- Justin Knapp (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Come on guys! What are we doing here? He passes WP:GNG by a landslide and has been covered by multiple RS NPR, Daily Dot, Engadget, The Telegraph, BBC!, and tons more. He has made over 344,613 edits since receiving international coverage. We must be the most self hating group of all time, he is notable everywhere, but his home. Seriously! Who cares about all endless hours of unpaid volunteer (redundant) work he has done, beside the media and international reliable sources?
On a serious note though, Overturn without relist, may he be an inspiration to us all and remind us that it only takes a million edits to find your way out of backspace and into the mainspace. Thank you for providing the world with NPOV information, and thank you for continuing to do so, if any Wikipedian deserves an article it is you. Regardless of the outcome, congratulations, for being the most prolific editor on the most viewed encyclopedia, and the sixth most viewed website in the world. I come here with the hope that the outcome of Adrianne Wadewitz's AfD can be applied here. What do you think @Jimbo Wales:?
User:Koavf/Justin Anthony Knapp Valoem talk contrib 23:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope no one minds the more causal tone I chose. Did so to highlight how self hating this delete was :) Valoem talk contrib 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (I'm sure that's shocking to everyone). He meets the GNG without any doubt. And I really don't buy that doing something for X years (where X is a large number) and getting recognized for it is in any way "one event". If the delete !votes were more numerous, maybe. But they aren't. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, solid BLP1E, no new notability upon which to overturn. Just having lots of edits alone isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - WP:BLP1E was the argument that carried the day, never actually rebutted by any of the calls to keep, which were mostly a bunch of "let's ignore all rules to recognize a fellow Wikipedian!" stuff. IAR is to circumvent bureaucracy for the ultimate goal of an improvement to the project; arguing that this is necessary to circumvent an important notability guide solely because the subject is afellow editor is wiki-nepotistic navel-gazing at its worst. In the final analysis, there was no error cited in the admin's close, just routine "I didn't like it" by the DRV nom. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tarc I am glad to see you are still bitter about my comment. BLP1E is designed to prevent people who received significant coverage for one event from being able to use that event to promo himself using Wikipedia. This is clearly not happening here. He has continued to edit Wikipedia since and has had a lasting effect. If BLP1E was used as you described then we would not have articles on Anders Behring Breivik, Richard Reid, Nidal Malik Hasan, Jamie Gold, Jerry Yang (poker player), Shridhar Chillal. You get the point, Gizmodo covers his life thus passing WP:BLP1E. There are other sources that have done so. He has receive coverage on himself and is likely to continue editing. We look for lasting impact Valoem talk contrib 02:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not important enough to me to get bitter over, first off. Second, This person is only being talked about in sources because of one event; the number of edits to a web site. If you remove the event, the person is a nobody, just like the rest of us. Third, WP:OTHERSTUFF is rarely an impressive argument. If you have concerns about any of those articles, then feel free to express those concerns on their respective talk pages. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your tone certainly hinted so. I do not have any issues with those articles, when I cite other stuff exists, I am not doing it in a way a novice might. The first line says:
- The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.
- The article I cited are those which will clearly survive AfD. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used to make a point that those article may be removed as well so citing there existence is irrelevant. Once again this is obviously not the case. We look at whether or not the subject has received coverage himself which he has. Valoem talk contrib 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here is another event [3] not to mention he has retained the title of most edits by a landslide since his article deletion. Valoem talk contrib 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a separate event, that is just coverage of the same topic; being a prolific editor. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. If the sources are there, who can argue with that? Wikipedia has this tendency to be inclusionist about tech stuff, especially stuff related to itself, and deletionist about pretty much everything else. And while that tendency is obnoxious, it doesn't mean an article about a notable subject should be deleted. Everyking (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus or Relist. I think that the closer erred in reading a consensus to delete out the AfD discussion. The claim that the large number of sources makes the article subject one that we should cover regardless of whether or not he meets BLP1E is cogent and should not be summarily dismissed as an inapposite invocation of IAR. Arguably the extent of the coverage could be considered under the second prong of BLP1E, though it does not appear that any of the commenters in the AfD did so. For the forgoing reasons I think that No Consensus to delete was reached in the AfD and that the close to the contrary was mistaken. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, So here we are, 13 years later, we have an article on the first Wikipedian, may we never have one on the last. For the prior years and counting, this man has invested more time working here than all of us. I respect his lack of discouragement when faced against unbelievable odds, to never stop. I know I've stopped and may again. Through all the good and the bad he has come here for encouragement. And with 1.3 millions edits it is no secret.
- Here we have a man who has dedicated a good part of his life to improving what we read everyday. He has done so to the point that mainstream media and international reliable sources have taken notice. Per this made up policy Wikipedia:WeArePeopleToo we can and should allow a small mainspace article honoring his work and character. Though I may disagree with some of his edits I can think of no better reason to offer this token of appreciation, after all ... we are people too. Valoem talk contrib 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The paramount question is whether or not there is a purpose for filing a Wikipedia:Deletion review in the first place. Otherwise it's best to just recreate a title for reasons of good faith. Because DRV stipulates a dispute with the closing admin's "decisions", a year is simply too long for an AfD to have been closed, to then "raise a dispute". I'd encourage the nominator to instead: withdraw this DRV, and properly recreate the title. While it is certain to be closely scrutinized, even likely; AfD'd anew: I'd be more comfortable commenting there.—John Cline (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, there was no consensus to delete the article. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What an amazingly difficult close. Kudos to Sandstein for stepping up to make it. I think with most discussions, "delete" would have been accessible to the closer on the basis that this is a biography of a living person and it's acceptable to give extra weight to concerns about sourcing in such cases. But I think this particular discussion presented unique features. I think that someone reading about Justin Knapp in the Daily Telegraph, who wanted to learn more, would naturally turn to Wikipedia; and I think they'd find it bizarre that Wikipedia doesn't cover a Wikipedian. I also agree to an extent with the argument well-expressed by Eluchil404, and with Hobit's point that if making a million edits is "one event" then that's one really long event...—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A person who wins a marathon isn't notable for 26 things, he/she is notable for one thing; winning the race itself, the totality of it. The "event" here is the cause célèbre of being a person with a 1,000,000 edits under his belt. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a person with 1,000,000 edits under his belt isn't an event, it's a state . But I obviously do see your argument: that the 843,279th edit was one event, and the 999,999th edit was one event, and the 1,000,000th edit was one event. I also see what BLP1E says: BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. I can't see how Koavf meets this definition, having voluntarily been interviewed about his 1,000,000th edit. And even if that wasn't true it would still be totally stupid to apply BLP1E in this case, because the tradeoff is that once we've deleted the article about the person, we've got no grounds to stop editors from writing an article about the event. Would seeing a bluelink at Justin Knapp's 1,000,000th edit really be such a brilliant idea?—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but allow recreation Many of the arguments were policy-based (including those "keeps" who did not consider this to be one event) but although I don't necessarily agree with the the closer that the BLP1E arguments were convincing, I do think they made up a rough consensus. If people !voting delete had said they really felt there ought be an article but policy did not permit it, then they might have missed the word "generally" in BLP1E. But no, the arguments for deletion seemed none too reluctant. If the article can be improved substantially there is no reason why it should not be recreated without further reference to DRV. Obviously there should at least be a redirect (presumably to History of Wikipedia, 2012) but regrettably these niceties all to often get lost. Thincat (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Correctly closed in policy-compliant fashion by Sandstein taking into account arguments advanced. — Scott • talk 23:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn BLP1E is often a bad argument: in practice a great many things can be interpreted as either 1E or a continuing series of things making for notability , and the decision tends to be based on other considerations ==in this case, I suspect that we are so eager not to appear self-important that we have a prejudice against articles about people involved with WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, sadly--I do not like disagreeing with DGG. I'm really neutral on the issue and haven't looked at the article for this meta discussion, but I think that Sandstein made the right call given the absence of good, solid keep arguments. Mercurywoodrose was beginning to make a decent argument but invoking IAR is not a good move; oddly enough, I find myself in strong agreement with Scottywong, but that's perhaps also because too many of the keepers don't seem to have taken the AfD seriously. What should have been argued, for instance, is something about broadness and depth of coverage; well, some broadness is hinted at but the long list of links doesn't contain that many reliable sources, and Scotty, on the delete tip, is really the only one to discuss depth--or lack thereof. So I don't see how Sandstein could have decided otherwise, and deciding on "keep via IAR" is a kind of a cop-out, and while the 1E argument is not rock solid, Sandstein is correct in saying that they were not convincingly rebutted in the AfD. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the closing administrator, I maintain my assessment that the "keep" arguments in the AfD discussion did not convincingly address the BLP1E concerns raised with regard to this biography. However, in this review, the argument has been made that the Wikipedia editing career of Justin Knapp can't reasonably be considered one "event", but is more akin to the collective accomplishments of, e.g., writers or artists, the coverage of which makes them notable. This is a persuasive, if perhaps not compelling argument. Had this argument been advanced in the deletion discussion, I'd likely have concluded that there was no consensus to delete the article. As to what to do with the article now, I leave this to the others participating in this review, as I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. However, I'd like to add that, in my view, our core policy of neutrality requires us to conduct these inclusion discussions without regard to whether the article subject is a Wikipedian or not. Sandstein 06:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Don't you often feel that way, in an AfD or an RfC, that you just want to tell participants what kinds of arguments to bring up, and what they're forgetting? Drmies (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - I feel deletion was the correct assessment of the consensus that emerged in the archived discussion. Undeletion would only be desirable to me if the prior editing history would otherwise be lost. Because the article is userfied with its history intact, nothing is lost by improving it in userspace, until ready, and then moving it whole, into article space. This endorsement of the AFD's close is without prejudice against recreating the article, and the quasi support of its previous deletion does not imply that I oppose keeping the title. I actually support its appropriateness for article inclusion.—John Cline (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to merge, or perhaps keep - the !votes that appeal to BLP1E must be entirely disregarded as incoherent gibberish. BLP1E is very clear, and anyone who's read it will see it cannot be used to support a delete position in a coherent way. One might as well write "Delete per WP:MOSNUM". By policy, merging to History of Wikipedia or one of it's daughters is probably the best course, but overturning to keep is perhaps not unacceptable. I suspect in the long term, it'll end up as the former, and I'm less concerned about the short term. Deletion, however, was wholly indefensible. WilyD 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, well articulated close by Sandstein who balanced consensus and policy and found the correct outcome based on the input into the debate. Daniel (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandstein, himself suggested a relist at worst, as new debate arguments specifically regarding this being a life long achievement, as opposed to BLP1E be taken into consideration, I cannot see any other interpretation. Valoem talk contrib 14:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation The close was in 2013. Consensus can change and even back then there were numerous keep arguments made. Sandstein closed the discussion per his reading of consensus and acknowledges that more recent arguments for inclusion are policy based and reasonable. I can't think of any reason why recreation and a new deletion hearing (if one is desired) wouldn't be appropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting here that Candleabracadabra has now been blocked as somebody's ban-evading sockpuppet, though I'm not sure whether that's relevant for this process. Sandstein 16:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no consensus to delete. Andrew (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn WP:BLP1E was incorrectly applied for several reasons. One of which this person was not famous for "one event" but an entire series of actions that spread several years. Also WP:BLP1E clearly states it is meant for the privacy of "low profile" individuals. Someone who willingly participates in multiple high profile interviews like on Gizmodo [4] is not "low profile" nor a "private" individual. There just wasn't the consensus to delete this topic and there were a couple delete !votes simply stated "per WP:BLP1E" with no justification of why this topic had to be deleted because of that policy. --Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close but allow recreation. Those wishing to see this close overturned seem to be suggesting that the discussion itself was deficient. That may well be so (is so, in my view) but that's not the fault of the closer. DRV is not AFD Take 2 - we shouldn't be re-arguing those things either insufficiently argued or missing entirely from the debate. Whether or not BLP1E was being applied appropriately by the participants is irrelevant - that was their argument and that became the consensus because nobody properly refuted the claim. A closer can only work with what he is given; in this case consensus that BLP1E should apply. Besides which, we're talking about a close from more than 12 months ago. Consensus can change, especially consensus based on (arguably) a misapplication of a particular policy. I can't see any reason why an editor in good standing shouldn't be given the opportunity to recreate an article. Stalwart111 08:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|