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 a no consensus mess, default to keep for a bit. We can revisit this after, say, a week or two, when the dust settles, but this article has changed so much since this nomination was opened that people aren't even talking about the same article any more. If there are still notability problems in a week (unlikely, with ABC News and many others picking the story up) we can do this again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person (to anybody outside Wikipedia, that is), and doesn't have many, if any, reliable sources. For the people who don't know, the subject of this article is User:Essjay. PTO 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the nominator - The article has changed extensively since it was first nominated (along with at least 4 moves), so this nomination is essentially obsolete. People participating in this discussion need to read the article before commenting. I can't stress this enough. Cheers, PTO 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion section 1
Patently false nomination. Has 2 reliable sources cited so far, and thus meets WP:BIO/WP:N so is notable. --W.marsh 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, any scholar and full professor with these credentials is surely notable. Notice also: "For various reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous on Wikipedia, but I also believe it is important for me to offer information about myself that is relevant to my work on Wikipedia."(emphasis added) How could we delete an article on the truth or falsehood of such "important" and "relevant" information? As Essjay himself said there, "My motto on Wikipedia (and in life) is Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth)." We should honor that commitment, even (and especially) if he didn't. -- Ben 15:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recentism. – Chacor 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - being mentioned in google news is not grounds for an article. There aren't even any sources confirming his real name! He could be at it again!!! Milto LOL pia 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to speedy, no verifiable relevant info and unlikely to be any. Milto LOL pia 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better look at Essjay#References and below: multiple citations. -- Ben 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self-referencing is a reason to require more notability, not less. Zocky | picture popups 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) See new vote down the page. Zocky | picture popups 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete First off, outside the recent little incident and his status on Wikipedia, he doesn't meet WP:N, nor WP:V because the only link we have is an obscure article by the New Yorker. This also probably has WP:BLP concerns. — Moe 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are already 9 different stories on him on Google news. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:V... --W.marsh 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All 9 huh? I could have swore to be notable you had to had a couple hundred. Theres non-notable bloggers who would also fit this category. — Moe 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Is the subject of mulitple non-trivial published works [1][2][3][4] and this one from The Inquirer[5] (sorry snowballers) --Oakshade 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Amendment - Since I typed this "vote" a couple of days ago, a lot more stories about this subject have been published, including from the likes of The New York Times[6], BBC News[7] and The Daily Telegraph[8]. --Oakshade 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The New Yorker is clearly not a reliable source. --Random832 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are already 9 different stories on him on Google news. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:V... --W.marsh 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean his name is Ryan Jordan, can you honestly confirm that? — Moe 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, not truth. Anyway, all of the articles say "Ryan Jordan". We can modify the article to say "claims his name is Ryan Jordan". --W.marsh 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we name the article, "Suppossed guy named Ryan Jordan"? — Moe 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of articles on people known only by pseudonyms or uncertain names... this is not grounds for deletion. --W.marsh 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That link is to a Main Page, nothing even related to Essjay. Please fix this if you can. — Moe 06:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed. -- Ben 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay's current Wikipedia userpage also gives the name "Ryan Jordan", at the time I write this. Of course, I cannot be sure what it will say when you read this. -- Ben 15:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(double edit conflict)What about his life? This article is supposed to be a biography on him, not just a recap of an incident. (Side note: Daniel.Bryant has a good point.) PTO 04:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources to present on his life, as opposed to the single incident? —Cryptic 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, can we please not snowball delete or speedy keep this one closed - I'm sure we are all learning our lesson about snowball/speedy keep/delete closing a controversial debate from what's going on regarding the Brandt article at present. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please don't snow it, that would be dumb at this point. Speaking as a delete voter. Milto LOL pia 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear lord, we don't want a wheel-war like on the Daniel Brandt incident tied in with this incident, that would be Wiki-chaos. No Snow. — Moe 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliability of wikipedia, which this addresses, is notable Numskll 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to point this out, but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. — Moe 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HUH?, does that mean we are all self-projectors with lots of time at hand writing a bunch of unneeded information and asking people to contribute materially to it ? AlfPhotoman 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, Numskll was saying that the reliability of Wikipedia is a notable topic. I'm not sure how that directly translates into this article, though (either way). --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks for clearing up what I meant Dhartung. Moe the reliability of wikipedia is the subject of open debate. Recent studies have shown that it is more or less as accurate and comprehensive as a paper encyclopedia. The nature of the errors tend to be different however and the accuracy of a given article is not static. Given rise to the (valid) perception that WP as a whole is not reliable. Numskll 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable navel-gazing. If you want a page to read about it, see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But really, just because it's interesting to us right now doesn't mean it's right for the encyclopedia. Mak(talk) 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have you seen Simon Pulsifer, which has been kept at AfD several times? --W.marsh 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP concerns and lack of notability. We don't have articles for every single officer of every company, do we? ^demon[omg plz]04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the user must be subject of multiple non-trivial published works, however all of the current articles cover a single action. I could create hundreds of articles about people from Argentina that died in car accidents and were covered by three or four notable newspapers. However, the spirit of the guideline indicates the subject must do something that will be considered notable. Founding Wikipedia is a notable action, lying in a résumé (when he was not even obligated to write anything) or dying in a car accident is not. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:N or WP:V have ever said that the sources have to cover separate incidents/actions. --W.marsh 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue reading WP:BIO below its first section, you will reach the corollary: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. If we consider lying in a user page is considered a enduring historical contribution, we have fell too low. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ReyBrujo, you might want to refresh your memory on the dishonesty scandals of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair: having been caught lying in the press is still the "claim to fame" at the tops of their articles. -- Ben 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gray area. Both examples you gave are journalists from respectable media, bound to an ethic code. Wikipedia contributors are not bound to such. While I understand some users have been affected by his lying and I agree you should not lie to the media (I wouldn't, but won't lose my sleep if someone else does), I believe the "action" was more important than the person itself. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an unstated "Whereas Wikipedia makes no effort to be respectable" in the above? Do we never block contributors for providing deliberate misinformation? Are we entirely unconcerned about the honesty or dishonesty of someone with "boardvote, Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator" powers? Is that the ethical level we want to project? "Nothing notable here, now move along"? -- Ben 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh and if you read the disclaimer above your corollary, "The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person", "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." Admittedly, I wrote major parts of WP:BIO so I might just have a leg up here! But yeah, a redirect to the Criticism article is what is called for here. --W.marsh 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (4x edit conflict) If you would have asked me about this yesterday, I would have hung the ((db-bio)) on the article myself, but things have changed and there appear to be a number of outlets picking up on this story. My suggestion is wait one week and see what happens. Closing this as WP:SNOW is out of the question, let the community decide. RFerreira 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A number of outlets?? theres like 9 stories total on the Internet and his name isn't even verifiable.. — Moe 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is notable only for a single incident, which is more properly dealt with in its proper context, namely Criticism of Wikipedia. No need for a merge, as the section there is already more complete and better-written than this article; and no need to redirect from this poorly-disambiguated title. —Cryptic 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect (with or without history deleted) from Essjay is fine by me, as is an entry on a putative Ryan Jordan disambig page or a dablink from the current article there; the disambiguated titles (Essjay (Wikipedia), Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia), and any others that pop up - I note Ryan Jordan (Wikia Community Manager) and Ryan Jordan (Wikia community manager) are already gone) should be deleted as useless. —Cryptic 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sure took long enough for someone to make a good, unbiased argument for deletion. Although perhaps a mention at Ryan Jordan if that article ever becomes a true dab page. --W.marsh 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - W.marsh, you're getting way too involved in this, however much you like or hate the guy. Stop trying to find fault with every argument and just let the AFD run. – Chacor 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mind your own business? There is no actual problem with my comments in this AfD. --W.marsh 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comment just proves my point, W.marsh. – Chacor 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no personal attacks and there is absolutely no rule against making multiple comments in an AfD. Your argument is basically that I should be quiet because you'd like me to be. --W.marsh 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this was at RFA, it would not be tolerated, one person going after all the dissenting voices (in either support or oppose camp). Same thing here. You need to cool down a bit. This is a heated situation for everyone. – Chacor 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut it out you two. — Moe 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So uh, don't "tolerate it", whatever that means. I'm doing nothing wrong... I am not even opposing deletion, just bad, non-policy based arguments for it. --W.marsh 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what this page is, but a bunch of people on IRC told me that I should be outraged and write delete here. --Gmaxwell 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IRC - I don't believe notability is sufficiently met. This could fit into an article like Kelly's suggestion, but not a whole article on just Essjay. --Cyde Weys 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silly Cyde and Maxwell, didn't you read the attention notice at the top :) — Moe 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope there was a level of humour intended in both those comments...*sigh* Daniel Bryant 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They just further erode the reputation of Wikipedia. CovenantD 11:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; self-referential, plus having the article here rewards Essjay too much. He's already being excoriated all over the web (see, for example, the partial list of all the places that have already written articles critical of himself and of Jimbo at the end of this blog post); there's no need for those excoriations to be repeated on Wikipedia, too. If people are still talking about him in a few years, then write the article. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, redirect to Wikipedia editorial fraud incident of 2007. But don't ask me to write it. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, I strongly support doing the above. This is consistent with the position I've taken on articles of other people who are not notible outside of a few semi-notable events. --Gmaxwell 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder: given that, what's the difference between a person and a string of notable events? Maybe if given enough notable events, an entity can be elevated to the level of personhood? GracenotesT § 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Next time I get pounced on for wanting to keep an article that's not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary criterion for WP:BIO and WP:N, I'm going to point to this AfD as an example of the arbitrary relevancy of those guidelines. --Oakshade 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The articles about him are really about Wikipedia and our reputation; they don't establish his notability. Chick Bowen 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Striking my vote, since I protected this discussion. Chick Bowen 05:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like User:Oakshade said, there are certainly enough sources for citations in reputable secondary locations. Smee 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, but please do not snowball close oh God please no. It's better that a snowball go through Hell than a community, although the latter is clearly starting to happen. Delete because the event is covered well enough by Criticism of Wikipedia, and only in the context of this event is Essjay... everyone knows where I'm going with this, I hope. Evenryone, visualize with me: the masses running towards the Reichstag, slipping on their Spider-Man costumes as they set up the ladder towards the stormy sky, harness their ropes, and begin the great ascent. GracenotesT § 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on the article, Strongly support letting the debate run its course. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Changing no opinion to keep in light of subsequent international press coverage. If this were about any subject other than Wikipedia the decision would be an uncontroversial keep by now. Oppose merging with criticisms of Wikipedia because this isn't a criticism: it's a scandal caused by one Wikipedian's misrepresentations about himself. DurovaCharge! 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to those who argue "keep", the article makes no mention about the guy himself and what he's notable for. Would this not be easier if the article was just renamed along the lines of the Seigenthaler incident? – Chacor 05:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate keep Essjay now meets WP:BIO, and WP:N. I had hopes that there would be Wikipedians who would eventually become notable due to their contributions to the project, and if I had to make a list of likely candidates, Essjay would have been at the top of the list, but not like this. Now, if someone can argue that we don't have enough sourcing to actually be non-trivial I will change my opinion, but it definitely doesn't look that way right now. (I would not however, object to a merge to the article on criticisms of Wikipedia). JoshuaZ 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Changing opinion to Redirect to the general criticism of Wikipedia article per comments below and fact that material is well handled there. JoshuaZ 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, now back to Unfortunate keep given that as Doug pointed out this has now gotten to be so big that there is a New York Times article. [9][reply]
But the article isn't about him, it's about this isolated incident. — Moe 05:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "isolated" you mean 2+ years of deception, then you are correct. —Doug Belltalk 05:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that wasn't the best wording, but this is mostly a Wikipedia issue. The only thing about Essjay in this article is that he is active on the English Wikipedia. The rest is about this incident. — Moe 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? Compare what's here and what's already there and it's this article that comes up short. —Cryptic 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I might favor a redirect to there. I'm also beginning to think that users who have argued that we should wait and see what happens may have a strong point. JoshuaZ 07:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we want to maintain any credibility at al, we will not delete this article. At this point there is no question that its N. There are no BLP problems, as the person involved had admitted responsibility in public. The sources used have been used many times in WP as RS. Many articles about a person are there because of one particularly notorious incident, and if it has attracted true public attention, we do not remove them. The way to deal with this is objectively, like any other subject.
In previous AfDs, I have expressed my opinion that the worst way to hide a controversy is to make attempts to conceal it. (the classic example is of course Watergate). it is not possible to AGF in an information source that conceals well-based but derogatory opinion information about itself. Whatever one may think about the justification for the actions reported, there is no good-faith justification for suppressing this article. The subject himself would probably say at this point that the article should stand and be edited in the usual way. DGG 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the TImes article changes things, it's now well-referenced and notable. Milto LOL pia 16:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion section 2
News - For more information, here is the relevant Google Search: "ryan jordan" wikipedia Smee 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, here is my assessment of what is going on here; a person, whom we will call "Ryan Jordan" acted as a source in an article for the New Yorker. In it, he discussed his works as an admin on Wikipedia. However, he did so under what is now believed to be a pseudonym, and a false identity. This was then discovered, and revealed - much to the chagrin of the New Yorker, and to some extent, Wikipedia. As I see it, the question breaks down as follows:
Were Robert Jordan's comments in the New Yorker article sufficient to consider him a notable figure?
Was the subsequent coverage of Robert Ryan Jordan's "true" identity sufficient to consider him a notable, or encyclopedic figure?
Were the above, combined, sufficient to make Robert Ryan Jordan a notable figure.
Bear in mind that the guidelines under WP:BIO are guidelines; they are as rules of thumb as notability; not hard and fast rules.
With that said, I will have to say that he is not notable. His initial actions, as a source to the New Yorker, were not notable. The attention he later received was not, in fact, directed at him - rather at the situation itself. Ryan Jordan was entirely tangential to the real issue that was being discussed here. Furthermore, I think the charge of recentism applies here, as there is no concievable way Jordan will be remembered - the controversy, and related issue of which he became an example of, will be. However, he - himself - as a person is not notable. Thus, I will have to say weak delete.
This is by no means a clear-cut case, but I have to argue that it is incorrect to blindly apply notability guidelines here; we need to consider this case in context, and I believe doing so supports deletion. --Haemo 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Robert Jordan is a completely different person, a novelist. -- Ben 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I get for reading while editing --Haemo 07:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The attention he later received was not, in fact, directed at him - rather at the situation itself." That doesn't square with the text:
EDITORS’ NOTE:
The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”
Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia administrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia — a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia — as a “community manager”; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”
Essjay and his trustworthiness (or lack thereof) are clearly the central issue of this note and several later articles. -- Ben 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC), Jimbo Wales does really have a problem with it; in fact has now found the situation grave enough to blank out the rest of his talk page and devote it to this issue, having asked Essjay "to resign his positions of trust within the community"... "because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now." (Those positions include "boardvote, Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator", and ArbCom.) Jimbo also says, "From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic." That leading clause is significant: the contrition and apology followed not the commission of the sin but its revelation by others. Any "Catholic scholar", indeed most ordinary people whether Christian or not, would understand the difference between being sorry for having done something wrong and being sorry for having been caught at it. -- Ben 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELF, WP:BLP, WP:IAR, WP:COI, and (sorry, Essjay) WP:DENY. I honestly don't care how notable this is -- we should be the last to have an article on it. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate keep per JoshuaZ...this follows our rules no matter how little we wish it were so. Nardman1 05:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Perhaps a one-line mention could be put into Criticism of Wikipedia or somewhere similar? In any other situtation, one person in a large organization typically merits a sentence or two in the organization's article rather than getting their own, especially if it's around one isolated incident. Giving this an article would basically be ballooning its importance because we're all familiar with Wikipedia; outright erasing it doesn't make much sense either. --Wafulz 05:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wikipedia editorial fraud incident of 2007 or similar, per Kelly Martin. This article isn't about Essjay, it's about the incident. – Chacor 05:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please give adequate reasoning, this is not a vote. – Chacor 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For those who felt Essjay was unknown and non-notable outside Wikipedia, clearly this is no longer true. Too many people pay attention to the New Yorker to try dismissing it like a small newsletter. The number of news outlets reporting this story shows they found it noteworthy. It may be bad news for Wikpedia, but that's not the standard we're supposed to judge by, in fact that's a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like it either, but (a) it's verifiable (multiply-attributed), and (b) it's clearly notable. We should accept that and move on, not try to sanitize it out of the Wiki-record when the outside world is reporting it so widely. We're not Pravda, for crying out loud, and trying to "contain" this outside story through on-Wiki politicking is futile to the point of silliness. -- Ben 05:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-referential. And he's not the subject of the New Yorker article, he's a representative sample and/or source. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Kelly and Chacor. The impact of the incident is probably greater than that of the individual. Alternatively merge the stub into Criticism of Wikipedia. – riana_dzasta 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ryan Jordan is not notable. Alternately JoshuaZ may have the right idea, since the permanent stub nature of this article might make it worth merging into the Criticism of Wikipedia article. --tjstrftalk 05:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a considerable amount of discussion about Ryan Jordan's lies going on on the Internet. The New Yorker is a very well-respected publication, and it seems likely that his notability will only increase from here on out. It has the makings of a large controversy, and is certainly notable! Xiphoris 05:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per various precedents, any person who has been the principal subject of that much press coverage is notable enough. WP:BLP concerns are issues requiring careful sourcing, not deletion. As regards the above allegations that there has been canvassing on IRC: if true, logs should be posted at the discussion page to substantiate this. Sandstein 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Define "that much", because I see 8 hits, and posting IRC logs are pretty prohibited, might not want to do that. — Moe 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Inquirer is not RS and the CNet link is a news blog editorial - also not RS. – Chacor 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seriously doubt that this will get more coverage shortly? As regards IRC, I have no experience with it, but any rule that would prohibit the posting of logs here would not be Wikipedia community policy, which binds us, but a rule of that chatroom, which need not concern us here. Especially if such material is pertinent on-Wiki to examine WP:CANVASS allegations. Sandstein 06:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, I don't think it will get much more publicity than this. And some Wikipedians consider it an invasion of privacy to have their IRC logs placed on a public forum like Wikipedia. If it's off-wiki, keep it off-wiki, you don't need to drag it on here. We've seen happen all too recently. — Moe 06:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice so now we're basing Notablity based on blog entries, this is getting stupid. — Moe 05:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely pointing it out. Please try to use more polite language. Thank you. Smee 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well tell me when you bring something worth noting here and I will be a little nicer about it. — Moe 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As much as I hate to admit it, it seems Mr. Jordan has gained some notability, and seems to meet our inclusion standards. The facts presented in the article are attributed to multiple reliable sources. This article needs to be watched and kept to the letter and spirit of our biographies of living people policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder. It's too soon to tell, but I have a feeling that notability isn't going to be an issue a week from now. —Doug Belltalk 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after thinking about this somewhat, I don't think the notability requirements hold up. This is effectively an isolated event from the standpoint of being reported widely, and as such doesn't meet the notability threshold. I think a merge into Criticism of Wikipedia or perhaps somehere else is the right solution. —Doug Belltalk 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my first impulse to wait was probably correct...I just should have waited longer. Now that no less than the New York Times has published an article on Essjay's resignation and the discussion here, I guess I have to say keep it. —Doug Belltalk 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I get the feeling that others will be watching how we handle this. Club And Fang 06:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So then let's guess about what'll make us look the best, and do it, hm? Nearly sounds reasonable, but doesn't sound right. You do bring up a valid point, but before we go about doing things for appearances, many facets need to be considered. GracenotesT § 06:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading a lot of things that I didn't say into what I actually wrote. The point is that we should take our time and be careful to apply our policies fair and square to all cases, without being swayed by personal piques or group affiliation based prejudices. Club And Fang 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. GracenotesT § 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essjay is a proven fraud and a troll, one outed in the New Yorker, of all places. But not nearly notable enough for an article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is point where AGF fails and facts take hold. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this incident was the result of an initial light-hearted thing that Essjay was... well, too weak to correct. Most of us would be. If you can honestly claim that Essjay did this only to be disruptive, well, I doubt that. This whole mess came about by these people, mostly outside of Wikipedia. Whether it deserved to happen or not is a different question: one that is not pertinent to this AFD, which relates to something in the article space. GracenotesT § 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have several articles on Wikipedians, in fact WP:ASR specifically allows for "Articles about prominent people involved in Wikipedia, for example: Jimbo Wales" --W.marsh 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least Jimbo's article talks about Jimbo and not just one incident. There is not a single sentence in the current version of the article that has anything to do with Essjay as the individual. — Moe 06:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Josiah Rowe and User:Doug Bell; this is way too recent to know what kind of long term notability it will have. It will probably end up a redirect, but better to keep it for now than have to recreate it later. CovenantD 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was interviewed in a magazine which later contained an erratum. That is hardly notability; many users have been interviewed by many newspapers, and an erratum is hardly a noteworthy mention. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:48:18, 02 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete this and Daniel Brandt too. Same notability. Same violation of privacy. --Tbeatty 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has nothing to do with how I view him as a person, an user, an editor, or an administrator, and I urge that we have to avoid having such perceptions color our judgment on voting to keep or delete, one way or the other. Right now, he's simply not notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per High In BC. —MichaelLinnear 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This situation is too new to really be able to make an informed decision. Keep the article for now, let the situation develop, and then re-submit the article for AfD in a week. --Elonka 07:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (new "keep" opinion entered below)[reply]
keep. For better or for worse, Essjay is now an important part of Wikipedia's historical record. // Internet Esquire 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of what is fact and fiction amongst all this, the article is useless. - Richardcavell 07:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this opens up too big of a can of worms. Think of Elephant (wikipedia article). We don't need self-referential stuff just because the media comments on it. --BigDT 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self referential. Violation of privacy. We have no reliable source saying that his name really is Ryan Jordan. This is about an incident, not a person. We need to wait several months to see if the incident really is notable, or if it's just something everyone is talking about at the moment. ElinorD(talk) 07:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-referential. Ignore notability arguments to prevent community from wasting precious thoughts and keystrokes on subsequent afd attempts that would surely follow. --maclean 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if an article subject is notable, use WP:IGNORE and do not apply notability arguements when it doesn't suit Wikipedia or embarasses it? --Oakshade 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first one, when it doesn't suit Wikipedia. Why are people voting merge when the content is already in Criticism of Wikipedia? --maclean 00:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your honesty. --Oakshade 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be kept or merged into Wikipedia article, because it shows deficiency caused by anonymonity on Wikipedia. --Voidvector 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Sources are not primarily about the subject, it's tittle-tattle about some nonsense. Self-referential, WP:BLP concerns and frankly nobody else cares - it's a piece of Wikipedia navel-gazing. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These sources appear to care:
Schiff, Stacey (2006-07-24). "Know it All". The New Yorker.
Perhaps you don't care, Guy, but WP:IDONTCARE isn't a good reason to delete. -- Ben 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Ben, please don't try to assume bad faith of any participant's reasoning. I for one, second Guy's comments. These sources either discuss Wikipedia itself or are an erratum, which hardly asserts any notability. Michaelas10(Talk) 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michaelas10, please assume the assumption of good faith, and don't "try to assume" the opposite when statements false to fact are shown to be false to fact. Guy says "Sources are not primarily about the subject, it's tittle-tattle about some nonsense." You say "These sources either discuss Wikipedia itself or are an erratum".... But the headlines say "Wikipedia 'expert' lied about qualifications", and "Wikipedia: did one of its admins lie?", and "The Wikipedia Admin Brouhaha". These refer to Essjay and his falsified credentials. Claiming otherwise is flatly false. -- Ben 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources you provided are erratums and don't prove differently than mine or Guy's comments, since they discuss the mistake itself rather than the subject. Michaelas10(Talk) 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. They care about the issue, in a flash-in-a-pan sensationalist way, but I doubt me they give much thought to the person. Will this biography ever be listed in a Dictionary of National Biography? I don't think so. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you might want to refresh your memory on the dishonesty scandals of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair: having been caught lying in and to the press is still the "claim to fame" at the tops of their articles. -- Ben 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michaelas10, a mere erratum says "We erred in this previous story, here's a correction." That is briefly said by the paper or program where the original error appeared or was repeated, and is rarely reported elsewhere, let alone in the headlines. When Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair were caught in extensive deceits, there were not merely errata (nor erratums as you put it) by their papers quietly retracting the falsehoods, but scandals that got reported and headlined by other news organizations as well. In this case the latter sort of "brouhaha" (to quote one headline) is occurring: not a mere erratum, but a scandal... just as the core issue is not a mere "mistake", but 2+ years of lies. -- Ben 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason for this article. None. Zero. Zip. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only this alone discusses Ryan Jordan himself. However, I see two problems regarding this source; 1) it's meant to discuss Wikipedia generally, and briefly interviewed Essjay in two paragraphs, and 2) it interviews him as a non-notable persona about the review's subject, just like news outlets interview normal citizens. All the rest of the articles simply discuss the apparent lie in this one. There's also the issue of self-referencing: Wikipedia should never threat her own topic differently than others, hence this article is as incoherent as any article on an admin of a different notable site would be. Michaelas10(Talk) 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as Criticism of Wikipedia seems to cover it well and Essjay's bio is otherwise unnotable (too bad). But a week from now, maybe even by the end of the AFD, it may be a different story. --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunate incident, but Wikipedia is not a news service. If it were, I would be notable [10], and I'm not. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to handle the affair. This is an impostor trying to remove his real face from Wikipedia. It is not any different then those who try to remove article of Alan Mcilwraith (and I suspect the guy himself is among them) - Skysmith 10:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An internet user's actions in lying about his online identity was referenced by a few media sources in the course of discussing the website he held an account on. This does not make the user notable - the pertinent information should be a part of the article on the website, in a section on criticism. As this article has a subarticle on criticism, the information should go there. In short, the section in Criticism of Wikipedia is adequate - a dab on Ryan Jordan pointing to that article wouldn't be unreasonable. Proto► 10:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Delete and Redirect to Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article – at present this appears to violate WP:BLP when the issue raised by the sources is Wikipedia, not any separate claim to fame by Essjay. In the longer term review whether the incident is notable enough to have its own article, which should be about the incident and not a purported biography. Under its new title as an article about the incident this is fine. Also shown as notable by BBC reports – the revelation that "Essjay's skateboard shop in Truro is selling "go-peds" a type of motorised skateboard with a 22cc petrol engine similar to those used to power lawnmowers." here shows a remarkable past. .. dave souza, talk 11:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) updated 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable outside Wikipedia. The article's existence seems a violation of WP:POINT and it is verging on an attack page. Serious WP:BLP concerns arises from the fact that this article will be inherently one-sided. WjBscribe 11:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless we all want our real names and bios posted here. Essjay is non-notable outside of this site. This is purely an exercise in Schadenfreude. Jeffpw 11:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all.--PBAJ 11:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borders on being an attack page as the subject is a non-notable private citizen who has received some trivial coverage connected to events which aren't exactly all that notable in the first place. Sorry, folks, but Wikipedia isn't that important in the real world. GassyGuy 11:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, there are easily 50 reliable sources about Jayson Blair, and he worked for the New York Times, one of the most prominent and reliable newspapers on the planet. The cases are not comparable. JoshuaZ 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal Wikipedia is not one of the most prominent websites on the planet? Quatloo 06:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the 50 number and in any event, the prominence of Wikipedia isn't exactly proportionate since the NYT has far fewer people contributing to it than Wikipedia does. JoshuaZ 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion section 3
(arbitrary break) Comment - do not close this discussion early. The last thing we need is accusations of covering up or whitewashing. Closing it early will earn my undying enmity. Proto► 11:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the normal length of time that these things proceed? Smee 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Heh! If we can find one :-) Guy (Help!) 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cynical part of me is thinking there'll be one - or at least one - admin restraining himself, with his showboating and "groundbreaking" solution, probably named after himself, contrary to the consensus in hand, who will close the AFD after 5 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes and 0.01 seconds, closing the discussion however he feels like it should be closed, and balls to us all. But maybe not, who knows. Proto► 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgive me for not having read all of the preceeding comments. In my view the incident involving this person may be notable and may warrant its own article or a mention in Criticism_of_Wikipedia. However, I do not consider that Mr Jordan hismself is notable. For the record I am coming at this from a completely "fresh" perspective i.e. I am fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia and before a few minutes ago had not heard of Mr Jordan or Essjay.Jules1975 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable individual. MLA 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that this will be a significant story in the long run, and the subject is only notable through accident. Wikipedia's breast-beating introspection can be worthwhile but this is not one of those occasions. Sam Blacketer 12:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of subsequent events, I think WP:DIGNITY comes in here and raise my vote to a strong delete. Sam Blacketer 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge. I don't have a clear opinion about how this should be handled, but the whole Ryan/Schiff/New Yorker incident is going to be, whether you like it or not, very notable. I entered into the discussions on this very early on when there was only a single comment on Essjay's talk page and maybe a dozen on Jim Wale's and the posts now are in the hundreds across multiple pages. Wiki activity hardly makes this notable, but you're beginning to see the same trend with outside media. The incident has already been slash dotted and commented on in a number of blogs. This is going to continue. Main stream media will pick up on this. There is going to be a bit of a feeding frenzy because the incident just fits so nicely into the stereotypes much of the main stream media has for something like Wikipedia. It's all a bit sad really. A B Carter (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Main stream media will pick up on this" But if they haven't yet it's not notable yet surely? Still means IMO the incident is notable (which I would agree with anyway) but not the individual. Jules1975 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sanction all keep voters for engaging in harassment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is going to just be his 15 minutes of fame, and there will be no more news stories on him after a few days (other than in the context of "Wikipedia is not reliable anymore!"). Also, this is a single incident, not notable in itself (lots of people lie every day, and presenting false credentials to the media isn't that notable too), but notable only in connection with Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Wikia; it doesn't deserve its own article. --cesarb 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see Alan Mcilwraith for a potential problem with that line of argument.Geni 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge is not a valid choice... we need to preserve the edit history if we do merge content. --W.marsh 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that there's any important content on this article that isn't already covered by Criticism of Wikipedia. Come on, perhaps having responses from other parties might be appropriate in Execution of Saddam Hussein, but this isn't about the international diplomatic community. This is about a community somewhere called Wikipedia and a little tiff that some people got into with and within it. This article has unintentional overtones of parody (of current events and biography articles), really, like Wikipedia is trying to be important to itself. Do we really have to take over-reacting to the mainspace? GracenotesT § 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unfortunately notable, whether we like it or not. Article could be renamed to Wikipedia deception incident of 2006 or something of the sort if the person himself is not notable enough, the incident most certainly is. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I realize that the media obviously cares, and Larry seems to care quite a bit too, but in all honesty...who gives a crap? It's a pseudonym for Christ's sake...how do you know anything that any of us put on our userpage are actually true? My userpage could be full of made up crap too. I realize this isn't a valid reason to delete or keep, but I just wanted to get it out there... ^demon[omg plz]14:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is about the incident, not him. So, the incident's notable and he isn't. Besides, there is no way to write a balanced, stable article in the current environment. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'inclined to delete.SYSS Mouse 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the argument that the incident in which the subject of the article was involved in is the real subject of importance and not the other way around. Being used as an example of a broader issue in a news article, regardless of how many times said story gets reprinted (along with the person's name) does not establish notabiilty. You can be mentioned in a thousand independent, verifiable news articles but unless those articles are about you, that doesn't make you newsworthy. There are a number of other fine arguments as to why this article fails to meet standards, no need for me to reiterate them here. Arkyan 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the attribution policy and the WP:BIO guidline. Even though this article shows to the entire world how easily the lies of one person can damage wikipedia's credibility it doesn't meet the criteriafor deletion. NeoFreak 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. While the event is probably notable outside Wikipedia, I doubt the person really is. Unless there is evidence of substantial notability outside of this event, then our coverage should focus on the event, not the person. Dragons flight 16:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with others that it's the event, not the person that's notable. ChazBeckett 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Express deep, deep sympathy for the closer • It'll be messy no matter how this is closed. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe bainer will do it...he did a great job on the Danial Brandt DRV. —Doug Belltalk 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second the expression of sympathies. To me this seems a pretty clear cases of no consensus, but I fear that regardless of how it's closed, it will end up at deletion review. -- Black Falcon 23:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More Wikipedian navel-gazing of no use whatsoever to our putative readers. We are, after all, here to write a free encyclopedia, not a backup of teh internets. Summarising this, we are reporting on a correction in the New Yorker. A first, is it? No, I thought not. Most of the article is actually about D. L. Bryant, J. Wales, and L. Sanger. Is the event notable? Fuck knows, but we can wait and find out. While we're waiting, let's leave the news reporting to Wikinews and stick with the encyclopedia. Angus McLellan(Talk) 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for at least a week, since the mainstream press attention it's already getting seems likely to make this one of Wikipedia's best-known controversies. Rcade 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has mainstream media attention. Caution how it this article is presented is necessary under BLP, but it should be presented nonetheless. Just Heditor review 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article. This article is not a bio, but discusses a current issue which is unfortunately reflecting badly on us all -- it's now been picked up in the Chronicle of Higher Education news blog, which accurately notes, "Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."--LeflymanTalk 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has been renamed and converted from an attempt to be a biography, into one that discusses the still-growing controversy over use of false credentials. However, I'd suggest that "scandal" is an inherently non-neutral title. --LeflymanTalk 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes BIO with flying colors. --ElKevbo 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or merge - I'd be happy with either solution. The sources are reliable and verifiable so the incident should not be deleted but there may be a better article in which to place the information. --ElKevbo 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO, no blp vios there... - Denny 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is about the incident not the person. In a week or so the incident may merit an article of its own, but, I doubt Ryan/Essjay will. --DSRH | talk 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the only motivation for deletion is historical revisionism. It is patently notable as proven by the numerous outside sources referenced. Do you realize how badly it reflects on Wikipedia if we try to sweep this under the rug? Matt Gies 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to go out on a limb and say this will end up as no-consensus, so I move that the discussion be closed per Snowball clause and propose that a strawpoll be held at Talk:Ryan_Jordan_(Wikipedia)#Merge strawpoll.--LeflymanTalk 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per several above, the incident may well be notable, the individual I feel is not. Jcuk 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename. If WP:BLP is enforced rigourously, we can't use statements by the subject of the article, because the evidence is that he isn't a reliable source on who he is. Since every other source on his biography relies on him, there are no reliable sources for a biographical article. There are reliable sources to add material to Criticism of Wikipedia or to an article on the incident, so that is where this should be covered. My first choice would be to merge, and only have a separate article if it grows too long and needs to become a subarticle. GRBerry 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) later: struck "or rename"; the first renaming hasn't helped. Merging still is the right thing to do; this is not only notable, it was noted. GRBerry 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) later still: struck completely, new opinion at the bottom. GRBerry 03:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has several independent refrences with substantial coverage of his work at Wikipedia and the controversy about claimed academic credentials to satisfy the applicable attribution and notability standards for having an article. Edison 21:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the questions we have to ask in this case are, as I stated in another wiki related AfD:
is the subject notable?
is the content of the article true?
can we prove that it is true ?
notable, someone who embarrased the New Yorker, imo yes, true, hey we have to the sources to prove it. Embarrasing? Not anymore. And we should not forget the educative side effect, sooner or later someone is going to catch up with you ... especially if you give your name while spreading some baloney among the public AlfPhotoman 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is wikipedia disapearing up its own fundament. David Spart 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like it or not, Essjay's actions and Jimbo's responses have sparked more than enough reliable sources to cause this article to meet WP:BIO. And note well: if this article is deleted, it will only worsen PR many, many degrees. C.m.jones 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person is now notable. TonyTheTiger 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I see several reliable sources, so it seems to pass. Plus, there will be more coming as the information develops and expands, so there is a lot of potential for additional sources. — Deckiller 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient evidence of encyclopedic notability, in line with my long-standing view of the relative significance of media reports for encyclopedic purposes (Redirect to the Criticism of Wikipedia article's section on this incident if there are concerns about brushing this incident under the carpet). I do hope that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia management will take this incident significantly more seriously than they seem to be, though. But there's no encyclopedic notability evident for a separate article on this person here. BwithhJoin Up! See the World! 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable scandal, not to the same degree as Seigenthaler but just a grade below. Deletion would tarnish the image and reputation of the project. Philwelch 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; it would be awkward and dangerous to delete something that passes our policies just to safe face. — Deckiller 22:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not to mention that guidelines get rubber-banded at the whim of an AfD anyway AlfPhotoman 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this was of no importance to anyone outside of WP, it would not have received coverage in at least 4 distinct articles. Arguments that the "event" is notable and not the person are valid, but that can be solved through a simple pagemove. This article meets WP:N as the subject (assuming the title is renamed) is the topic of multiple reliable, non-trivial, independent sources. It meets WP:A. And finally, despite the controversy surrounding it, the article is written in a NPOV manner. That is all that should matter. Nothing else is relevant. -- Black Falcon 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. A pagemove is unnecessary as the information is already contained in Criticism of Wikipedia. So, I would suggest a protected redirect that cannot be reverted to its full-content version. -- Black Falcon 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So he fabricated some qualifications and a lazy journalist believed him. Hardly world-shattering news is it. If he wasn't something to do with Wikipedia there would probably be an immediate consensus to delete, instead of which we have a major debate. Not notable. -- Necrothesp 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to "delete" voters: - This scandal is what, a few days old? Wait a month. This thing is going to get HUGE. Also, FYI, foundations who have supported Wikipedia have a very good case to sue the project for fraud, since Wales during fund raising has touted the many experts on Wikipidia, including Essjay. Like it or not, this thing has only begun. I am just trying to be a realistic voice here and point to the larger picture. C.m.jones 01:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, it's only going to be "huge" to some Wikipedians because it...like...wow...mentions Wikipedia and makes them feel really (self-)important and influential in world affairs! It's going to completely pass under the rest of the world's radar, apart maybe from a minor reference on a slow news day (none of the cited references are exactly from major-league news sites). Realistically, nobody else cares! -- Necrothesp 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as a media professional I must disagree, there has been a buzz about wiki's unreliable information for a long time and many will jump on this case because it confirms their prejudices. This is not going away by deleting and ignoring. By deleting and ignoring the only thing that is going away is the funding for wiki AlfPhotoman 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"as a media professional"! — Have you learned nothing from this? We don't accept, and never have accepted, the personal testimony of editors here. "We've never accepted "Trust me, I'm a doctor.", and we likewise don't accept "Trust me, I'm a media professional.". What are important are sources, sources, sources. If you cannot base your argument upon anything but unsubstantiated personal testimony, then you have no argument, at AFD or otherwise.
Keep I agree with Alf above-- except the part about "as a media professional" which I am in no position, ironically, to know. WP's integrity has been an important topic in the wider culture for some time. Edivorce 02:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment about crystal balls. Is it really possible to believe that the story will end today? People care about us--but in different ways. Many who distrust our egalitarian stance would like to show us as inaccurate--and I expect most publications dealing with education or web culture or even general interest news will have a story with their next issue. DGG 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But at the same time, how do you figure the story won't end today? There's no way to tell, hence my reminder about crystal-balling. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. If it's so important as to warrant something right now, go to Wikinews with it, since it's fairly recent. --Coredesat 04:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This guy's controversy is twice as significant as the human interest stories about SimonP, which resulted in an article. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. An article on an important person in our community that only focuses on this controversy just exacerbates the situation. Haven't we crucified Essjay enough as it is? – Lantoka (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Qxz "Forget notability, there are WP:BLP and Daniel Brandt-style issues here" Accountability for his actions via his misrepresentations must be found elsewhere. Shenme 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the troll that created it -Docg 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion section 4
Strong delete Not to be cruel, but who besides us gives a flip about him? Indiawilliams 05:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just the millions of people who give a flip about Web 2.0, of which Wikipedia is a part. C.m.jones 05:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Millions? MILLIONS?!! The only people that know who this guy is are us, the Slashdotters, and anyone who bothered to read that article. And the last two groups will move on to something else soon enough. Indiawilliams 06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I still don't get how Wikipedia is part of Web 2.0. Our AJAX use is minimal and MediaWiki's APIs are notoriously inadequate and/or badly documented. I'm surprised we even have RSS/Atom feeds. We're using basically stone-age technology here, like $DEITY intended. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indulging off-topic tangent) The term "Web 2.0" is vague, ambiguous, and poorly defined. That said, one sense or aspect of the term is that content is created by users, and Wikipedia pioneered this. Philwelch 11:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-trivial third-party coverage. .V.[Talk|Email] 05:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect/Whatever at least for now: We have enough self-referencing as it is. We can't, however, unspill the milk. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and if it depended on me, I'd say the fact that we have Tons of Media Coverage is not a reason to keep it either - this is merge material and we're not a current-events portal anyway unless the topic is worth encyclopaedic discussion. (I guess I'd be ready to merge the Seigenthaler conflict article too!) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep - I knew it was only a matter of time before this article got created as a result of the recent flurry of media coverage. My only hope is that it will be monitored closely and kept free of self-references, sticking only to the information which can be attributed to verifiable, third party sources. Personally, I think the inclusion guidelines are out of whack but there is clear precedent for including such articles (e.g. Angela...). Savidan 07:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the recent controversy may be notable, at least enough to be mentioned in an article somewhere - so merge anything useful for that purpose - but I don't see how Mr Jordan himself can be considered notable just for this. Metamagician3000 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge anything useful to Criticism of Wikipedia or put it on wikinews. In 5 years, this won't matter (yes, not an accepted criterion). Recreate later when things are clearer if it's needed. skip (t / c) 09:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC) struck, now at bottom. skip (t / c) 04:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It matters now. We can merge it in 5 years. C.m.jones 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 15 minutes of (negative) fame doesn't make a person encyclopedic. I've kept my mouth shut over all the other Essjay-related pages on the project, but having this spill over into article space is just ridiculous. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its not about Essjay a.k.a Ryan Jordan but about the Incident that happened..Delete it(but if it was about Essjay then I would have supported it)...--Cometstyles 12:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think consensus can be achieved right now one way or the other by looking at this debate. Emotions are too high, I believe that nothing should be done in either direction right now if I were to go by this discussion. Just Heditor review 12:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as navel-gazing. Eusebeus 13:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I had no idea what was going on until I found this. Wl219 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, this is the most dubious reason I have seen for keeping an article. Hell, it might not be notable, maybe it has BLP concerns but whatever the reason, lets keep it so I know whats going on. — Moe 14:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well gee, where does it say I HAVE TO REPEAT EVERY OTHER KEEPER'S REASONS for mine to be valid??? Why don't you go ahead and delete WP:CURRENT while you're at it, cuz hey, who cares what's going on? Wl219 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put it like that. Keeping up-to-date on Wikipedia isn't a reason for keeping an article though. WP:CN has more than that article. — Moe 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For obvious reasons. Notable? Hardly. The rest of us are just as notable as he is. —Pilotguygo around 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
scuse me, but I fail to see that any of us could get an AfD this size if we posted our articles, not to mention the about 20 non-trivial articles so far about this AlfPhotoman 15:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong恭喜发财 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough non-trivial third party sources to establish notability. Doesn't make us look great, but then the article being removed will look even worse. JASpencer 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valuable information and notable. This incident is not something we should forget about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is up for debate here is not the notability of the incident itself. If it is notable, it can have its coverage in Criticism of Wikipedia, which it already has, or possibly a standalone article at a later date. Deleting this article does not equate to sweeping it all under the rug, as the information is retained elsewhere. What should be debated here is whether or not a reliably sourced, WP:BLP-adherent biographical article can be built around a single incident on Wikipedia. The answer, as I see it, is no. WarpstarRider 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is about a real controversy being reported in several media outlets. This is an important part of WP history. - grubber 17:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I can't even imagine who's going to close this, but I'd question those calling for deletion. Its been demonstrated that this clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:ATT. Those trying to cite various guidelines like WP:SELF and WP:DENY might want to realize those are guidelines and even an essay. They might also want to read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempting to bury a verifiable and notable story about wikipedia itself reeks of an attempt at censorship.--Crossmr 18:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Now a notable individual as several reliable sources. As per Crossmr above.--J2thawiki 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. From the little I've read it fits all guidelines, it's notable, and frankly Moe rubs me the wrong way.--Andrew831 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we should keep the article because you don't like me? — Moe 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens no, I'm sorry if that was what it sounded like. It IS a notable figure and meets all the criteria. And, as an aside regardless of keeping or deleting it, you are being kind of unreasonably hostile about the whole issue.--Andrew831 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to agrue anymore about the Essjay article. Personally, Essjay was my friend and seeing his privacy invaded like this struck a nerve and other things have been building stress on this site. Well, thats me, unreasonably hostile Moe :/ Whatever.. — Moe 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For now at least. Wikipedia should present its take on the issue. Balcer 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Essjay for his opinion - since he is a Wikipedia administrator, we should ask him and see what he thinks. (I'm being serious here) Guroadrunner 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this proves that no one is even reading the article. Guroadrunner, do you even know what this is about? Do you think anyone is going to believe him about this issue? The whole incident is about his trust, and he has proven himself somewhat untrustworthy and you want him to decide if he should have the article on him or not? Besides, Jimbo has already asked him to resign his "powers of position", so the argument of him being an "admin", are moot.. — Moe 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Haven't you read the news? Essjay is going to be exiled from Wikipedia, and whenever he edits again, people will revert him because he cannot be trusted anymore. And yes, I am being sarcastic. -- ReyBrujo 00:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that his trust is what the issue was over and the above !vote says we should see what he thinks and with his credibility already questioned, why should he furthur try to harm it by commenting here? — Moe 00:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? Isn't it a valid opinion? As you say, this is not a vote, it is a search for consensus. If Guroadrunner needs to listen to Essjay's opinion to make a verdict about this page, I think it is an opinion that should be respected and not just dismissed as "moot". Yes, Essjay made a mistake, a very big one, and yes, some of his actions should be reviewed, and some of his bits may now be unsuitable. But he continues to be a Wikipedia member with a valid opinion, unless we go witch hunting. Someday Essjay will have to edit again in Wikipedia, we can't just indirectly keep him away with "Do you think people will care what he comments?" comments. -- ReyBrujo 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my position, I support Essjay and always will, but Essjay made a mistake. Why should Essjay come here and furthur jeaporadize his reputation by commenting on it on a very large-scale AFD? Personally I don't think Essjay is even reading this right now. What I said was moot was the fact that he pushed Essjay's opinion higher because he was an admin, which is moot since neither being an admin is "more important", nor have a more valid opinion, because everyone's is equal and it's moot because he may lose his adminship because of this. And my whole purpose for replying was for what you just said: "[Essjay] continues to be a Wikipedia member with a valid opinion", some people really don't think that, I do and I wish everyone else did, but it's not the case anymore. I don't want to keep Essjay away, nor do I want him to quit Wikipedia as your implying, and I would appriciate it if you didn't assume bad faith. — Moe 00:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for going hard on you. I just don't like the "Do you think anyone is going to believe him about this issue?" comment. While it may be true, it does not stop me from pointing that, were he reading it, he may think people are going to dismiss his opinions from now on, which would be a real pity. -- ReyBrujo 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, it's stressful and I've had my fair share of stress during this and tons more elsewhere today. He knows that I wouldn't dismiss him, I wouldn't on my grave at this point. In fact, during the limited conversation I had with Essjay after his last edit he told me not to stress too much about this AFD, and I think I will do just that. — Moe 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vee shall keep zay Vikis pure oft dissent; zoo nut look behind zay curtain! Seriously though, why is this even being discussed? Whether or not this is a mark against Wikipedia-and I'm pretty sure defending outright fraud and identity impersonation doesn't reflect well upon this enterprise-I don't think purging entries that explain the details of this case is going to make things any better for Jimbo & Co. KeepRuthfulbarbarity 01:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is not investigative journalism - David Gerard 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this an encyclopedia or a forum for navel gazing? AniMate 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is mentioned in various articles and there is a serious issue surrounding him. Most importantly by removing an article entry about a big mistake made by wikipedia (and Jimbo's original comments) it would as if wikipedia is trying to hide mistakes on its own page by removing articles. It is important to be open and honest. A google news search has many articles about this: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] For people who want an article about someone who lied on wikipedia they should be able to go to wikipedia. That's the point afterall: provide reliable information about subjects and events. Arbustoo 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Essjay can be redirected to an article that mentions the incident. I think the main issue is notability, and as a corollary of that whether or not an article on Essjay is overkill. – Lantoka (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple fact: Deletion concerning him/this event will look like wikipedia censors its own mistakes. Arbustoo 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've bolded the part that is applicable to your comment. "Simple fact: Deletion concerning him/this event will look like wikipedia censors its own mistakes." To bury this event in the middle of another section is not beneficial. Hence, as long as the material is easily and fully accessible it is fine. The nomination says nothing about redirect to anything else. It requests delete, in part, based on "Not a notable person (to anybody outside Wikipedia, that is), and doesn't have many, if any, reliable sources." I explained he notable, espcially concerning public image of wikipedia for various reasons including but not limited to censorship arguments. Also an article about this event cannot be fully explored in two paragraphs in an article titled "criticism." It seems as if it is being downplayed in that instance. Arbustoo 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD's result is not a strict dichotomy between what the nominator wants and absolutely keeping the article. If the consensus is to redirect, then a redirect will be put into place. GracenotesT § 05:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Right now this looks like a relatively minor controversy on a worldwide scale. If this balloons up and eventually nearly destroys Wikipedia, then we can have an article on it. But for now, there shouldn't be an article for everyone who stirs up controversy on Wikipedia.--Danaman5 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepor Merge Per recent developments changing to straight keep - Anchoress 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per user Cryptic and others that point out that the person is not notable and the information is already merged at Criticism of Wikipedia. I'm happy that this incident isn't being covered up and is easily accessible (as soon as they get rid of the Essjay article). - Ctbolt 04:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is not the time. Wikipedia will survive a month or two without an article on this fellow, while we wait to see what the fallout is. Smacks of current-eventism and self-reference. For now, anything notable in here can easily be merged into other articles, so no censorship is implied. Derex 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wikipedia editorial fraud incident of 2007 as originally suggested by Kelly Martin. This coverage is not about a single person, and it this article is not a BIO about the person. While the subject may technically meet BIO, it is only a single event that has caused this, and that event is not correctly put in context by this article. John Vandenberg 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. First, one-quarter of 2007 is not even over and there may yet be other fraud incidents within the year. Secondly, who will look for an article title by that name? "Essjay" is clearly the title people will use to search for the article. Thirdly, the scandal is about more than just fraud. Fourthly, your point about an article entitled "Essjay" not being able to encompass context is simply groundless. Any required context may be placed in the article as titled "Essjay". C.m.jones 05:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the proposed name I am hoping that this will be the only case of an editor with all bits being found to have deceived the press and esteemed members of our community, such as professors. If there are other bridges to be crossed this year, so be it, the article can be renamed then. To be correctly framed, the article needs to be about Wikipedia. The subject is otherwise not notable. We need an article that encompass the acts of Jimmy Wales, other people that were aware of the case, and those that put effort into bringing the matter to light. btw, a rename will leave an article titled "Essjay" that would redirect to the more complete article. John Vandenberg 06:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naaah. That really makes little sense. You are being crystal ballish on every count above. C.m.jones 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as much as it's saddening, he is now a notable name with reliable sources for an event which is very, very grave. ShaunES 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Obviously, NN. Voice-of-All 06:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why since many other users don't seem to find it that obvious. JoshuaZ 07:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Easily passes WP:BIO, and most certainly is notable. Lithorien 06:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BIO, notable. 1ne 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. ugen64 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain why? JoshuaZ 07:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I don't know why so long discussions have been taking place for non-notable person. Shyam(T/C) 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this point, the whole affair needs its own article, not just a portion of the criticism article. The sources are there to support it, and notability is demonstrated. Everyking 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you see this saga happening right now on Wikipedia, and wow it's everywhere. Everyone's talking about it, or has an opinion about it, or that sort of thing. But its importance to Wikipedia must and should be overshadowed by its importance to the real world. This is a bit of self-important WP:NAVEL, in my opinion. GracenotesT § 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple reliable sources now and Wikipedia should not be perceived as trying to cover up its dirty secrets --Aclapton 12:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of navel-gazing is inappropriate for an encyclopædia. If our articles were written by named individuals, there might be some excuse for this article — but why should anyone be interested in the internal wranglings of Wikipedia editors? Qualifications are (for better or for worse) irrelevant to the Wikipedia editing process, so why should it matter (aside from indicating the general trustworthiness of the person involved) whether someone lies about such qualifications? If Essjay had been editing Citizendium, I assume that that would have been a very different matter. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, notable. Grue 12:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too much self-reference. Merge well-sourced stuff (no Wikipedia references, blogs or yellow press crap) to someplace appropriate, if needs be, but Essjay himself isn’t notable—the recent incident is—, and shouldn’t have an article, especially if its only purpose is to detail the incident. —xyzzyn 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect or kill. Just don't keep as is. And spare me all that "if we delete it'll make WP look bad" moralizing.
You know, when I went over to report an issue at WP:ANI, I got the very distinct impression that the WP administrators are falling all over themselves to settle this Essjay hoo-ha, and are starting to neglect the other incident reports. Are all the other reports somehow less deserving of attention? If so, why?
Look, WP already has a bad reputation even without the Essjay issue, and that is due to WP's systemic flaws.[19][20][21] And its reputation is just going to get even worse if people concentrate on making Wikipedia look good, in contrast to actually making it be good.
So, spare me all that "reputation" crap, and just do the right thing. If Essjay isn't notable beyond this single incident, then don't keep it as is. And yes, I'm angry. Bi 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep - The notability for this article is unclear. It is not currently known whether the controversy associated with this subject is going to balloon into greater notability and visibility or whether it is going to become a flash-in-the-pan. If the latter happens to be the case, I would definitely say delete the article and merge any content that is encyclopedic into Daniel Brandt or some other article on Wikipedia controversies. However, if the mainstream news media pick-up this story and run with it as they did with the Seigenthaler case, an article may be justified. I say, keep the article for a month and then revisit the question. It will be much more clear. Debating this article's deletion now seems a bit premature. Keep the discussion lines open (as they obviously will be kept open since this is Wikipedia) and see what happens. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article creator's contributions make me think of WP:SPA and assume his bad faith. To avoid turning this article into eternal attack page, it should be deleted. If someone would like to write something on Essjay later, recreation should be allowed no earlier than in six month from today. After that not only trolls will find some other target for their attacks, but also good-intended wikipedians will be able to assess Essjay's notability from a historical perspective. MaxSem 14:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with MaxSem that 6 months from now we will be in a better position to judge. I think it fairly obvious right now, though, that this is better for a merge into the history of wikipedia than a separate article under any reasonable editorial policy. WP:BLP is relevant here. Human dignity is relevant here.--Jimbo Wales 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep. From what I can tell a vast majority of editors here seem more than eager to brush this incident under the table--if you ask me, in the long run, that response will make this project look even worse. This is not simply some overblown issue that only Wikipedians are interested in. To the contrary it sits at the heart of larger issues in the politics of knowledge (e.g. authority, accountability, etc.). If Wikipedia, and Wikipedians show a reasoned effort in dealing with these issues, instead of hiding from them, it will only benefit the projects credibility.PelleSmith 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If, on the other hand, there was some sign that an adequate forum was being created to discuss the issues raised by the incident then I would be more than happy to deflect attention from the individual who was caught transgressing.PelleSmith 15:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, WP's "credibility" is already quite low as things stand. Bi 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: - If information from the 17 citations and other news sources is to be merged into a different article on Wikipedia, how would that be any different for WP:BLP? And if the information presented is factually accurate and from reputable sources, how would this violate WP:BLP? Also, how would WP:BLP apply... if we are not even certain that this is a single living individual, multiple individuals using one account, or a single individual utilizing multiple aliases? If the true identity is not known, the principles of WP:BLP would have to be stretched quite thin to be made to apply to a fictional alias/pseudonym... Smee 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
BLP is extremely relevant for the reasons that you have just listed. If we don't know much about the identity of the individual, it borders on libel to have an encyclopedia article about him/her. GracenotesT § 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is no more a biography than World War II is a biography. It describes an event that received some press coverage. If the New Yorker isn't reliable, then we should remove all references using it. This describes an event that is important to us, but not to the rest of the world, yet. I like the 6 month wait idea. There's nothing in there that can't be recreated then, perhaps by deletion review. --MECU≈talk 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was the subject of an interview by many prominent media sources. Notability is decribed at WP:NOTE as "attracting notice" and the subject of secondary sources. Clearly the subject of the article clears this and therefore there is no issue preventing an article being written about him. Sfacets 15:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment It's the incident that is "attracting notice", not the person. Haven't enough people pointed this out already? Bi 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed my mind again for sundry reasons. Merge for now, I changed my mind after reading it again and thinking about it Keep It's barely notable enough but sufficiently documented by reliable secondary sources and it did make the IT trade news. It also touches on a widely documented criticism of Wikipedia. Taken altogether it's of notable interest outside WP. I would not redirect from (or merge with) an article under what he claims is his real name though. Gwen Gale 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with redirect from "Essjay" to "History of Wikipedia#Essjay incident" or the like. Whether or not Essjay is notable, the incident is surely notable with respect to the history of Wikipedia as a whole. grendel|khan 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for mercy's sake. There are probably WP:BLP reasons too, given the strong negative slant of the article. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the the type of Article we want? WP:BLP is a guiding principle here. It does not feel right, perhaps we can try this article again in a few months. It appears cruel. Navoubanter / contribs 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notabale outside Wikipedia. Dragomiloff 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability, also were there to be an article on this young man it should use his real name, articles using wikipedia user names are not acceptable, SqueakBox 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, self-evidently: The page is an important record in the history of Wikipedia's vulnerability to fraud and misrepresentation. Any attempt to delete the page of a widely noted misrepresenter of his own Wikipedia identity would smack of an attempt to erase any evidence of a significant failing of Wikipedia. It is already suspicious that any documentation of this incident should be nominated for deletion. – joeclark 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How would it be odd to delete it? He may be a "widely known misinterpreter" inside the Wikipedia community, but outside, nobody knows about him. I mean, a merge into Criticism of Wikipedia wouldn't be "odd" at all. Besides, since when do we have articles based on an internet pseudonym? If the page stays, it should be moved to Ryan Jordan. --Hojimachongtalk 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ryan Jordan is a musician so it should surely be moved to Ryan Jordan (wikipedia), SqueakBox 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um what? I presume you refer to Essjay's letter when you talk about documentation. It was deleted because he asked for his userspace work to be deleted. You can find copies of most of the letter all over the project. This sort of low-grade conspiratorial attitude doesn't help matters and is not going to alter at all whether or not the article is kept. JoshuaZ 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the main reason that people may believe this is notable is because it's a Wikipedia article on a Wikipedia person, but I can't imagine anyone not involved with Wikipedia really being interested in this. I don't think it's notable. Perhaps userfy or project-space-ify or something. --Deskana(Alright, on your feet soldier!) 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Or move to Wikinews and cite from there. Anything this serious that affects all of Wikipedia needs mention here. Breaking news is just that. This is so new which is why it's not been covered by more articles yet. Wait another day and it will be. Wjhonson 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect -- this subject is already covered in much more detail at with much better writing style at Criticism of Wikipedia#New Yorker article. This page should therefore redirect there. JulesH 20:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is being covered in the mainstream news. This is being covered by respected Blogs. This is really a no brainer if it didn't involve somebody everybody on Wiki knows (or really more often knows of). Dave 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this situation has been a big deal among Wikipedians and even crossed over into the real world, with the reporter, it actually didn't get all that much media attention outside the blogosphere and The New Yorker's "editors note". Also, for the sake of WP:BLP, I'm not sure Essjay wants an article about himself and if that's the case then I think we should respect that since he's not all that notable. --Aude (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I share Wjhonson's belief that this should be on Wikinews if anywhere, but the answer is not to keep it here, but to delete it and let Wikinews create their own coverage. Failing deletion, I could live with a merge to Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article, or the like. Far too little substance for an encyclopedia article. And just in case anyone's forgotten, this really is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Angus McLellan(Talk) 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, navel-gazing, self-referential, not notable, violation of WP:BLP, troll magnet. Corvus cornix 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep. There seems to be enough coverage and information for an article, but with a title that can include information not strictly about Ryan Jordan. This probably shouldn't be a biography article, per se. --Maxamegalon2000 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Putting aside my own anger at its subject, the article runs afoul of Wikipedia's need to avoid self-references. In contrast to our article on Angela, for example, this situation involves a heated, on-going, on-wiki scandal. Without the passage of time and the opportunity for reflection, I believe it is impossible for the encyclopedia's editors to cover this subject fairly, thoroughly, and dispassionately. I can think of no other topic to which this judgment would apply, but I do feel deletion here serves the interest of the community, and the truth. Only once the on-wiki conflict has cooled can we hope to decide whether Essjay falls under WP:BIO and related guidelines. Xoloz 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The number of google hits on "Essjay wikipedia" keeps growing. Are you sure it's still on-wiki? Wjhonson 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counting raw google hits is so VFD. As for now, "ryan-jordan wikipedia" gets a whole eight unique and ten total gnews hits (and no books of course), up from seven unique yesterday. Angus McLellan(Talk) 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because of Essjay's resignation, it is no longer notable enough. CaptainpandaInvinoveritas 22:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, Notability is permanent. --Oakshade 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor scandal that will be forgotten in a year. --Carnildo 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is not a minor scandal - it goes to the heart of honesty within the wikipidia community. Essjay is notable regardless of whether he resigned or not as he is the cause of this scandal. Deleting this page would look like censorship and at this time wikipedia needs to show that it is open about this whole situation. Munta 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm tired of hearing the "censorship" argument. What about Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article, does that not say enough? Why do we need an article that repeats it and doesn't talk about the individual? — Moe 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice. Had been interviewed before wikipedia "scandal" - and he's notable afterwards. Certainly has notability, passes WP:BIO by multiple mentions. Part Deux 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, it passes WP:BLP — an official policy as opposed to just a guideline — by an even further margin. Agree completely. — Deckiller 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Give him some dignity. This is appalling. — Dan | talk 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) What are you suggesting, exactly? Deleting it because Essjay's dignity is called into question? GofG||| Contribs 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, already transwikied. Khoikhoi 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an interview with a correction note later on does not seem to be enough. Wikipedia is not the center of the universe, and this is only a big deal to us. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike the article on Daniel Brandt, this is about a private individual who is only being lambasted by the community by keeping an article on him. He only released his name recently, and he's not going to be mentioned in any "serious" news journals in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The extent of the response suggests to me that the matter is notable, at least at present. Perhaps in a year's time, it will be ancient history and can be merged into something else. WP (or aspects of it) are coming to be regarded comparatively reliable sources. Some one perhaps purposely feeding in wrong information or being removed for spurious credibility is certainly important. Peterkingiron 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally, you just gave a great rationale for merging the article or renaming it, but not keeping it. "The matter is notable." I agree. However, Essjay is not. He hasn't done anything notable outside of this one incident, and it's impossible to verify any personal information about him, as "Ryan Jordan" (if that is in fact his name and someone can prove it) hasn't been written about. AniMate 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to Wikipedia editorial fraud incident of 2007, as previously suggested by more than one person, as the entirity of the article is about a single incident, rather than a biography. The incident itself, having been written about in several mainstream news media outlets (sufficient links have been given that I don't have to go hunting, I believe), is notable. GofG||| Contribs 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I have fixed the article a bit, should be more useful now. Also this is definitely a well known story Mineralè 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in ten years time is this going to be at all notable (in history) as it appears to be today? I strongly think not. Whatever content that has merit should be merged into articles covering criticism about Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Struck my commentary per the fact that the Essjay controversy has garnered a large amount of media notoriety. (→Netscott) 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in ten year's time people will be writing books about the history of Wikipedia, and this appears to be a notable incident cojoco 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Kelly Martin, or redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. The 'fraud' scandal is what's notable here, not Essjay. Outside of giving press interviews, Essjay is by choice a private figure, and non-notable. Sources put forth in favour of his notability seem to me to be substantially about the scandal and not about the person. I am tantalised by Random832's suggestion that the New Yorker is not a reliable source (because they don't check their interviewees' CV's) but that way lies madness - I'm more seriously of the opinion that the editorial note, and all sources following it, are about Wikipedia and not about Essjay. The 'bite' of the press coverage is that "Wikipedia is unreliable, see what they let their trusted leaders do", not "This man lied to a journalist and to his friends to get an upper hand in content disputes on an online encyclopaedia". The only person who was genuinely interested in who Essjay really is and what he did before the scandal blew up is Daniel Brandt. Therefore, delete as nn self-referential article about a private figure. — mholland 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New York Times has just published an article about the incident[22].--RWR8189 06:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This only shows that it's verifiable, there are still notability concerns. It's easy for us to feel like this was a big deal, but I'm not sure it is. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already had many sources for verifiability (see above). This establishes that we now have massive notability. It is unfortunately hard to see an article in the tech section of the NYT as being anything other than a strong indication of notability. JoshuaZ 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An apt summary indeed, we're now a New York Times certified "fury of the crowd", aka lynch mob. --tjstrftalk 07:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lynch mob? I think not. That "lynch mob" just saved our ass from getting roasted in the NYT by showing that the community here takes this breach seriously. —Doug Belltalk 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think that we need to wait until the dust has settled before making a finallong- or medium-term decision. The New York Times article not only shows notability, it shows that the information we need to judge notability is not yet complete, and won't be for a little time yet. Incidentally, it also seems to show an argument for moving this page to Essjay incident, since it is clearly about the event and not the individual whose actions provoked it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting the article now would smell like a whitewash of the incident. The article is also a valuable record of how we as a community dealt with the scandal and is still needed to for us to move forward. BrianH123 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move into the Wikipedia namespace. We're not as notable as we think ourselves. Take a look outside, there's a world beyond Wikipedia! O yea, and on top of that, it is unnecessarily harmful to the user(s) in question and this nine days' wonder will probably lose its notability very soon. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD reopen
I'm not sure why we are waiting for the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/Essjay to end before re-opening this. There's about a snow ball's chance in hell that we won't reopen the AfD, so lets just get on with it. We know what the community feels, and they feel this discussion should be given more time. I hope this is ok with everyone, I'm just going to remove the closing tags, make this note, and also note the original closing notes here. -- Ned Scott 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and just so everyone is aware, we have three new sources. [23][24][25]. JoshuaZ 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that the deletion review was closed early after so many comments that early closure of discussions aren't helpful. [26] I saw the new coverage but I retain my delete vote. I would reconsider after the fury subsides. Hindsight will be 20/20 then, no deadline. --maclean 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. A subject of so many news articles is clearly notable by all the usual guidelines. At the moment the available information is limited to this single incident, but that could foreseeably change and, to me, is not reason enough to delete. -- bcasterline • talk 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting mighty sick of seeing so many people just abandon discussion left and right. Everyone responsible should resign immediately, enough nonsense. Also, keep, sufficiently notable now, even if it wasn't when created/nominated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace - Whatever we do, whatever the article contains, however many sources we get, this is an article about Wikipedia in Wikipedia, and people will see it as what Wikipedia says about Essjay, without making the distinction between Wikipedia the encyclopedia and Wikipedia the project. And why would they? The encyclopedia is written by the project, and the article will always be the project's side of the story, driven by the same forces as the current kerfuffle about the deletion of Essjay's RFC. It would be better if we aknowledged that and kept this meta-information in meta-space. When a newspaper or a magazine has something to report about itself, it doesn't do it in the regular news section either. the publisher of a book wants the book to contain text about the book or about the publisher, they put it in an appendix. Failing that, delete. Zocky | picture popups 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not true about newspapers reporting about itself. The New York Times fraud controversy with whatshisname and the Jack Kelley controversy at USA Today were headline stories in the papers. Just sayin' is all. Regards, --Jayzel 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean Jason Blair. Correct. In fact, this is true for almost any news source. Similarly, the NYT reported on their reporter who was imprisoned in China and reported when their reporter was imprisoned in the US for contempt of court. JoshuaZ 03:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a bad example. How's the new one? Zocky | picture popups 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the new one is true (I don't have any obvious counterexamples off the top of my head), but I'm not sure how it is relevant since info in an appendix is still in a book. JoshuaZ 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's not in the main body, because it's meta-content. This situation is the same, IMO. Zocky | picture popups 05:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not following, so you mean stick it in Wiki space or what? JoshuaZ 05:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I !voted above :) There are good reasons that we initially decided to avoid self-references, and I think that in this case they outweigh notability by far. Zocky | picture popups
Ok, avoiding self-reference made more sense initially when we wanted to prevent navel gazing and make sure the project talked about important stuff. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is now notable enough that we have not one, but multiple articles about it (such as Wikipedia and Criticisms of Wikipedia). The real problem with self-reference is when it uses Wikipedia as a primary source or engages in original research. Neither of these are issues here. and we should thus treat this as we would any other Wikipedia related article. JoshuaZ 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With multiple non-trivial sources in The New Yorker, New York Times, The Independent, and The New Zealand Herald with the possibility of more to follow, I honestly don't see how it can be argued in good faith that Essjay is not attributable to reliable sources. WP:BIO is clearly satisfied, and it seems that this specific case is being held to a much higher standard than I have ever seen in any other AfD debate. Deleting this would make a mockery of the entire project.--RWR8189 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, this story has gone international as well. —MichaelLinnear 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, it's part of history now. Regards, --Jayzel 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has plenty of sources. Don't see any reason to delete it. --Dookama 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now surely seems notable to me, with reliable sources provided. Hello32020 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. I restate my prior opinion, but with changed rationale. As I always anticipated, there are sources, because this scandal has always been notable. Given a little more time, it is now also noted in the sources we are comfortable using. However, we as a community are still highly divided by this, as is quite natural after one we thought of as one of our own has done this much damage. So as a community, we are better off keeping the material in a larger article where it will have more context and be easier to manage undue weight. Yes, our normal guidelines would say that we should have an independent article now. But I think we need to give it time, and let both the sources and ourselves get beyond recentism, before we have a standalone article. The best way to do this is to merge. GRBerry 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources. He was closing in on notable standards IMO before this incident. Wikipedia has never been about trying to hide things just because they didn't end nicely, and this is no different. I am saddened to see a great contributor lost in an avoidable situation. Wikipedia has never been about getting people with college degrees, etc. RoyalbroilT : C 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, delete and recreate redirects. Coverage isn't about Essjay, it's about this incident. I think merging into Criticism of Wikipedia per GRBerry would allow better context. The current article name is at least better than the original, though I still don't think an encyclopedia needs an article on Essjay, the Wikipedia account. I struck my opinion in Section 4. Can we at least make clear when this should close and avoid innovative closing? skip (t / c) 04:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stay with my previous opinion, i.e. to delete - makes sense to cover this incident in a more general article on Wikipedia or criticisms of it, or wherever, but the individual is not notable enough to have an article. His notoriety depends entirely on one topical incident, and there is no way a more comprehensive article could meaningfully be written about him as opposed to the incident. Metamagician3000 04:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I'm not sure if we voted in the previous AFD, if we are supposed to vote again, since there are so many new reputable citations/sources of info. In addition to the above three, there is now also this: Farewell, Wikipedia? : Bogus boy's departure puts trivia at risk Yours, Smee 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This is considered the same AfD. Please line out your previous vote if you are voting again. Cool HandLuke 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though in light of all of the new reputable sources of news coverage, it probably should have been re-opened as a new AFD... Smee 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep - notable. Sfacets 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Still merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. If this situation has enough long-term fallout that we have enough information so that it is no longer tenable to keep it in the Criticism article, then it can be resplit editorially. At that point we will hopefully have figured out a better name for it than "Essjay" as well. --tjstrftalk 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As stated above, the Essjay article is about the incident, not the person. There is precious little by way of biographical info in the article. The whole thing, including Essjay's misrepresentation, should be covered within a Fraud to Wikipedia article or whatever. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please note (from the ongoing discussing on dealing with this by renaming the page and short enough to insert here--
Some links to info that has been"disappeared"
Some of us expected this and archived some things with webcitation.org:
There is no relevance of the above posting to this discussion, as Essjay the editor is no longer on community mob-trial. --tjstrftalk 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay was not under "mob-trial" however none of thse constitute reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. They are therefore irrelevant. JoshuaZ 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with possible redirect after merge. This must be kept visible and easily searched for if we want to prevent this from happening again. Keeping this event where it became famous does that. Every new admin should know this story: Wikipedia's reputation can not afford more incidents like this, especially not if they result from our squeamishness or a desire for things to be tidy. --Richard Daly 05:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping an article in mainspace as a warning to other users seems unnecessary. This is an encyclopedia, not a a medieval kingdom. Next are you going to want to keep his head a on a pike as a warning to others? JoshuaZ 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia gets a bad rap for being unreliable because anyone can edit it. I think that's BS, the vast majority of editors are honest, hardworking and knowledgeable. However, the only way we can combat this false impression of unreliability is to be absolutely forthright about it when we screw up. Give the magnitude of this controversy, and its roots in the dishonesty of a Wikipedian, we need to have an article that directly addresses the issue. Blackeagle 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I strongly believe that this incident is not deserving of its own article in the encyclopedia. It's been covered by reputable news sources, but I think that Wikipedians are overestimating its independent importance. I am more than satisfied that Criticism of Wikipedia already covers the issue in sufficient depth. I suggest that if more needs to be said about it, this article could be moved to the Wikipedia namespace because it relates to some fundamental problems within the Wikipedia community. The story could function as a starting point for a centralized discussion about what lessons to learn, without placing our internal idiosyncracies in the article namespace of the encyclopedia. YechielMan 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RWR8189. As it currently standards he has numerous non-trival sources in reliable sources. MathmoTalk 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia controversies, or failing that keep. Is not much of a biography, but it is clearly a notable controversy. Cool HandLuke 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep The article is notable as Essjay, easily passing WP:N. would we even be trying to push this to be not named after him if he wasn't a wikipedian (ex)? Like I mentioned on talk, we shouldn't give ourselves preferential treatment. "Essjay" is what they are reporting on and people will talk about later, so "Essjay" is what the article needs to be. don't see policy-based reason to delete/censor out the info. - Denny 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The person himself? Not notable. The incident? Extremely notable. The article should have focus on the incident, but also provide some minor background. George Leung 07:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: So make Essjay a redirect to the proper named article... maybe the Essjay incident? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for now Happening within the past weeklends an air of faux-notability that six months from now will be long evaporated. In the grand scheme of things, even wikipedia, this is likely not really notable. Delete for now, merge any notable content into "Controversies…" and if in three to six months Wiki is still reeling, then we can see about recreation. Avi 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with renamed title I just did, Essjay scandal. Some editors do not want this rename, however, because it takes away their fuel to argue for deletion. I suggest other editors revert any attempts to change the name back to "Essjay".C.m.jones 07:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is renamed to Essjay scandal. That is notable, it has been in many reputable newspapers and news sites. Ardent†alk∈ 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've worked on not too few religion related articles on the wikipedia, and too be honest I recall at least once when I thought this guy knew what the heck he was talking about, based on his user page. Shame on him. Rename it how ever suits the community, but may his name live in infamy for all time. -- Kendrick7talk 08:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware you just used the desire for personal retribution ("He fooled me once... may his name live in infamy for all time.") as a rationale for keeping an article, correct? Or is there some hidden policy justification in there that I don't see? --tjstrftalk 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know, I mean, the article meets all the criteria we actually have on wikipedia, as dozen of users have already pointed out. I thought this whole AFD was just blowing smoke at this point. -- Kendrick7talk 10:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia; if the incident proves long-time notable like the Seigenthaler affair, we can always decide later to have a separate article. Kusma(討論) 10:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on merging - the argument to merge is plainly as weak as they come. Firstly, go to Criticisms of Wikipedia and click the edit button. On top one will see "This page is 68 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." Yet here we have people wishing to merge still more material into an already overlong article. Odd. Secondly, Essjay scandalis not even on the subject of "Criticisms of Wikipedia". It is about a scandal of Wikipedia. Also, "I just don't see the long-term notability of this incident" is crystal-ball gazing. It is the same thing people said about John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. We might as well try to contort a twisted, bowdlerizing rationale to say the Wikipedia scandal regarding Seigenthaler belongs in the Criticisms article. Apples, oranges. C.m.jones 10:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A lot of people who suggest merging do so because they say that the article as is does not include much biographical data. Why can't the Essjay article simply be expanded to include biographical information, with sufficient focus on this scandal? I admit that the existing sources may be suspect (I'm thinking Essjay's Wikia user page, not the tenured professor of religion data from the WP user page which is obviously not reliable), but isn't there some amount of data that can be confirmed that would contribute to a sufficiently biographical article (ie he lives in Kentucky, studied religion as an undergraduate, contributed heavily to wikipedia, held various administrative positions, was hired by Wikia and was involved in this controversy) to keep the page at Essjay? Cuffeparade 10:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive my ignorance of the renaming. You'll also have to forgive my ignorance of some of these procedural matters, as this is the first time I've weighed in on an AfD debate. As I understand it, however, the matter is not finally closed, correct? It seems quite probable to me that in the future considerably more verifiable biographical information of Essjay/Ryan Jordan will become available, at which time I imagine a biographical article would be opened. As I see it, despite a number of editors comments to the contrary, Essjay Scandal is already essentially about Essjay as well as the reactions to what he has done. In the event that more verifiable information on his identity emerges, are we likely to rename the article once again? I don't see how such an infamously notable figure to WP can be denied a bio, given that verifiable sources come to light. At any rate, this appears to be a wait-and-see situation. Cuffeparade 11:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have no verifiable biographical information about Essjay. There seems to be no source claiming he lives in Kentucky that is independent of his Wikia profile. Kusma(討論) 10:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times article claims as fact that he lives outside Louisville. "But in fact, Essjay is a 24-year-old named Ryan Jordan, who attended a number of colleges in Kentucky and lives outside Louisville." It certainly is possible that they gleaned that information from the Wikia user profile, but it is not attributed as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuffeparade (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The Louisville Courier-Journal has reported on the story, confirming some academic information from Essjay's CV while failing to confirm other parts. Cuffeparade 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - given the adittional media attention, there is even more reason to keep this article. Munta 12:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Given the multiple sources of well-known news outlets, the notability of this incident can't be denied. Likewise, one can't judge the notability of the subject based on news articles six months down the line, as most of them WILL be posted now, when the story is breaking. Regardless, this incident has been the subject of multiple third party sources, all of which are reliable enough to warrant inclusion. Cheers, Lankybugger 12:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The subject is widely reported in the world press. It follows the New Yorker article and retraction of credentials. It is most easily found here and is noteworthy for reference and reflection. However, I'm not so sure it is a "scandal". Kyle Andrew Brown 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable and seems to be important. In fact, found the article through BBC!
Keep and move to a special section on Wikipedia about the "History of Wikipedia". Kff 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. The entire incident is only notable because it shows Wikipedia in a bad light; therefore it should be noted on the excellent article we already have concerning such matters, rather than a separate article. Whatever happens, the article should have 'Wikipedia' in its title, because that is how most people will associate it to its subject. Nobody really cares about Essjay. They care what this means for Wikipedia. JulesH 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, people's personal opinions are influencing their decisions. No, it shouldn't be moved or merged, as the increasing number of sources would indicate that it's important enough to stand on its own. This is newsworthy and if the New Yorker and BBC find it notable, then it IS notable, not to mention verifiable. TheQuandry 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not every person or even that many of those who get covered by the BBC get an article here. Being covered by the BBC is not a sign of notability, SqueakBox 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't just the BBC, and actually having an article by the BBC would go to half of the primary notability criterion. In any event, it isn't just the BBC, but the NYT as well as many other sources. JoshuaZ 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Merging it into the Criticism of Wikipedia article is not realistic, that one is too big already. Write a paragraph there and refer to this one for more details. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per my comments in the previous AfD (or do we need not vote twice?). — Deckiller 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable, verified, numerous international media mentions (I read about it first in an Irish newspaper today) and if I may say, a salutory lesson to us all. Bastun 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article as well as the situation has become increasingly notable with secondary sources from newspapers and online websites outside of Wikipedia. It passes WP:N and I see no reason to hide this scandal from the public eye whether hidden in another article or deleted completely. Darthgriz98 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :Popularity of news story by Area on BBC News
Keep (changing from an earlier opinion of "Wait.") It's a major international story. New Yorker, New York Times,BBC. Definitely notable. I also agree with the name change to "Essjay scandal." Keep the article, let the story develop. After things have died down, perhaps in a month's time, we can take another look to determine if the information should be merged, but for now, it's definitely worth its own article. --Elonka 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has been covered extensively by some of the world's largest media organisations. If the New York Times and BBC aren't important enough coverage, then wtf is? This is not suitable for a merge with 'Criticism of Wikipedia' because it is not a criticism of Wikipedia. Sorry to be facetious, but this article is about a very specific incident where the issue was not criticism of the concept or reliability of Wikipedia itself, but the conduct of a prominent Wikipedia community member and Wikia employee. Should we merge the Jimmy_Wales#Bomis section into Criticism of Wikipedia simply because Jimmy happens to be a prominent Wikipedia community member and Wikia employee? Cynical 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep , NYT article along with everything else seems sufficient to establish notability, article cites plenty of sources. It's unfortunate, but it's a bit like the Siegenthaler thing when you really think about it. --Random832 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's currently the 2nd most read story on the BBC News site, plus all the other media coverage. Notability is certainly demonstrated by established criteria, and it wouldn't look good to delete it either. The name change is also good, the notability concerns the scandal rather than the person. Don't merge, as per Cynical's argument that this is not a criticism of anything in of itself. -- Mithent 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google news lists at least 2934 47 Essjay news stories, quadruple from yesterday. Gwen Gale 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had voted 'delete' before because I thought it wasn't notable. That belief has now shown itself to be inaccurate, to grossly understate it. Indiawilliams 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a non-biographical article, but an article about the event. —M (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the level of media coverage there needs to be an article about Essjay, although it needs to be cleaned up considerably from its current form.--Ianmacm 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, current form is much better than the one focussed solely on the editor. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well sourced, and doesn't seem to break any policies I can think of. --Toffile 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lets not have another censorship farce like the Brian Peppers article... 4kinnel 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brian Peppers did not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. JoshuaZ 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it fell foul of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 4kinnel 21:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, would you care to explain how it would meet WP:BIO? JoshuaZ 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be futile as this article will never be re-created, even if Peppers were to become the next President of the USA. Jimbo has decreed him to be a wikipedia-nonperson and we all must pretned the Peppers meme never existed.4kinnel 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's on the front page of the BBC News site for goodness sake! --kingboyk 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely noteable, and well sourced. However, I feel the article should concern the incident, rather than the individual, or there should at least be an article focusing on the incident if the current article focuses on the individual. Malbolge 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The controversy was covered in every major newspaper. I think that should make the controversy notable enough --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is notable Arcticdawg 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (ec) I've held off a long time in !voting on this one, but when this story was brought up at our lunchtime conversation by a large group of civilians who had (mostly) never even been to the Wikipedia site, any concern I had about notability was vanquished. With the rename, it is clear the article is about the situation and not as much about the person. I'd like to see the photo gone, though - right now, I think Essjay would have a legitimate claim to concern about harassment. Comment: It's clear that many of our talented and more senior editors and admins have been taken aback by the community's response to this situation. I'd like to encourage editors to reach out to them and support them wherever possible. Many of them are true friends of Essjay and must feel a personal loss here. I say this with the greatest respect to those of you who have devoted so much of yourselves to Wikipedia - thank you. Risker 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, if anyone has been paying attention, we have yet more sources- see for example AP Wire and IHT. JoshuaZ 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carry on as you were
Keep For the love of God there are 15 stories in Google-news right now, and they just had a feature 3 minute segment on Sky News about Essjay. Cat is out of the bag. David Spart 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be absurdly moronic to delete this article given the MASSIVE level of media coverage now. Practically every newspaper and TV news has covered it now. Nssdfdsfds 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I’m still not very happy about the article, but in its current state, without mixing Essjay’s biography into the matter, it is keepable. —xyzzyn 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I only found out about this via BBC News Online this afternoon. It's very sad, but unfortunately Essjay is now notable in his own right. Vashti 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the cat right now? David Spart 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer It is out of the bag. David Spart 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's now the fourth most read and second most emailed news article on all of BBC.com. (no point in linking, it will change, so take my word for it) so that probably makes it notable. The Rambling Man 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles which relate to the crediility (or otherwise) of Wikipedia should be kept and documented. Wikipedia should not be seen in a light which permits people to think that articles critical of wikipedia get censored. I think this point is more important than any of the notability arguments currently occurring. -- SGBailey 22:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Wikipedia will lose all credibility if it tries to cover this up. Sean K 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggests that. But a separate article? No thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate article from what? Criticism of Wikipedia is already too long. Are we going to have one article for that topic for all time? -- Kendrick7talk 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SPEEDY keep. The fact that deleting this will just make Wikipedia even less creditable for censoring. In all honesty, we should take out the AFD PRONTO. George Leung 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ABC also now has an article- [27]. JoshuaZ 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental principle of Wikipedia's integrity
Strong Keep - As part of Wikipedia's credibility, it is essential for challenges to that credibility to remain on record. Lingolanguage 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BBC and NYT provide adequate sourcing, in my opinion. There is an argument about moving this article to "Essjay incident" or similar, but I believe that with a person related to one notable event, if the event is notable enough and related to the person enough, an article on the person might be the thing to have. See Brandon Vedas vs. Brandon Vedas incident. GracenotesT § 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, article has been renamed? Hrm. Silly AFD title. Well, that completely takes out that argument, and it seems as though the verifiability remains. GracenotesT § 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those saying not-notable/no seperate article He's now at 30-40+ sources, including international broadcast television coverage... how can anyone argue vs. a seperate article now, based on policy, for any reason beyond protecting Essjay as ex-member of the site? I am just curious as to why you think he is not notable enough now, for an article, based on all this. thanks. I do sympathize, but I want to understand what you are basing this on, if you can explain it to us. The comments like "Seperate article, no"; "Human dignitiy", etc., don't make sense. We don't spare other notable people articles on their misdeeds... why Essjay? Please let us know... if this is based on protecting him for who he is, please say so--if policy needs to be changed to that, then this is a good time to set that precendent, no? No negative articles on notable Wikipedians or ex-Wikipedians. Please explain. Thank you. - Denny 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If he were a Britannica editor receiving worldwide publicity, he'd have an article and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. No one would be insisting the article get merged/buried to Criticism of Britannica. -- Kendrick7talk 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC) gee, we don't even have that?[reply]
sorry to correct you... it would have to go through the editorial conference, which would be a debate for unclusion not a debate for deletion AlfPhotoman 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should be kept for the moment as it clearly serves a purpose. Again, as this incident has gone international, it is fair to assume that others may be inclineded to type in "Essjay" in the search box, as I did. Not that I was expecting an article about it, but what a nice surprise...I think...--Mad Max 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ABC Nightly News
The Essjay scandal was covered on television, at about 6:55 EST, on ABC Nightly News - as predicted by many. C.m.jones 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, now that some of us could say the famous sentence: without malicious glee told you so isn't it time we stop fighting about the notability of this thing and start thinking about the lessons to learn of this to start a debate on what has to be corrected so at least the most damaging side effects cannot happen again in the future? AlfPhotoman 00:22, 7 March 2007 (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.