Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman

James Heilman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Internet Brands Inc versus Ryan Holliday et al" (PDF). Wikimediafoundation.org. Retrieved 16 December 2012. This is a link to the Wikimedia Foundation website. This is unreliable.
Teigen, Sarah (October/November 2012). "Medical translations for minority languages" (PDF). Multilingual. Retrieved 12 January 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) This is a primary source. It does not establish notability.
Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). "Editing Wikipedia Pages for Med School Credit". New York Times. Retrieved 12 January 2014. This ref does not mention Heilman but was added to article.

I have decided that the article James Heilman does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and have therefore decided to start an AFD discussion. The secondary sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Editors may argue some of the primary sources are relaible but the vailability of secondary sources covering the subject is the test for notability. There are some non-independent sources that have been added to the article which don't show the BLP is notability. For example, The Wikimedia Foundation website is unreliable. I understand it may be difficult to determine what is the threshhold for a Wikipedian to be notable but if User:Koavf is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then I think this article is not notable. This is what Wikipedia is not. Most of the article focuses on Wikpedia related non-notable events that are not of enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS. There is still some cleanup needed to remove some of the unreliable sources and the text that failed verification even if it is kept. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing personal in the least, sure the fellow is a great human being and a solid contributor, god knows we need more of them, but I question if primarily wiki-only activity is inherently notable. If we deleted @Koavf: ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp ) this appears to be analogous. The alternative is many prominent wikipedians getting their own articles for being prominent wikipedians; @Eric Corbett: comes to mind, for example. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The litmus test I use is: if Heilman was associated with any other organization, except Wikipedia, would the reporting exceed WP:BLP1E. I believe it would. The ink blot controversy, using Wikipedia for medical students, Cochrane collaboration and Wikivoyage are all separate events. If someone in a corporation were to repeatedly show up in the news, that would qualify. Just because it's Wikipedia should not prevent it. Deepest respect to User:Koavf, but the millionth edit was one (incredible) event reported multiple times. My opinion is the sources are reliable and WP:ACADEMIC is the incorrect standard to apply.Ian Furst (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the claim of notability is entirely about Wikipedia/Wikimedia activities, I agree with Montanabw that we're in dangerous territory by allowing this article. I am, however, open to arguments otherwise, so I'll be keeping an eye on things here so see if any comments change my mind. (And, also as Montanabw says, this should not be taken as in any way a reflection on James Heilman, about whom I have no animus.) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

"This is a link to the Wikimedia Foundation website. This is unreliable." I disagree.

"This is a primary source. It does not establish notability." It is unclear to me why you are singling out a single source. Of course no single source alone establishes notability. The article currently has 20 references.

" This ref does not mention Heilman but was added to article." Yes, I agree. Reference 18 (Teigen) already supports the statement so this reference does not add to the article. It should be removed.

"The secondary sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC." There are at least three separate "events": uploading Rorschach images, manoeuvring editors from Wikitravel, and medical translation. All three areas have (at least) some suitable sources.

"There are some non-independent sources that have been added to the article which don't show the BLP is notability." Your use of the word "some" makes the statement irrelevant. Your overall assertion is that the sum of all the sources leaves the subject non-notable. Rather, the statement is justification for clean-up, not deletion.

"if User:Koavf is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then I think this article is not notable." I am not able to view the nature of that article at the time of its deletion. The consensus from the AfD was that the article was based on one event. That situation is not the case with this article. Also, be aware of WP:WAX.

"This is what Wikipedia is not. Most of the article focuses on Wikpedia related non-notable events that are not of enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS." You are confusing an article about a single event with an article about a living person. The policy explicitly refers to "stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF is a reliable source only for it own statements about itself. As a repository for the documents of others - in this case a court - it has no reputation for accuracy. Certainly if this is a public legal document it must be available from somewhere else. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic BLP for a variety of reasons. Best deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Multiple extremely high quailty sources have covered James' work on medical content and in other areas of Wikimedia. First a note, I know James and work with him on the board of Wiki Project Med Foundation; I didn't create this article but once it existed wanted it to be thorough. (In any case, feel free to consider that a fair disclosure). Three quick points about the nomination: 1) The source which didn't mention Heilman specifically was merely used to wrap-up the description of the event which had been covered in multiple reliable sources. It was a capstone, not a pillar of notability. 2) The 'primary' source is written in a Trade Publication and is used to support Heilman's work with Translators Without Borders. I can accept that this may not add to notability, but TWB is a reliable source for their own partnerships and who leads them. That this was published by an independent magazine gives it more weight. 3) The Wikimedia Foundation citation is merely to a hosted pdf from a U.S. District Court. It's a primary document illustrating the claims made in multiple other reliable secondary sources. We can probably find a copy elsewhere, but are we really suggesting WMF isn't reliable to host a document of a court case they were involved in? All told, I think Wikipedians do often gain notability, and while we shouldn't be promoting inside-baseball to outside readers, the intersection of Wikipedia with 'real life' means that some of us will inevitably become 'really notable'. When this happens, we should cover it like anything else. Ocaasi^{t | c} 05:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ACADEMIC is the wrong measurement; this subject meets GNG. BLP1E is also a red herring. There is no case for deletion here. Roccodrift (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]