's that there is no reason in the article that is sourced that says that he is, and that the entire article is clearly just promoting slashdot, which is not acceptable. Barsportsunlimited 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Isn't the reason any individual has a wikipedia article about them for the promotion of what they do? I'm going back to Jimbo here.  Would he have a wikipedia page if he hadn't founded the site ?  The answer is no.  What's his job? Promoting Wikipedia.  What's his Wikipedia page do? Promote Wikipedia and Wikia.  So basically to get back to my point, of course Cowboyneal's wikipedia page discusses what he does and what he's known for, Slashdot, as it should. Hansonc 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it isn't "the reason" people have articles. Articles must assert notability, be verifiable, and have enough content to deserve a separate article. This article fails ALL THREE. Mention he's a co-founder in Slashdot and delete this unverified substub. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So what you're saying is being known for what he's known for isn't good enough. What would make him notable other than being an editor of slashdot.  Back to Jimbo.  He's only notable for founding wikipedia, should his article be deleted as well since he's not notable for anything other than what he's notable for?  He is an extremely early (he was there within about a year of the original purchase of the domain name) editor of slashdot (employee #6 according to my count from the slashdot history here) and he has always been the "humorous" poll choice.  Personally I feel it was a bad idea for Jonathan Pater to be the article when he's actually known as Cowboyneal but that's a whole different argument.  By the way, I do agree this needs to be cleanedup and expanded but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. Hansonc 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does need a rewrite to show a source for notability, but it's a definite keep.  Geoffrey.landis 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment here's the last time someone tried to delete the article in question Articles_for_deletion/CowboyNeal as you can see it's a nearly unanimous keep. It's still here for a reason.  Hansonc 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember that consensus can change, it's been well over a year since then. ^demon[omg plz] 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember rule #1 according to King Jimbo, WP:IAR Hansonc 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had been thinking WP:IAR, I would've just deleted it outright. ^demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that consensus can change isn't a "rule", it's a fact. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all the reasons listed by Hansonc --Vrmlguy 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability and the article is mainly concerned with his name's origin anyway. Bobby1011 06:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete He is a pretty 'known' person, but I can't find any sources (at all). A google test throws up lots of results, but no reliable sources (that I found). Without those it will never satisfy WP:BLP. Martijn Hoekstra 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Martijn Hoekstra. It doesn't appear that sources actually exist to establish notability per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was just the information I was looking for. --Dmcneece 11:00, 5 November 2007 (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.