Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedia people


 * 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. no consensus to delete. Nakon 04:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia people

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * This page is a terrible idea. It's is bellybutton-facing, unproductive, and creates a list of people who can then become further legends in their own mind. It elevates people within the WMF community to a higher standard and reinforces the perception and reality that there is a clique of people running things. This is undemocratic and offensive. This article should be removed. The picture alone is just all kinds of awful. So many entries need improvement or creation, and THIS has been given so much time and energy. Please focus on something more productive. What a load of hoey! BrillLyle (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinions may vary as to what is specifically offensive about the image in this article, but from my view, a blow-up shot of Jimbo's "middle age spread" in a middle-aged shirt is .... unfortunate Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 10:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:BLP. A list should either explain why it is notable in itself (this doesn't) or only contain notable people (this doesn't either). The article contains people whose articles have already been deleted owing to BLP concerns (I would tell you but WP:BEANS); other people are denoted purely as "x is y at the WMF" which doesn't really provide any value. I don't mind a category of people associated with WP, which would include Jimbo, Larry and one or two others, but I don't think a list is suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete; I agree with Ritchie: this would be fine as a category but as a list it could easily become a BLP violation magnet and a maintenance nightmare. Categories have the built-in advantage of automatically screening out non-notable individuals, which a list like this lacks. 28bytes (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN specifically rebuts the idea that lists are inferior to categories and states that they should not be deleted for this reason. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Here is a selection of sources which demonstrate the notability of the topic.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of power editors on Wikipedia
 * Imagining the Wikipedia community: What do Wikipedia authors mean when they write about their 'community'?
 * Taking up the mop: identifying future Wikipedia administrators
 * Deﬁne Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List
 * ''Volunteers in Wikipedia: Why the community matters'
 * Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia
 * Explaining quality in Internet collective goods: Zealots and good samaritans in the case of WikipediaExplaining quality in Internet collective goods: Zealots and good samaritans in the case of Wikipedia
 * On the inequality of contributions to Wikipedia
 * Naturally emerging regulation and the danger of delegitimizing conventional leadership: Drawing on the example of Wikipedia
 * Governance, organization, and democracy on the Internet: The iron law and the evolution of Wikipedia
 * I can't remember if it was preserved on Wikipedia, but I recall reading that at least one editor on that list suffered harassment from their association with the project and found it difficult to get employment. As this is not at the same level of public news as Donald Trump sexual harassment allegations, let's just go easy on people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We maintain lists of people known for discreditable things – see the recent "Keep" result for list of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes at AFD, for example. Being associated with Wikipedia is usually considered a comparatively good thing and so is nothing like such other pages. Andrew D. (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's interesting you mention list of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, in which you (correctly, in my view) argued for its deletion. Like that article, this article too fails the criteria for inclusion described by WP:LISTN. In particular, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". There are certainly articles that mention one, two, or a handful of so-called "Wikipedia people" in their coverage of Wikipedia, but I can't find any that talk about "Wikipedia people" (or something similar) "as a group or set", and certainly no articles that discuss even half (much less all) of the people listed in List of Wikipedia people. 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources listed above talk about "Wikipedians ... power editors on Wikipedia ... the Wikipedia community ... Wikipedia authors ... Wikipedia administrators ... Volunteers in Wikipedia" &c. "Wikipedia people" is a reasonable general term for this. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what makes the list indiscriminate. "Wikipedians", "Wikipedia authors", and "Volunteers in Wikipedia", in particular, would reasonably cover anyone who's ever contributed to a Wikipedia article, from Roger Ebert to Arthur Rubin to Anders Behring Breivik. 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As we have articles about all these people, I'm not seeing 28bytes' point. There have been 5 attempts to delete the article about Arthur Rubin but they all failed.  It seems that some Wikipedia people don't like coverage of other Wikipedia people but their views lack consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see 28bytes' point very well with Arthur Rubin. I read his article and thought it was a reasonable stub for a notable scientist. I then thought "is that the same Arthur Rubin who was recently dragged to Arbcom and desysopped"? The article doesn't say, and probably rightly so for BLP reasons. So if it's not in his own article, it should definitely be in no other, and having this list around is a magnet for that happening while no-one's looking. I'd rather not take the risk. There is also a deleted article Kevin Gorman (Wikipedian), which was created by the same editor responsible for most of this article, before he had a change of heart and G7'ed it. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Rubin is irrelevant to this question of deletion because he is not listed on the page in question. To maintain such an entry we would expect an independent reliable source which details his editing activity and so establishes its notability and significance.  If we have such sources then an entry is fine because we have independent support.  Housekeeping such a list by requiring sources is routine.  The fact that list entries can be supported by citations is a feature that makes them superior to categories, which tend to lack inline citations. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I wouldn't be entirely averse to repurposing this as a very specific list of people who have had a significant influence on Wikipedia/Wikimedia (Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Magnus Manske, even Carolyn Doran). The current people associated with the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is hopelessly vague; at what point does "occasionally edits Wikipedia" become "associated with Wikipedia"? This kind of list is barely workable for things like TV programs, where at least it's clear whether someone has appeared on a given show or not. For something like Wikipedia, where we quite often don't even know if the person claiming to be a given celebrity is actually that person or not, where people regularly create accounts to edit a particular topic (usually themselves) but never participate any further, and where we have a governance system both internally and on the Board of Trustees which may as well have a revolving door, this is arbitrary and unworkable. Are Poppy Z. Brite, Peter Hitchens, and Sasha Grey "Wikipedia people" because they occasionally edit Wikipedia? (, and  if you're curious.) If not, why not, and why does whatever arbitrary line you're drawing to exclude them not constitute original research? &#8209; Iridescent 12:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I contributed the Sanger bit to the piece. I don't really have an opinion about whether this should be in WP. I do think it meets the standard of having a valid navigational purpose. Admittedly the list as it stands is terrible, but terrible is not a reason for deletion. It's an exercise in navel-gazing, to be sure, but that's never stopped anyone before... Carrite (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew D. Note that some of the reasons given for deletion are totally irrelevant, in that they are not based in policy - such as that people on the list "can then become further legends in their own mind". So what if they do? Where is the policy preventing articles having that effect? That the article is "bellybutton-facing" is similarly irrelevant. There is no reason Wikipedia cannot have articles about things connected to Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:LISTN: Has not . If not WP:INDISCRIMINATE then almost, but a List Of People Who Are Connected To Wikipedia Somehow =/= a List Of Wikipedia People.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I listed 10 sources above which discuss people associated with Wikipedia in various ways and there are plenty more such as Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?.  The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read LISTN. You listed ten sources which mention with a vague hand wave the subject and Wikipedia in conjunction. You have not shown in one iota of this or any other coverage that reliable sources have discussed them a a group. Now go away and WP:BADGER something else.   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, which would be a great argument for a keep vote if this were Articles for deletion/Wikipedia, but demonstrating the notability of a group doesn't demonstrate the notability of its individual members. Greater Manchester Police is a noteworthy topic but it doesn't mean we need a list of every time one of their officers is mentioned in the newspaper. &#8209; Iridescent 12:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well quite, otherwise we might end up with Gene Hunt sexual misconduct allegations or Phil and Nige's favourite whiskies and cigars.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The people listed here are all covered in such sources specifically for their Wikipedia activity. They therefore satisfy WP:LISTN which states "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."  We clearly have sources which discuss Wikipedia its community of editors and which give notable examples.  Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hoc non est quod demonstrandum erat, actually: all you have done is drawn your own connection between a group of people, when reliable sources have not done so for you. That they have all ben reported to have edited WP at some point is not in doubt; what is fundamentally in doubt is that they have been reported by RS as having that connection between them.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Category:Lists of people by organization gives a clue why, and just listing a bunch of unreferenced sources which have "Wikipedia" in the title is not a convincing argument ever to keep a list of so-called "notable" people who are in some way or other related to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Such talk of "unreferenced sources" is a facile regress argument because sources are references. Andrew D. (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Wikipedia people. That said, this list may be best limited to verified notable subjects, specifically those that have their own article, or as red links with at least two sources that provide significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and to demonstrate that WP:BLP1E is not a factor if the potential for that exists. North America1000 16:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete If this was a list specifically and exclusively of people notable for being connected with Wikipedia, then maybe, but even if it lumped people like Jordan (non-notable randomers who edited Wikipedia and became notable for Wikipedia) in with people specifically associated with Wikimedia like Wales it would still probably fail the criterion cited above by Serial Number 54129, since I don't think anyone outside Wikipedia would list such people together as "Wikipedia people". When one throws in the fact that people who are notable, and happen to edit Wikipedia, and have been covered as such in at least one reliable source, like Yaroslav, but not people who are notable, and happen to edit Wikipedia, and have not been covered as such in at least one reliable source, like any regular contributors listed here, this becomes really arbitrary. (Note that I recognize that most of the people listed at Wikipedians with articles are probably not regular contributors to Wikipedia, but notable people who created a Wikipedia account at some point, usually to edit their own page. That's why I say "regular contributors".) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources cover them for this, so the list article is valid. No legitimate reason given to deleting it.   D r e a m Focus  22:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "List of Wikipedia People"? Seriously?  Might as well say, "List of people who breath... and Eat Food.".  Or perhaps, "List of People Not Dead, Who Wore Shorts". If they are notable enough to have their own article, and can have the slightest tangential relationship to WP, then ... A perfect example is Nicholson Baker, whose article doesn't even mention WP (or if it does, is so minute as to be inconsequential).  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 02:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a perfect example of getting it wrong because the Nicholson Baker article contains a paragraph about his Wikipedia editing. His experiences were reported in respectable sources such as the New York Review of Books, The Guardian and books such as Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?.  The idea that this is equivalent to "List of people who breath" is absurd but did you know that list of people is a blue link?  That includes people who breath and those who sadly no longer do so. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a perfect example of someone purposefully distorting in order to attempt to make their weak case. First, his experiences weren't "reported", he did a book review, so it's primary sourcing. Other than his own word, there's no reporting that he contributed to WP at all. The second source in The Guardian, appears to be material simply lifted from earlier review. Pretty tenuous.  But thanks for making my point for me.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 11:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * More blatant falsehood. Nicholson Baker indeed reported his experiences first-hand.  This demonstrates that he is comfortable with being known as a Wikipedia editor.  Numerous other secondary sources have then reported on this, citing him.  I noted Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice? above and it is easy to find more.  For example, The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis states, "There have been many magazine articles on Wikipedia, but the most informative and enthusiastic is the novelist Nicholson Baker's review in the New York Review of Books, which captures some of the obsessional quality of editing..." Andrew D. (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please desist from bludgeoning every reply or !vote you disagree with, user:Andrew Davidson; it presents a somewhat unsavoury impression of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Cheers!  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What I was doing in this case was rebutting factual errors. In the course of this, I provided an additional source.  Such activity is expected and appropriate because this is a discussion not a vote.  Note that Serial Number 54129 also does not report the facts accurately as I have not responded to every !vote with which I disagree.  For example, I have not responded to the !votes of Ritchie333, Iridescent and Hijiri88, even though I disagree with those too.  Andrew D. (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A reassurance that would be more convincing were you not to have made nearly twice as many edits and added nearly twice as much text to the page as anyone else...   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be good to hear from other editors too so that we can establish a good consensus. For example, while I am also high in the ranking of edits to the page in question, the bulk of the content and edits were made by  but we haven't heard from them yet.  That is perhaps because they were not notified of this discussion due to a quirk of the process – the article was expanded from a redirect to Wikipedia community. Andrew D. (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the page I was referring to.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 13:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But it did allow Andrew D to sneak in a bit of canvassing. And "blatant falsehood"?  Are the NYT and Mirror pieces not primary sources?  Again, shows the weakness of your position.  And thanks  for pointing out the bludgeoning aspect of Andrew D's participation.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weakness? Let's list 10 more secondary sources which cover Nicholson Baker's Wikipedia activities or cite him as an authority:
 * ''The Inclusionist: Nicholson Baker's Art of Preservation
 * ''Authority and Authorship in a 21st-Century Encyclopaedia and a ‘Very Mysterious Foundation’
 * ''Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age
 * ''Management
 * ''Alternative and Activist New Media
 * ''Social Power in International Politics
 * ''Six Pixels of Separation
 * ''Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World
 * ''Standing on the Sun
 * ''Cyberchiefs: autonomy and authority in online tribes
 * And please note that these books and papers further demonstrate the notability of the topic as they also naturally tend to discuss other Wikipedia people besides Baker. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- per WP:BLP and as a list that lacks clear criteria for inclusion. It appears to include anybody with an article who is tangentially related. Some articles do not discuss the subjects' participation on Wiki, for example. Some are WMF employees. Other selections appear equally random. The sources presented at this AfD could work for an article on Wikipedia editing community in general. It's a viable topic but not the subject of the article under discussion, which is a list of "people who Wiki" (?) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2018 (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.