Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jake Wartenberg (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 26 October 2009 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear. Further, some of the keep votes used weak arguments, and after weighing them together the delete votes were stronger. A lot of weight was given to those delete arguments that cited issues with uncorrectable bias (example Risker) and BLP concerns. — Jake Wartenberg 00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankbone

Note: This discussion was temporarily closed as keep for roughly two hours, please see the talk page for details. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Shankbone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article uses spurious sourcing (namely the subject's blog, various other blogs, and Wikinews) to create a piece that appears to be a valid article, yet really isn't. It should be noted that the subject of the article has an account on Wikipedia (User:David Shankbone). While there are news references to the subject, there isn't sufficient coverage to merit inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How often the article is viewed or not doesn't really matter. There are enough reliable sources to satisfy policy. Debate on whether or not Shankbone is a good journalist or widely-read can rage behind other doors. Master of Puppets 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find the claim that "he became the first citizen journalist to interview a sitting head of state" to be enough to meet WP:BIO. ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Additionally, the Columbia Journalism Review piece indicates there is verifiability. Prodego talk 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before we go keeping this article over that pretty substantial claim, considering it is the basis of the notability argument, could you actually find a source for it? It sounds plausible but unlikely to me without a reference, and might just be a misunderstanding of the line "its reporter was the first Wikinews staffer to interview a head of state" from the InformationWeek article. (That would be a considerably weaker claim.) Dominic·t 23:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is a "citizen journalist" and how is it defined in any regard different than a standard journalist? (this would require a citation actually using the term and in a manner that is applicable for him being the "first", plus a citation verifying it, each independent sources that are reliable. Then you would need to prove that citizen journalist is a real term, as the page seems to suffer from WP:NEO and is promoting something as opposed to being encyclopedic) And, regardless, why would it matter? Furthermore, who would even define it, especially since he is an amateur journalist or a professional journalist (its an either or), and both have interviewed heads of states, so, I don't see the assertion really standing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced on this - I would want to see appropriate verifiability. In Australia, I remember school children interviewing the Prime Minister of the day following journalism competitions. While some might claim that's not journalism per se, it's no more or less "journalistic" than anything else. Achromatic (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has now been changed, per discussion on the talk page. He was the first WikiNews citizen journalist to have interviewed a sitting head of state, and this is what InformationWeek actually stated in their sub-title and lede section - Alison ❤ 08:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per me. Prodego talk 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The CJR piece, interview in the Brooklyn Rail, and the article in Jewish Week support notability, and the Information Week article says that Israeli newspaper El Haaretz covered Shankbone's visit and Wikinews' coverage stemming from the visit. I've no interest in promotional articles, but minus the puffery I think there's enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. JNW (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prodego, pending confirmation of basis. While I realize we should guard against navel gazing, if one of our own becomes notable, we should not flinch from a biography on that individual. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reads like a puff piece. If this is kept it needs some rebalancing I think. Not yet decided about whether he's notable enough, like Prodego I'd like that source verified. ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all sources are minimal at best and fails the threshold for "significant coverage". Clearly non-notable individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CJR being minimal? A full article about him specifically being not "significant coverage"? DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ottava Rima; if the claim Prodego emphasized is proven to be true, this may require revisiting. Until then, this individual is not sufficiently noteworthy. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without discovering the details, I have learned that the subject is controversial here, and I acknowledge the danger of encouraging articles about figures "notable" for Wikipedian reasons. However, I agree with Prodego re the citizen journalist, and even if all the Wikipedia-related material were removed from the article (I don't think it should be) the subject would still be marginally notable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navel-gazing, dubious notability. Achromatic (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until flagged revisions are implemented on BLPs on marginally notable subjects they should be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Columbia Journalism Review and InformationWeek coverage would seem to indicate to me that verifiability has been satisfied. I'm not convinced he's (yet) the Barbara Walters of citizen journalism, but, nevertheless, I think the pieces illustrate that our requirements for notability have been met. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not convinced about the references and, per Prodego, would like to see that reference. We've had quite a few notable editors here in the past - many who have their own articles (User:Jokestress comes to mind) - but notability via Wikipedia leaves me twitchy indeed. Outside WP, David, who's an excellent yet amateur photographer, doesn't seem to have established the required notability. Also, the article needs serious editing for balance and neutrality. Further-urthermore, it'll also serve as the perfect focus for BLP-related attacks from David's enemies, of which he seems to have a few. I've already move-protected it as I await the inevitable. In short, NN, somewhat dubiously-referenced, currently reads as a puff-piece and is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. I'm no particular fan of David Shankbone (David Miller seems much nicer. Seriously), but I don't want to see him suffering the kind of BLP-related attacks that others have had to deal with here - Alison ❤ 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources are far from "spurious" and included the in-depth coverage that satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete The sources don't address the subject in substantial detail, so this doesn't meet WP:N. All we have is a pile of trivia. He acts like a journalist and gets a lot of interviews -- so do thousands of other people who get published. Same goes for photographs. Even the Columbia Journalism Review article, which might have substantial coverage of him, is used for trivia. There doesn't seem to be any source out there that gives us the depth of coverage needed for an article. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're absolutely right, it is detailed, and I have to change my vote. I still don't think this will be good for the subject, but I think this is marginal enough that he can get it deleted if he finds it a burden. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this time further comment now added below per Prodego - yes that's right per Prodego; and certainly if we can't get solid reliable sources that prove for example that David is the first citizen journalist to interview a sitting head of state. Indeed this addition sums up the general puffery of the piece insofar that it claims something that is probably impossible to verify - after all citizen journalists (defined in the article as members of the public "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information) have been around for decades and longer. Is David the first to have interviewed a head of state? If yes well call me back here but until then this article should be deleted.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 05:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was waiting for the news on the "first citizen journalist" bit, now that that has been resolved it does not show sufficient notability to balance out the risk Alison discusses above. The Columbia Journalism Review articles states "though Miller has managed interviews with a few high -profile subjects like Peres, he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community", so even they don't feel he is particularly notable. Kevin (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last statement isn't thattrue. It was an error the reporter blogged about and corrected. He wrote that he used a bad tool. About that first citizen journalist to interview a head of state I wrote: of course I don't mean school kids doing things for their high school paper, which makes a good photo op for a politician. What I meant was here was a guy who works as a paralegal, yet does all this stuff for free on this site in his spare time. He goes to Israel with Businesweek, Salon, and other big media sites - who scores the huge interview? The citizen journalist from Wikinews. I thought the InformationWeek and CJR articles made that clear, but I guess it's kind of SYN. He's the first citizen journalist to interview a head of state, and you won't find anyone else that fits that bill. He took vacation time from his job. So perhaps a citation doesn't exist, but neither does another example of anything like that. It was all volunteer, and it was a scoop for Wikinews, where he's accredited. --Huckandraz (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The blog you linked seems to correct something other than the part I quoted, and he didn't retract the part about Shankbone being "relatively unknown". Kevin (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reporter offered an opinion, and then gave his evidence. The full quote is "Although Miller has managed interviews with a few high-profile subjects like Peres, he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community. Some of his pieces have page views in the single digits." What the correction addressed was that the hypothesis, "He's unknown" is because "his articles have single digits". Obviously, if nobody read them, nobody knows him. The reporter corrected that the evidence to support that statement was wrong, and therefore so was the theory it was used to support. It's the only evidence he gives. Otherwise, you have all three major dailies in Israel, Jewish Week, InformationWeek and the CJR doing an in depth profile about somebody that nobody in journalism has ever heard of? The reporter and subject went out of the way to correct the record. --Huckandraz (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although my duck test sniffer tells me this was created as a way to harass him there does seem to be plenty here to weave together a good article despite what seems contrary motivations. That his work is acknowledged as a Wikipedian is documented independent of us so would seem to pass that bar as well. At worst this, very new, article needs rigorous clean-up to ensure accuracy and that is already happening. Whatever the motivations the article is here now and should be given a chance to develop. They happened to do this work here but it is written about elsewhere. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Puff piece probably created by subject or an associate.67.160.100.233 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To have a profile in the Columbia Journalism Review seems to establish notability in and of itself, because it's significant coverage in a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia:Notability requires. In addition, there are the Haaretz and Information Week articles that are actually about him, not just containing passing reference to him; his work being used by The New York Times and Encylopaedia Britannica; and the comic strip based on his work in Time Out. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, Slim, I'm going to stop you right there. His work is "used by the Encylopaedia Britannica" in the sense that my work is "used by Wikipedia"; he happens to have uploaded some photos to the user-editable section of the E.B., and anyone else could do the same. If "used by the Encylopaedia Britannica" in this context is grounds for an article, then I'll get writing on User:LaraLove and User:Realist2 on the basis of their Maynard James Keenan and Michael Jackson Wikipedia articles being ripped off borrowed by the BBC. – iridescent 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually the article is wonkily constructed a bit - he did an art project of 4000+ images and freely licensed them. Those were in turn used in many places including Wikipedia articles, books, etc etc. Those are attributed images which would not seem to be directly comparable to group efforted text, which we have no expectation of attribution, which is then "borrowed". -- Banjeboi 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's incorrect to say the Haaretz and Information Week articles are about him. They barely tell us anything at all about him. Haaretz quotes his opinions and gives us a fact or two about him. Information Week has nothing to say about him other than that he got the interview with Perez. I can't read the Columbia Journalism Review article, but the article doesn't use it for more than a bit of trivial information, so I doubt there's any more to it than the others. This is a collection of trivial coverage from sources, each of which provide a teensy bit of information. If they all added up to a rounded picture of him, then fine, we could consider him "notable". But even with all those sources cited, the article gets us nowhere near giving us the coverage we'd want in a Wikipedia article, and it's not as if we can assume there's more out there somewhere. We have AfDs so that we don't have junky articles in the encyclopedia. If he is notable, he's only marginally notable, but he's more than just marginally controversial on Wikipedia, so for this marginally "notable" person we'd have editors and administrators wasting time patrolling the article, reverting vandals, arguing with his enemies. It isn't good for David Miller, or for administrators and editors here, and it isn't good for readers to get such a poor article that has little prospect of ever getting better. It's bad all around. JohnWBarber (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, full of puff. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost every journalist to ever interview a head of state has been a "citizen journalist" (and maybe all of them -- though a stateless hack or two is possible). As for "amateur journalists" interviewing heads of state -- that has been happening for at least 100 years. Whoever the first amatuer (both as in "unpaid" and as in "withough schooling or expertise in the field") hack to interview a leader was, I guess receives a trivia footnote, but probably isn't notable either. `Now, some interviews are notable in and of themselves and might reflect upon the notability of the interviewer (Frost-Nixon). But I see no evidence of this fellow ever breaking a major story or otherwise having done something journalistically that might have generated notability (and there are no reliable sources on this, likewise). Nothing of interest in the Peres interview, surely. Accepting a paid junket from the Israeli (or any other) government is a firing offense at old media (and if it's true that salon tolerates that bullshit, i'm embarressed for them) and if you interview the Prime Minister while on the government payroll that isn't considered journalism, it's considered PR. To wrap up: No reliable sources estabslish notability for this living person or cover him in sufficient depth to allow for independent verification of this articles claims.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Iridescent, Alison, and others. Marginally notable BLP. GlassCobra 14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know, there seems to be enough reilable sources to piece together a good article out of this one. Good one for the Rescue Squad...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources don't establish notability. Everyking (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The CJR piece is 1843 words long and the entire article covers Shankbone in depth on his photography and interviews, which I believe refutes the trivial claim, since it is clearly more than "significant coverage", per the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Columbia Journalism Review—the prestigious, influential, and prominent professional journalism review from Columbia University's J-School—is clearly a reliable source. The article is behind a paywall at CJR, but can be read in full here. — Becksguy (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Brooklyn Rail article or the Columbia Journalism Review article alone, along with some supporting sources, are enough to establish notability. There's not much point in debating what the specific claims to notability are; the important thing is that he was regarded by multiple independent secondary sources as being worthy of an in-depth profile. We shouldn't apply different standards to Wikipedians than to non-Wikipedians. For a more detailed discussion on my views on the topic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (2nd nomination). (For whatever it's worth, David is a former client and a close friend of mine, but my opinions are entirely my own.) -Pete (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless that mention shows you shaking hands with the president of another country, you a notable enough reporter to fly over there and meet with the guy. And as I said, he was mentioned in other news sources. Dream Focus 22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were invited by another country to be a citizen journalist it sure would seem exceptional, and then add interviewing (not seeing) the president by granted interview which itself was reported on by independent media. Yea, it might, or at least suggest this is an exceptional situation. -- Banjeboi 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being mentioned in a few news articles isn't the same as those articles being entirely about you. And even the ones that are more substantial, like CJR, appear to be more about the phenomena of citizen journalism and how Shankbone is an example of it, than about him himself. The rest of the blog and wikinews sources are not an indication of notability. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per sufficient references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he is the subject of multiple articles in Columbia Journalism Review and other reliable media; notable (if amateur) journalist. Disclosure: I read some of these articles on my own. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking substantial coverage, a marginal BLP. Grsz11 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the CJR article, a feature primarily about him. If he were not a Wikipedian, that source for notability would have been sufficient & this article would probably never have been questioned. The article needs some editing, but that's another matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per justen, JNW, and the guy right above me who doesn't have a name attached to his comment. There seems to be some interesting bits in the article that we are being let know of. Can someone point me to the policy that this article is coming up against? Varks Spira (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Columbia Journalism Review defines him as being below non-notable in his field: "Although Miller has managed interviews with a few high-profile subjects like Peres, he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community. Some of his pieces have page views in the single digits." Warrah (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep A lot of the arguments being used here for deletion are questionable. For example the claim that because his notability extends from Wikipedia we should have a higher bar and not have "navel-gazing" isn't valid. Although we need to be especially careful for matters that related to Wikpedia, the bar for Wikipedia related material should be identical. Also, the claim that being described as "relatively unknown" in a major reliable source that discusses you in detail makes you not-notable misses the entire notion of what WP:N relies on, coverage. If (hypothetically) soemthing was covered extensively as the least known example of an X, it would make it a notable X. These weak arguments need to be disregarded. That said, my keep is only weak because while I think he meets the notability criteria, I'm not completely convinced of that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I would certainly not trust Wikinews as any sort of reliable source, the individual has received coverage in numerous reliable sources outside the Wikirealm for his work as a journalist, thus meeting the criteria set by WP:GNG. And as interesting as it might be that one reliable source might define him as non-notable in his field, Wikipedia does not use their standards. We use our own... and it is the extensive coverage of him (despite their definition) that specifically makes him notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, Wikinews has extensive reviewing and articles once completed and extensively reviewed are permanently protected. Wikinews is indeed cited on a variety of Wikipedia pages. (COI disclaimer, I'm a Wikinews admin) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aplogies JoshuaZ, as no disrespect was intended. My first sentence was meant to be read with irony. As even the nominator discredits the article because of its use of Wikinews, I wished to underscore that the man's notability can be found through his coverage in numerous sources outside of the Foundation's children. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's ridiculous that we're citing "Wikinews" at all. That is only one of the many source problems with this article - to support several assertions, it cites his own blog, for example.67.160.100.233 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a sysop at Wikinews as well, and I know that, like the vast majority of all wikis, it is not considered a reliable source suitable for use as a citation within encyclopedic articles, nor does it help to establish notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am really going to have to take you to task on that issue of suitability for citation Julian. [And, yes, for those not unfortunate enough to have run up against me in a irked frame of mind before, I'm a Wikinews sysop and bureaucrat]. For all I care about the notability argument everyone can resort to lobbing items at each other about it over the inclusionist/deletionist divide. But, you are dismissing a great deal of effort applied to make Wikinews citable. I have taken an active part in working towards that, and you give the impression of casually lumping in the considerable effort some make to carry out original reporting with synthesis articles. Not for a moment would I argue that the 'average' synthesis article from multiple mainstream sources should be cited on Wikipedia - in that case the sources the article is synthesised from should be cited - a principle I encourage Wikinewsies to reciprocate - don't cite Wikipedia. But let me give you a specific example, Tony Benn. One I can speak of because I carried out the original reporting, I interviewed Tony Benn. I published an article on Wikinews, and from that made a small change to his article. Conflict of interest aside, this discussion prompted me to look for that - and it's gone. Casual inspection of the history to see what happened? I would rather not say what I think of POV-ish edits prior to it's removal, but if you're telling me that an interview, conducted by telephone, with the subject's widely-known voice quite clear, and made publicly available on Commons doesn't make some Wikinews content credible then... well... you are calling me and everyone else on Wikinews fantasists or fabricators. So Julian, and for the benefit of everyone else I've uninvitedly inflicted this rant on, before you dismiss Wikinews as unciteable or not credible, justify your argument instead of using it as a glib put-down. There's plenty of instances of those prized 'credible' sources fabricating items, and making no effort to prove they've done the work. --Brian McNeil /talk 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a borderline case that merits very, very careful consideration (obviously). It irks me personally that we should have any biography of a Wikipedian who is primary notable for their work on the site, and I would hate setting a precedent for this kind of thing. But if this were any other subject under the sun, I would resoundingly say keep based on sources such as the interviews and the use of his photography by several major publications. Those making comments about self-promotion by David are clearly assuming bad faith. Anyone who's been the subject of a Wikipedia bio will tell you it's often a thorn in their side. Also note that the David Gerard case is no way a mandate on the issue, especially considering it was closed early and revolved around a disambig page to boot. All these factors, but first and foremost the sourcing to reliable publications, sways my opinion. Steven Walling 07:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikinews doesn't convey notability, and neither do photographs. The media reports that I would consider independent and reliable are really only passing mentions; being called a "leading Wikipedia editor" by the Post doesn't carry much weight (do any of these presses actually have a decent understanding of what goes on here?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it passes notability, and I don't mind that the subject is Wikipedia-related. Not navel gazing. Not self-promotion, evidently. But I can hear the delete side as well. For me the deciding vote should be cast by Sir Shank-bizzy himself. What do you say, David? -- Y not? 13:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Most work is self-published. Article has few good sources and unlikely it ever will. The user would be completely unheard of but for his endless self-promotion. Just put this information on the user's page. Justforasecond (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CJR atricle is more on the notion of amateur/citizen journalism than Shankbone himself (and also notes his non-importance)/. Thus per WP:BIO we fall back on the "multiple independent sources" bit, which certainly isn't there. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, how does that non-importance part play in here? It doesn't. We're interested in notability, not what a website thinks of his style. Also, if you've read the CJR article, you'll see that it is entirely about him (it mentions other Wikinews editors in, at most, one paragraph). Master of Puppets 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lets see, of all the references listed, there are six reliable sources that are about Shankbone. I'm not including any references that are by him, self published material (eg - his blog), references that feature his photography, travel promotional pieces, anything from WikiNews, or that are blogs. I'm posting these citations as a itemized list because that makes it easier to see the full import of them, rather than searching through all the comments here or in the article. Listed roughly in order of significance, IMO:
  1. Columbia Journalism Review - 1843 word signed article from CJR, published by Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Very major and in-depth article totally focused on David and his work. This is the most prestigious and significant coverage of the bunch. Includes ten direct quotes from Shankbone/Miller and his name is mentioned some 40 times. Includes snippets from two of Shankbone's interviews. This is clearly about Shankbone and not the concept of a citizen journalist.[3]
  2. Brooklyn Rail - 1535 word signed interview in a monthly mazgazine. Entire article is an interview with Shankbone and covers his interviews and photography. Totally and completely about Shankbone and his work. Very significant.[4]
  3. Haaretz - 1122 word signed article. Almost entirely focused on Shankbone, and with some background. Includes ten direct quotes from Shankbone and his name was mentioned 21 times. Clearly a significant article about him.[5]
  4. Information Week - 301 word signed article. Not very long, but entire article covers Shankbone's exclusive interview with Peres. Significant.[6]
  5. Jewish Week - 1060 words, of which 426 words, or 40% are focused on Shankbone's photographic work. Also not very long, but it includes four direct quotes from him and it's mostly about his photography. That makes it significant coverage, rather than just mentioning in passing. The rest is on other members of that trip to Israel, The Gaza war, and background.[7]
  6. Jerusalem Post - 174 word signed article. Relatively short, but clearly more than a mention or a blurb (ie - one paragraph). Entirely focused on Shankbone and his trip to Israel. [8]
I think it should be very clear that these constitute multiple, non-trivial, independent, neutral, published, and verifiable sources, per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Those that claim that all the sources are self published or are primarily photographic content apparently haven't looked at these references closely enough, which is why I'm posting this in this format. The CJR article alone would be almost enough, considering it's academic source and import related to journalism. Coupled with the Brooklyn Rail and Haaretz articles, it's a slam dunk. Clearly satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. — Becksguy (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Achromatic originally threaded his responses to sources three and five above. I have consolidated them below for clarity. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree - though Shankbone is a major source for the article, it is discussing how "image" on Wiki "counts" - and by image, it discusses issues such as how often the word "occupation" appears in relation to Palestine, and how Wikipedia is being used as a reference by people, and accordingly how it compares to other sites, such as Conservapedia, Google Knol, etc. Achromatic (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, disagree - the article is NOT "mostly about his photography". The article is mostly about "photo editing Israel's online image". Three small paragraphs, and one quote can be attributed to discussing Shankbone, and of those, a couple are also quite generalized. I'm not entirely sure how you got to 426 words, either. My best estimate, pasting every paragraph or sentence that referred to Shankbone resulted in barely 300 words. Achromatic (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Becksguy's summary and Steven Walling's argument above. If these references were included in any other AfD discussion I would certianly vote keep, I'm not going to change my interpretation of the notability criteria simply because Shankbone is a Wikipedia editor. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several people have alerted me to this AFD and requested comment. So I did the sensible thing and asked David for his opinion. He doesn't mind very much one way or the other. Now why is it important to get the subject's own opinion? Well, for one thing David is the only other Wikipedian besides myself who admits to having been the target of editing-related harassment so severe that the FBI opened an investigation. We went public together, and I can personally confirm a portion of the description he gave about his ordeal for the Brooklyn Rail. So he has no strong feelings about whether this article gets kept or deleted, he's borderline notability, so let the chips fall where they may. Durova331 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Mike R (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few data points:
Regarding the EB pic. See the story of my image of Taliesin West, used in EB, with credit to me, and it was an unsolicited usage... I never suggested it to them. Subsequently picked up by a fair few other users as well. (not trying to toot my horn here, it's a nothing special image, I just got lucky)
Regarding Google, my current ghits: 103,000. David's current ghits: 75,200.
Yet I am not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Marginally notable at best. Default to delete. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: corrected error in ghit link (which changes ghits from 94K to 75K, making the case more strongly. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments that ignore policy or go against it can be dismissed by the closing admin. If you can't relate a notability argument, even implicitly, with WP:N or one of its related guidelines, the time you spent here may be wasted. See WP:GHITS. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I'm comfortable that I've sufficiently related my arguments to policy that the will be heeded, though. Further, the comment about the EB pic stands, as it is entirely unrelated to GHITS. That pic confers no notability. Finally, in view of how events have unfolded, this individual is not notable enough for the investment in time (the time spent keeping the article free of urinating goat pics and so forth), unlike Barack Obama, who is. Marginally notable BLP that's a vandalism magnet? Lose it. We have more important things to not keep clean adequately. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to see your side of things... user:J aka justen (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is that it's too much trouble to fight vandalism, so ditch it? I'm really not sure we should be weighting deletion discussions by how much vandalism the subject attracts. While I know permanent semi-protection isn't really considered kosher, if we're going to start breaking out IAR, I'd veer in that direction. --Bfigura (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources that mention him seem to establish notability, IMHO. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two cents: Regardless of whether or not the articles in question were picked up my mainstream media, really makes no difference here. In fact i can see that as the only argument being used as to why they should not be allowed. Just because some network called CNN or FOX News doesn't cover something, doesn't make it news. I think that aside of the fact the Wikinews was very young in 2005, i will point out probably one of the most credible and notable works for Wikinews was the coverage of the London bombings. I can point out others, if maybe some would take the time to google it. So if this is the only argument then it is nothing more than people wanting the sandbox all to themselves. Present an argument of policy. DragonFire1024 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He did one notable thing in his history. He did a good interview or two, he should get a mention on Wikinews, tops. Brion is more notable in my book, and he gets a redirect to Mediawiki. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur Shoone (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concerns regarding notability do convince me. I've scanned the article I'm not convinced in that respect either that this article meets the standards for notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sticking with my "keep" above: I have been notified that Prodego has changed to delete on the basis that the "first" in first citizen journalist is not verified (and the article has been changed). For posterity, I would like to record that I have no knowledge of the politics of this situation other than it is obviously problematic when an article about a Wikipedian pops up. Perhaps WP:BIO should have a section specifically for well-known Wikipedians to the effect that extra off-wiki notability is required to justify an article about a user, where the article was created after the user started editing. Meanwhile, whether or not "first" is true, my feeling is that notability is sufficiently established by the articles about the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Whilst it is always a controversy about keeping articles about people who edit WMF projects, the line " In December 2007, he became the first of the website's citizen journalists to interview a sitting head of state, Israeli President Shimon Peres." coupled with the other interviews he's done is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Perhaps this is the type of thing all us Wikimedians should be striving for! fr33kman -simpleWP- 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per iridescent, but weakly. Crafty (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Appears to meet notability threshold; CJR piece is a good point in favor of keeping; that notability arises primarily from Wiki projects shouldn't matter one way or the other. Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has gone through extensive improvements since it was put up for deletion.[9] For my part, I removed one of the blog entries, and one of the NYT articles which didnt mention David. Ikip (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep appears to be notable enough via the sources provided. Ikip (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. He is not notable outside the Wiki community. The article seems to portray the subject as a mainstream "photographer" and "writer" which he is not. If the article didn't have his contributions to wikipedia listed as references then the article would be a very speedy delete. When(?) he enters the mainstream then there would be a valid reason for an article.Surfing bird (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

CJR being an amateur journalism site or perhaps an unreliable blog? DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From curiosity I rewrote the article in another language (see la:David Shankbone), filtering out the purely internal references to Wikipedia. The exercise persuaded me, against NonvocalScream and Surfing bird above, that when this filtering is done, notability remains. (For full disclosure: as will be seen from one of the footnote references on the translated page, I had heard the name David Shankbone before!) Andrew Dalby 12:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you re write this one... I have been known to change my mind. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Prodego and Warrah. I saw him on People's Court once, but he's still not notable enough to be burdened with a Wikipedia biography. I did get my first Latin Wikipedia edit though. Good times. Lara 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. There are a lot of arguments either discussing notability without regard to what WP:N or WP:BIO actually say, or even contradicting them. At the same time, we have plenty of Keep editors citing WP:N on the necessary amount of sourcing, and citing the Columbia Journalism Review article as meeting the criteria for WP:N, so what value should the closing admin put on Delete comments that ignore this? Strong "delete" arguments would discuss the CJR article. (Tarc's argument does this, and I don't think it can be discounted.) Comments that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be totally discounted. This shouldn't be a popularity contest. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Interviews a sitting head of state, mentioned in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Haaretz and Information Week, his work being used by The New York Times and Encylopaedia Britannica, Time Out and The Guardian. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Skinwalker (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As your comment is currently phrased, I think it can only be described as poorly considered and not in line with wp:agf. The subject of the article did not create the article, as far as I know did not advocate for its creation, and has not argued for its retention. He has become notable through his contributions primarily to another project, and I don't believe it's fair to assume that he undertook that work in order to become notable. Others here who have argued "navel gazing" and so forth might have been arguing some sort of collective issue, but your comment directly implicates someone who, so far as we know, probably would prefer not to have to deal with this article. Calling it "self-promotion" is a very poor, very unfair, and very inaccurate allegation. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please consider this simplistic question as an ironic muse and not meant to denigrate anyone in these discussions, but will there soon be a referundum to delete any article about any editor who has a notability that stems from, is a result of, or developed from their work on Wikipedia, even if they are covered by sources outside the project? Sometimes and surprisingly, the outside world does pay attention to what goes on within these pages. Not to be WP:WAXing, but I'd hate to see this escalate to the point where we have new debates over inclusion of such as Jimy Wales, Larry Sanger, or Richard Stallman. And yes... editors may not wish to classify David Shankbone with these luminaries, but where do editors wish to draw the line? Even without Wikinews, the available off-Wikipedia sources appear to meet the inclusion requirements of WP:BIO... and that would seem to indicate some rewrite or cleanup if one dismisses all Wikinews, but not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 'Nuff said. To have that in-depth of an article on oneself by the CJR is clear evidence of notability. I'm puzzled by remarks of how the journal doesn't tout him as a master wordsmith; does that mean he's not notable? This isn't about his quality as a journalist. It's about his notability. I'm firmly leaning on a keep here. Master of Puppets 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone and everyone the leading RS in the world for the subject (in this case the CJR) does a full article on is notable. And certainly they are if there is a 2nd unrelated source, with significant coverage--in this case the Jerusalem Post. We are not here to evaluate his work, or to say how important we personally think he ought to be. We are here to see if people outside Wikipedia think him notable, and that's been proven. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After some investigation, it's my opinion that User:Huckandraz (contributions,) who created this article,[14] has also edited under (at least) the following usernames:
User:Babyrockcontributions
User:Lyltrycontributions
User:Profgregorycontributions
User:Vanguard121contributions
See also User:Easyreeder(contributions) on Wikinews.
67.160.100.233 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the point of this is to say that the article is not by David Shankbone (as some above have implied) but by someone who (a) has a lot of usernames and (b) is (maybe?) known to David Shankbone. Interesting ... but the article was sure to be started by someone. So, how is this relevant to the question of Shankbone's notability? Andrew Dalby 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Becksguy and MoP. Folks, this isn't even close. WP:N is easily met. Easily. Anyone who !votes to delete needs to explain why the sources cited by Becksguy don't meet WP:N/WP:BIO. Whole articles on the topic by significant newspapers are enough unless you want to argue NOTNEWS or one event. Which no one has that I can tell... Hobit (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he has. See User talk:David Shankbone#AfD nomination of David Shankbone in which he says he will sit this one out. And that is entirely right and proper in one's own article AfD. Also see comment above in which Durova said that Shankbone had indicated that "He doesn't mind very much one way or the other." [if it's kept or deleted]. — Becksguy (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Becksguy. --Tom (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to delete. Arguing potential BLP violations is WP:CRYSTAL, even if there is an ANI thread already. It would also facilitate and encourage potential BLP warriors to influence what articles stay and what they say. There are many, many articles that are "BLP magnets". We don't delete because of what BLP violators may, or may not, do to an article. Using that logic, lets delete Obama's articles, especially the "birther" one. — Becksguy (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Columbia Journalism Review and InformationWeek appear to constitute enough coverage to establish notability. Alison, among others, have mentioned problems with the article (tone, puffery), but that's not a valid reason to delete. As stated by WP:BEFORE, deletion isn't for cleanup -- problems with the article that can be fixed are reasons to fix the article, not delete it. Bfigura (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see see our guideline which explains that notability is not importance or fame. Many or most of our articles are about topics which are unknown outside of a small community. For example, one can click random article to come up with something like Yusuf ibn Abu Dhaqn which is obscure but notable nonetheless. Your point is thus refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. This article shows no signs of any notability and reads like a fan site. We do not need or want articles like this, period. Majorly talk 02:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the statement by Baseball Bugs, not wanting to delete simply because it looks like self-promotion. Wow, who is going to have the gonads to close this discussion? Quality of argument being the deciding factor, nevertheless it was 46-40 !votes to keep at this writing. Combine that with the founder's thumbs down on his talk page, you the closing admin have to have them. Good luck! Sswonk (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Jimbo Wales Newt (winkle) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: Jimbo said, "If I were to vote ..." He has chosen not to vote. —Finell (Talk) 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevertheless he expressed an opinion, and we can vote per that opinion. Your objection is without merit. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't make any objection. I didn't say to delete it or to disregard it. I made a clarification: Jimbo said how he would vote if he voted, but he chose not to vote here. It is not as though Jimbo said, "Please post my vote to delete"; he didn't. That is all I did. Everyone can read what Jimbo said and can be influenced, or not, as they see fit. Please lose the hostile tone. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: Perhaps I should spell things out. In generally, having biographical articles about living people of marginal notability seems like a bad idea for Wikipedia. This is what I think Wales said (and meant). In addition to being about an (at best) marginally notable person, the person here is mostly known because of his work on Wikipedia, and some people seem to think the references are not very good either. All in all, it seems like a Delete. Please consider that this explanation replaces my more terse "vote" above. Newt (winkle) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you create a page for everyone in Columbia periodicals that will be all you do all day. 85.3.127.116 (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shankbone has done a lot for the project and if he wants to have his own article then why shouldn't he? Rhomb (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The world hardly needs the article and it could do with some pruning; but there are clearly reliable sources that establish notability. N p holmes (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than a few notable accomplishments with an ongoing journalistic, photographic agenda. David is very modestly notable...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Idon'tlikeit, but Becksguy's argument is compelling. HiDrNick! 13:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks sufficient notability with due reference to the sources provided. I think we should ask ourselves whether this individual would be considered notable if his contributions were to another volunteer website, rather than our volunteer website. I doubt it and, considering the supporting sources are weak (IMO), I believe navel-gazing is skewing this towards a false impression of notability. (Note, I enhanced this rationale after suggestions that the previous !vote may be discounted for not being sufficiently expansive) Rockpocket 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone I don't know if my vote counts because I don't do anything here, but I say keep. I had not heard of the guy, but I read Andrew Sullivan's blog, and he wrote about this guy's experience with Susan Sarandon http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/news-of-the-weird.html# After I read his post about it, I wanted to find out more about who wrote it so I came to Wikipedia. Seems like that's what you guys do. I didn't see any bad press in there, so maybe that could make it more even? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyarouge (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete 1) very poorly sourced 2) marginally notable at best 3) would not even be discussed if he wasn't a wikipedian. That alone is grounds for a default delete, but add to that the fact that this will be a drama magnet, and that wikipedia's processes and protection and utterly inadequate for us to responsibly maintain any marginal and controversial BLP subject, and this is a no-brainer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I won't quibble with the fact that this subject technically passes the general notability guideline. He does, but not by nearly as much as some are suggesting, and almost no one here is denying that Shankbone's notability is marginal. Were he to ask for deletion, we would almost certainly oblige him, and it's a damn shame he has not done that because: A) Given Shankbone's "controversial" (for lack of a better word) persona here on Wikipedia, the article will (indeed has) inevitably come under BLP attack, and we have unfortunately demonstrated that we cannot at the moment necessarily protect marginal BLPs from defamation; B) Simply discussing and working on the article, discussing it here at AfD, and discussing and dealing with it for years to come will take up an inordinate amount of energy, particularly for a barely notable BLP which is, to be blunt, not particularly important to Wikipedia. So on the one hand you can call this a "far more trouble then it's worth, let's apply some common sense here" delete !vote. I would also invoke the spirit but not the letter of the summary deletion of BLPs principle from a 2007 ArbCom case. There is a precedent for going somewhat out of process when it comes to BLPs and I think that should be applied here. Arguably we should not have marginally notable BLPs at all, but I certainly think we should delete such BLPs when we know (and we do know, because it has already happened) that we are going to have difficulty keeping defamatory edits out. Rather than wasting further time and resources (and I think we all know that's what will happen, probably in both the short and long run) worrying and arguing about this article that few outside Wikipedia would give a whit about, let's delete it for the sake of the encyclopedia and David's own sake. I only wish he would request deletion for those same reasons, as that would likely make this AfD a foregone conclusion and save us a lot of trouble. I hope the closing admin considers factors beyond notability here, as WP:GNG is not the only community norm relevant to this discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent argument, it really almost convinces me. It's essentially an WP:IAR argument, because policy, guidelines and their applicability to the facts couldn't be more clear (especially since most of the editors who expressed a view on the CJR article have said it confirms notability). But IAR is subject to consensus, and there is no consensus for delete here. An admin delete against both the rules and the consensus is an abuse, and it's an insult to all the editors who took some time to come up with careful reasons. For those concerned about BLP problems in general (I'm one), enforcing the rules we have is the best way to get improvements in the rules. The last person we should bend the notability guideline for is someone who's a Wikipedian because it makes us look like we're playing favorites. Yes, to have this article will be a pain in the butt, especially for admins involved; sticking to the rules does that. Let the pressure to improve BLP protection increase. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rules are unenforcable, because they do not upscale to the number of problematic articles. Changing that on wikipedia is not done by legislating, it is done by setting new precedents. Deleting articles like this is exactly the way, and the only way, to change things.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grab power contrary to clear policy, in this case deletion policy and guidelines and notability guidelines, and you make a joke out of AfD participation by anyone but the closing admin. Destroying Wikipedians' confidence that participation will be subject to the rules will hurt Wikipedia far more than help it. If a consensus of editors wants to do an IAR runaround, then fine -- IAR is a policy too. But you don't create a precedent that's worth anything if it's contrary to consensus. If it somehow became a precedent, it would be a chaotic, dangerous one resulting in admins ignoring these and eventually other rules. Real precedents are created by a consensus of editors that eventually gets put into policy. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To JohnWBarber, I definitely agree with the general tenor of your comment here. Trying to force things through without consensus almost never goes over well and should generally be avoided whenever possible. I'm not sure it's operative here though. I would argue that this debate could reasonably be closed as keep, no consensus defaulting to keep, or no consensus defaulting to delete. The former two are defensible if we think primarily in terms of notability and if we close "no consensus" AfDs in the traditional manner. However this section of the deletion policy specifically notes that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, especially if the subject has requested deletion, where there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." While Shankbone has obviously not asked for deletion, admins still have some latitude (and this is re-enforced by a couple of different ArbCom decisions) to close a BLP like this one as "delete". Would that be bold and controversial? Yes, of course. But I don't think it would clearly be contrary to policy, and it would be very much in the spirit of a steadily increasing consensus that we need to get a better hold on the marginal BLPs and make it easier to delete them—i.e. it would set a precedent that a lot of people believe needs to be set, and would not defile existing policy while doing so. I think this debate is, objectively, "no consensus," but the nature of the article and the debate here means that both defaulting to keep and defaulting to delete are legitimate outcomes. It's a difficult call. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

  • Delete as navel-gazing that, with Shankbone's nature, is going to fall foul of WP:BLP, and horribly so. Ironholds (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just read this comment by Jimbo Wales, which I found to be quite vague and unhelpful, in his usual ambiguous tone and style of writing. Disappointing, really, because this biography does have sufficient sources to withstand the test of WP:BLP, meanwhile we have THOUSANDS of other articles which do not and will not. Ever. And those should be deleted without question. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes notability thresholds. Like it or not, WP is one of the most visited websites in the world and a few WP people are going to become well-known and merit articles. I don't find Bigtimepeace's arguments convincing; put it under semi- or full-protection if defamatory edits are the problem. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It WILL be a defamation problem. A good number of lesser-notable BLPs are. That is because such articles are underwatched by people knowledgeable enough to spot the problems, so often the defamations go unnoticed for months at a time. The idea that we solve this by using protection or semi-protection would be fine, if we permanently offered that protection to all such articles. Otherwise your solution will only ever shut the door after the horse bolts. It is a bit like saying we can prevent crime by locking up all the guilty people - you only know they are guilty once the crime has been committed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we don't have articles on living people, or even mention them, unless 10 people have them on a watchlist? I realize that's taking your argument to an extreme, but I want to know your proposal for fixing the problem and how deleting this article fits into your proposed solution. We agree there is a problem, but deleting marginally notable BLP entries isn't going to fix it. Any article that mentions a person could be a defamation problem. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Perez interview was in December 2007; the CJR article was in the January/February 2009 issue. Are you suggesting the Columbia Journalism Review was simply two years late? CJR used the Perez interview as an anecdote to get readers to read a magazine article about Shankbone. The article is not mostly about the Perez interview. This isn't all about one event. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am pleased that people read and responded to my argument on its merits. I note that the 2009 CJR article, which is about how he scored the Peres interview, calls him "little-known". Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not pertinent to notability now. Most people (excluding those riding on the coattails of the very famous or notable) are little known, or unknown before the reliable sources makes them notable. That what RS does, establish notability. That CJR said he is a "little-known" at the time of the interview means nothing except he started out little known except to the Wiki community before the CJR article came out. And now the six reliable sources I listed have made him notable. — Becksguy (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Which, of course, has nothing to do with notability by Wikipedia standards. A lot of "well-known" youtube celebrities do not have their own article; many "little known" villages do, along with obscure yet important scientific concepts. What CJR describes him as is irrelevant; the fact that CJR wrote about him is. Tim Song (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "little known" characterization, if made by a reliable source, does two things; first, it undermines all the previous mentions of the subject. Second, it allows me to say, with some confidence, that the CJR article is about the scoring of the Peres interview, not about Shankbone. Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Marginal notability at best with spurious sourcing, then add the BLP problems and that the lousy quality of the current version of the article and there is no reason to keep. Pantherskin (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all my comments and arguments here, above and below, as well as those from all the other Keep arguments. Noticed I hadn't actually !voted and today is the 7th day of discussion, so getting this in before the AfD closes and I don't have time to make other arguments, comments, or responses. Which is what we all should be doing really, hold a full civil, interactive, and productive discussion, followed by a Keep/Delete/Merge !vote. — Becksguy (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have reviewed the article and have giving strong consideration to WP:BIO and WP:N. I am convinced that this article passes the notability challenge, tho I do believe it needs to be tidied up a bit. Basket of Puppies 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to meet our basic standards, other issues can be resolved through editing. There is enough reliable sources out there to make a verifiable article and notability has been established in my opinion. Chillum 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both sides have a point, although IMO the CJR ref is the only substantial one. I would point out to whoever is brave enough to close this that the nice big {{rescue}} tag at the top of the article seems to have generated vastly more "keep, obviously notable" comments than actual work to improve the article (aside from some very good work by Banjiboi (talk · contribs)); not that we close these things on head count, of course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Empty !votes on all sides will likely be given due weight. Taking a jab at the Article rescue Squdron seems unproductive and one easily could make the case that use of the tags also generates empty "Delete, not notable" comments. In any case the article should be kept or deleted for it's own merits and there is plenty of thoughtful discussion here to help make the right decision. -- Banjeboi 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Iridescent, Cirt and others. Shankbone is a solid editor/admin/etc whom I respect but this belongs in his user space/page not article space. The term meta-encyclopedic comes to mind. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Becksguy, this shows notability. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Much was made of claims that BLP wasn't taken sufficiently into consideration. Although this is, obviously, a BLP article, there are no BLP problems in the article at this time. None. Shankbone has not requested deletion, there is no damaging material in the article. None. And arguing that it's a BLP magnet is WP:CRYSTAL and using that as a deletion rationale has absolutely no basis in policy or guidelines. And that argument also applies to many, many other BLP related articles. Should Sara Palin be deleted because of BLP issues? How about Joe the plumber. That was a BLP mess around the 2008 election. But it got fixed. How about E.O. Green School shooting. That has been a BLP magnet in the past and the same arguments were attempted. But it also got fixed. If we give in to deliberate BLP violators, then we have facilitated and encouraged them to control what articles stay or go. Just waltz over to Wikipedia, BLP violate an article enough, WP:GAME the system, and get what you want. Just like paying ransom facilitates and encourages kidnapping. Yes, protecting BLP articles is a pain, sometimes a really big pain, but that is the price we pay for having articles on notable people, especially controversial notable people, and in having open editing. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions will help in protecting BLP articles from attack and a trial of that is supposed to happen soon now. Hopefully. Until then, we use Huggle, Twinkle, and old fashioned Mark IV eyeballs and manual editing to keep BLP violations at bay. And the other tools available. I have become a very big proponent of removing BLP content based on knowledge of the kind of pain BLP content can cause, and have got into passionate discussions over it. But since Shankbone is not requesting deletion, why are some of us? — Becksguy (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been a wholly weird AFD if you ask me. It appears to me that a Who's Who of Wikipedia has shown up to make their cases about this marginally notable individual. Why so much passion over this article? Varks Spira (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is large and there are many editors. It seems that this great crowd here is due to such personal factors while we see AFDs concerning educational topics such as this being relisted multiple times due to lack of particpation. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are no BLP concerns in the article at this time. It's up for deletion and being widely discussed, so there are a lot of eyes on it. That's not the point, nor does it have to do with damaging material in the article. We're talking about biographies that are marginally notable, at best. Why do people always equate these things to crimes. Usually it's murder, but kidnapping is not much better. Regardless, flagged revisions have been on the horizon for three years, so we can keep hoping, but I'm personally losing faith at this point. Not everyone agrees that the degree of coverage he has received is substantial enough, and while I think him requesting deletion would do much to facilitate this request, it's not required to open a deletion discussion. I hope you're not suggesting such. He's also not argued for it to be kept, for what it's worth. Lara 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the most significant reliable source for this article, the Columbia Journalism Review, says that Shankbone is "relatively unknown outside the Wiki community". The article, as it currently stands, is an ideal illustration of why we should not have biographies of marginally notable individuals. It's currently framed to highlight how impressive Shankbone's credentials are, and mainly focuses on the Shimon Peres interview. Yet the very same sources could easily be used to demonstrate that Shankbone's main claim to fame was completely orchestrated by the Israeli government, down to a trip paid for by its consulate with an openly admitted intention to influence the coverage of Israel in Wikipedia. The fact that the same sources can be interpreted both ways, without violating WP:NPOV or WP:NOR tells us that there is not nearly enough information about this subject to write a neutral, unbiased article on this subject. He is essentially notable for something we all know is not notable (being a Wikimedia volunteer). The Brooklyn Rail interview is hardly notable, as it's a freebie magazine with a circulation of about 15-20,000[15]—the kind that shows up in one's mailbox unbidden. ¶ In summary, we have a BLP of someone who is at best marginally notable and whose main claim to fame is his association with Wikipedia and its sister projects, with limited significant sources, most of which are ambiguous and focus as much or more on the Wikimedia projects as they do on the subject, or themselves indicate that he is not notable. If we didn't all know David, this article either (a) wouldn't exist or (b) would place far more emphasis on the source of his fame having been derived from the efforts of the Israeli government. It's not possible to write an unbiased article about him here. Thus we should not do so. Risker (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish to stay out of this discussion, except Risker's suggestion I take deep personal issue with. Her one argument boils down to, "We are waiting for a negative article to be written about him" and until one does, there is not enough information. The it was "completely orchestrated by the Israeli government" is an outrageous suggestion, even if that suggestion is simply to water down my own achievement at least, and at worst to imply I'm some sort of paid agitprop (My name is completely unfamiliar to the Israeli-Palestinian articles). Adam Rose and I both blogged about how I gave him the Wikipedia Review and User:THF, an IRL influential person and a critic of me, to discover criticisms of me. I know he talked to User:THF and I know he read the Wikipedia Review. He worked on that story for a year (all of 2008). He interviewed me at three separate times throughout 2008, for a total of ten hours. He spoke to my interview subjects. He interviewed Wikinewsies, including Brian McNeil. He read every interview. Are you surprised he didn't write any criticisms from those sources? He found them without merit. I was on a press junket with Businessweek (Stacy Perman), Slate.com (Dan Rosenthal), USA Today and others. To question my trip is to also question our sources. The difference? Bias and NPOV of my work itself was not only discussed at Wikinews, but was also reviewed by the premiere journal of American journalism. I spoke with the editor-in-chief. Risker, I would expect more from someone of your caliber. That interview was 2007. CJR came out January/February 2009 and if there was some problem with my work, they would have written about it. The 2009 trip was all photography in the Negev desert and of people like David Faiman. What bias is there in that? -->David Shankbone 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David, your argument is flawed. I did not, in my comment, suggest that a negative article is what should be written. I am saying that with such sparse and ambiguous sources, it could easily be written and, in fact, the article that exists right now would be considered a puff piece. The CJR piece is poorly represented in the article—the main quote is badly truncated and, as it currently exists, implies that you were being compared favourably with those other interviewers (Wikipedia article: "...his interviews were described as a "throwback to a time when Oriana Fallaci published long transcripts of her interviews in book form and David Frost broadcast a six-hour sit-down with Richard Nixon." Compare with the full quote from CJR: "Miller's work feels like a bit of a throwback to a time when Oriana Fallaci published long transcripts of her interviews in book form and David Frost broadcast a six-hour sit-down with Richard Nixon. Not that Miller is in their league as an interviewer, but there is something refreshing about the oral-history-like nature of his work.") This is what I mean, David. The article isn't NPOV now, and it wouldn't be NPOV if the emphasis was the other way. There is, simply put, just not enough about you that is external to Wikipedia to write a properly balanced article. There's no good way to justify the exclusion of a lot of the personal information about you that isn't there now (stuff that I generally prefer not to see in BLPs, I will note), and the only way to keep it out is to provide this article with extraordinarily high level of scrutiny outside of its importance to the encyclopedia. Really, this article isn't important enough for that expenditure of resources; there are thousands of other BLPs of much more noteworthy people whose articles are poorly sourced, poorly written, even borderline attack pieces. That's where we need to expend our energies, not protecting this one. Risker (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)UTC[reply]
      • Comment The suggestion that a foreign government manipulated the subject for political purposes does not seem to impact claims to notability one way or another. JNW (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that, but a member of ArbCom shouldn't be here questioning my integrity, when integrity is pretty much defined by giving a reporter the names of your harshest critics, and I take great pride in that and don't wish to have it besmirched by someone of her standing. I will now back out. -->David Shankbone 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know the subject. I was referring primarily to Risker's statement main claim to fame was completely orchestrated by the Israeli government, which seemed to me quite beside the point of notability. But then, my take on this discussion is that many contributors--and I am not thinking of anyone in particular-- do know the subject, and it's particularly difficult to frame this discussion objectively. JNW (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you took money from the Israeli government and then wrote about the Israeli government, then you have no journalistic integrity. If this did not happen, then it's a moot point. If you did, then your integrity needs to be called into question. Did you do these things? It appears that you did.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is it acceptable to call someone's integrity into question in this manner? This cannot be a trial. This line of questioning is beyond me. Wtf? What does this have to do with a person's notability? Clearly he's frigging notable to all of you so this debate is moot. Varks Spira (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've all more-or-less agreed that WP:N is how we define notability here. The Brooklyn Rail meets our definition of a reliable source as does CJR (by a mile in that case). Becksguy walked a number of other articles in reliable sources that meet our requirements for notability. A topic or person can be notable (per WP:N) for all sorts of reasons that don't rise to a dictionary definition of notable. But then again, a person or topic can be notable even if coverage doesn't meet WP:N. Certainly we can (and do) use WP:IAR when things get too out of wack. But the case here isn't anywhere near clear enough that IAR has consensus in this case... Do you agree he meets the letter of WP:N? Hobit (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, your premise is flawed. Notability is a guideline. It it not a policy, nor is it a rule. You cannot start from the bottom of the totem pole and work up. It should be a top down approach, and the Wikipedia community has taken far too much stock in the past couple years in trumping guidelines over policy and as such newer users have been ingrained in the idea that WP:N is something far more powerful than what it is meant to be. The original guideline was written to deter resumes and myspace bands, it is a shame its perception has come this far. Keegan (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually tend to agree that WP:N has been taken too far. That said, I'd err on the side of including more, not less. It's a compromise between those who want everything that can be sourced included here and those that wish to be highly restrictive. And like all compromises it isn't idea. However, the great thing about WP:N is that it provides a fairly bright and objective line for inclusion. This article easily crosses that line and we shouldn't override WP:N without consensus to do so. It is just a guideline, but it also provides a simple default, which is handy. Hobit (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shankbone has been greeted by some of Israel's political leaders and has a blog site. But he has also been a solid contributor to WikiCommons taking thousands of high quality images like this of Yad Vashem or Frank McCourt I'd rather keep a moderately notable contributor than one with no notability at all....but tag his article with reimprove. This is a reasonable solution. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, we're not deleting the editor, or his userspace. This is an article on the user. His internal participation in the project does not make a keep vote relevant. Keegan (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I've also been greeted (once!) by a well-known Irish political leader, and also have a blog. Do I get a biography, too? - Alison ❤ 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure if you meet the requirements of WP:N. Can you provide sources that do so? Hobit (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly likely I could, but I'd rather not. I don't want my own BLP and can't imagine why anyone would, frankly - Alison ❤ 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Notability is not inherited. Shankbone hasn't displayed notability outside Wikipedia and hence a separate page would be innappropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO, having multiple sources with extensive coverage. It's as easy as that. I'll also add that, since he hasn't requested deletion, "no consensus" can't get us to deletion here. A number of people have been claiming in various AfDs that no consensus defaults to delete. That's wishful thinking at best -- the last time this was discussed (here) a proposal to this effect failed rather definitively. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In NYC the Brooklyn Rail is most definitely considered to be a credible, important and informative publication and it is a notable source...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that confirmation. And we know this how? Someone mentioned the rather small circulation level of this free publication. I'm unconvinced it is, simply by someone on Wikipedia saying so. It ought to be mentioned that Shankbone has also written for this publication, so it may well be biased in his favour. Shankbone is also a friend of the author of the article on Facebook. Which again, leads me to seriously question its credibility as a true third party reliable source. Majorly talk 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are at all familiar with the New York City art world current version then you would be well aware of the Brooklyn Rail and it's credibility, if numbers are what you need - well, it's not the NY Times. Beyond my say so and countless others - can I prove it to you? Probably not...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't read the publication, but as a Brooklynite with some awareness of the Brooklyn Rail I would say that it is, in general, a reasonably reliable source for Wikipedia. Of course any source that is generally reliable might not be reliable or appropriate in certain circumstances, and more importantly not do much to establish the notability of a particular person or topic. One could certainly have doubts about the interview with Shankbone in the latter respect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe Risker is misreading the focus of the CJR article. It's entirely about him, and not just the Peres interview. No other journalist, citizen or otherwise, is mentioned by name. And "relatively unknown" was before the RS, especially CJR, made him notable. That comment is not relevant. Was Obama relatively unknown before his 2007 bid for President? I don't agree with the term, but if he's marginally notable, that's still notable. It's like a passing grade in school. If the minimum passing score is 65 (the bright line) and you receive a 65, marginally or not, you passed. The majority of us participating here think the RS are sufficient. Personally I think three of the most significant are a slam dunk for establishing notability, especially CJR because of all the reasons already mentioned. I have often argued in the past that the only really acceptable reason, per WP:BEFORE, for deleting any article is if it's intrinsically non-notable. And to repeat, if we let potential problems with articles determine what articles are kept, Wikipedia and our readers suffer. Shankbone had nothing to do with creating the article, and has not asked that it either be kept or deleted. And he has wisely and properly stayed away from the DRV and this AfD DRV (up to now). And no, his request to delete obviously is not required to nominate it. But the nomination rationale referred to "spurious sources" which frames the discussion. The nomination did later refer to news sources with "insufficient coverage". However, the six sources were in the article at nomination time. Others picked up on the "spurious" characterization very unfairly, and repeated it. And to say that's it's not possible to write a non-biased article is, again, WP:CRYSTAL and an opinion, and not a reason to delete. It's a reason to work hard on the article. It's also possible that because David is known, that some participants are bending over backwards to avoid being perceived as partial to him, and that the bar is unfairly higher than it would be otherwise. The Village Voice is a weekly freebie, and it's a reliable source, so being free doesn't invalidate the Brooklyn Rail. — Becksguy (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Shankbone confirmed that he was not in someway involved in the creation of this article? I haven't seen, but perhaps he has. Considering the edit history of the article creator, it seems like a reasonable question to raise. I've emailed David to ask. Lara 22:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he has. It's on his talk page User talk:David Shankbone#AfD nomination of David Shankbone. — Becksguy (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Becksguy, I understand the CJR reference just fine and, in my response above to David Shankbone, I outline why I don't think it is being used properly in this article. I also will point out that the majority of the current reference sources do directly point to the Israeli press junket issue. As to use of our resources determining whether or not an article should be kept, the day that David Shankbone is as notable as, say, the average member of a US state's House of Representatives, or UK Member of Parliament (both of which would attract a notable and comparable degree of problematic editing), is when we should have an article about him. I think our volunteers shouldn't have to be cleaning up articles that aren't making us a better encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a really valid argument along the lines of "This is puffery of Shankbone/Wikinews" "Non-notable, sources only give passing mention" "Sources explicitly state he's unknown" "If he weren't a Wikipedian, he wouldn't have an article in the first place" "Tinderbox for BLP problems" "Citations are poor" (that's a hersfold quoate, but if you'd like me to write this up in my own words in order for it to 'count' I'm happy to!) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
after the CJR does an article on someone, they may have previously been unknown ,but they are not so any longer. This article would be borderline without their coverage. With it, it is not even borderline. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Shankbone&oldid=322043601"