Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) →David Shankbone: reply to John Barber |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*'''Keep''' The ample reliable and verifiable sources are far from "spurious" and included the in-depth coverage that satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' The ample reliable and verifiable sources are far from "spurious" and included the in-depth coverage that satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' 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. [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' 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. [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*John, the Columbia article is actually quite detailed. You can read it [http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/192310359.html here]. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete <s>at this time</s> <small>further comment now added below</small>''' 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 journalist|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.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VirtualSteve</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|need admin support?]]</sup> 05:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete <s>at this time</s> <small>further comment now added below</small>''' 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 journalist|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.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VirtualSteve</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|need admin support?]]</sup> 05:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
**Alison's notification of a change to the "first citizen journalist" is noted and I am left still with the feeling that delete is the appropriate response here - else it appears wikipedia becomes its own reference. Thanks.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VirtualSteve</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|need admin support?]]</sup> 09:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
**Alison's notification of a change to the "first citizen journalist" is noted and I am left still with the feeling that delete is the appropriate response here - else it appears wikipedia becomes its own reference. Thanks.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VirtualSteve</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|need admin support?]]</sup> 09:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:58, 19 October 2009
David Shankbone
- 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)
- Delete. Pure navel gazing; we're not David's personal PR operation, and if he were writing for any site other than Wikipedia this would have been A7'd. (For some perspective, that "major interview" averages 11 views a day.) We already went through this with David Gerard, who with all due respect is considerably more notable than his namesake Shankbone. – iridescent 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep Per Prodego; the interview in the Brooklyn Rail and article in Jewish Week also 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 I think there's enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. JNW (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete Navel-gazing, dubious notability. Achromatic (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Until flagged revisions are implemented on BLPs on marginally notable subjects they should be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The Columbia Journalism Review and InformationWeek coverage would seem to indicate to me that verifiability have 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete 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)
- John, the Columbia article is actually quite detailed. You can read it here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete
at this timefurther 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)- Alison's notification of a change to the "first citizen journalist" is noted and I am left still with the feeling that delete is the appropriate response here - else it appears wikipedia becomes its own reference. Thanks.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 09:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete, obviously. Puff piece probably created by subject or an associate.67.160.100.233 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- This template must be substituted. 11:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 LaraLove and Realist2 on the basis of their Maynard James Keenan and Michael Jackson Wikipedia articles being
ripped offborrowed by the BBC. – iridescent 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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 LaraLove and Realist2 on the basis of their Maynard James Keenan and Michael Jackson Wikipedia articles being
- Okay, if that's an open-source version of EB, I take that bit back. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete fails WP:BIO, full of puff. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete per Iridescent, Alison, and others. Marginally notable BLP. GlassCobra 14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete, the sources don't establish notability. Everyking (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)