Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman

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

The only content of this article is centred around James' Wikipedia involvement. Other than that, he is just another ER doctor. If it wasn't for his Wikipedia editing, there would be almost no content. If Wikipedia editing is reason for an article, why doesn't User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao have an article? For this reason, this article doesn't meet WP:BIO, and as previously mentioned, there is an issue of WP:BLP1E. There is a serious problem when over half an article is dedicated to his Wikipedia editing. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

User:Nikolaiho, I think you misunderstand something pretty basic here: whatever someone's notability is based on (Wikipedia, gay porn, YouTubing, writing books on medieval studies) is irrelevant--what matters is what secondary sources have to say on it. I don't think old Ser Amantio has generated much coverage... Drmies (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ser Amantio may have even more coverage than Mr. Heilman. Try a Google query.NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: - you're right, I haven't. Three or four things, I think, nothing more. (Just ran a Google search on myself - ashamed as I am to admit that publicly - and I find that many of the "Steven Pruitt"s on the first page are not me.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, you are on Time magazines most influential people on the Internet, absolutely a living legend. Don't undercredit yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaiho (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am still searching for the gay porn, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I am sorry: I didn't know you were such a player! Wow! Drmies (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: and @Drmies: A hint: try the keywords "goat", "paintbrush", "Sebastopol", "Georges Braque roleplay", and "1923 Cadillac". That should get you somewhere interesting. Where, I don't know. Probably on an FBI watchlist somewhere. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I should note that there is now an article about Ser Amantio di Nicolao (real name Steven Pruitt) which I created yesterday. Everymorning (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flattered, I'm sure, but I'm not sure I'm well-enough sourced to withstand scrutiny. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hook me up with citizenship and I won't PROD you. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the face of it, there seem to be numerous sources in the article that suggest the article subject is notable, though I'm not yet going to advocate keeping it. The discussion about Ser Amantio di Nicolao is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still problematic. GS h-index of 13 is far from enough from WP:Prof. May have to reply on WP:GNG. (I have been canvassed to this AfD. it seems that only previous deletes were canvassed) Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Enough independent sources of good quality. WP:Prof is not relevant, it is his WP/WMF activities that make him notable. Disclosure: I have met James & worked with him online. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A deletion nomination should not be based on other stuff (WP:OSE), and should not misinterpret the prohibition against naval gazing about Wikipedia based on by-the-way mentions of editors in news-of-the-day reports. Exceptions occur, and the article has abundant evidence of that. I'll produce a substantive keep reason when someone provides a substantive delete rationale. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious keep. Since the previous deletion nomination, he's only gotten more coverage. It doesn't matter if the coverage is about editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CANVASSING - It appears that Nikolaiho is canvassing editors to this discussion. I received a comment on my talk page pointing out the existence of this AfD [1]. Although the notice was neutrally worded, it appears from their contribution page [2] that the only editors they notified were myself, Xxanthippe [3], FreeKnowledgeCreator, [4] and Montanabw, [5] all of whom voted "delete" in the first AfD of this article. If Nikolaiho was simply interested in getting more people involved, they would have notified all editors who participated in the previous two AFDs, as required. I suggest that Nikolaiho receive a block for an obvious violation of WP:CANVASS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond My Ken, you are correct. I have left the editor a templated warning. Canvassing is really like a blow below the belt. Nikolaiho, I am disappointed. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond My Ken,and sometimes canvassing backfires. See my !vote and comments. Montanabw^(talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of viable sources. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has received major international media coverage for multiple aspects of his work on Wikipedia: Rorschach tests NYT 2009, Globe&Mail 2009; the reliability of its medical information CBC 2014, NPR 2016; the fight against paid editors Atlantic 2015, Vice 2017; his work on and departure from the Wikimedia board Register 2016. Very clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Whether he's also notable as a physician or academic is by now completely irrelevant. And the nomination statement is completely flawed: if someone is notable for their work on Wikipedia, it is unproblematic and indeed what we would want and expect for their article to focus on their work on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definetely keep; just because someone else who may be notable doesn't have a Wikipedia article (yet) is besides the point! This person is for sure notable, and a Wikipedia article about him is valuable encyclopedic knowledge. Let's not waste further time on this. EMsmile (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yeah, I was dubious last time around, and yep, I did get a talk page notice. But I've changed my mind on things since the last round. Individual has had substantial outside neutral third-party coverage that clearly meets GNG. If he's notable primarily for being a wikipedian, then yay, wikipedia is notable enough that it's most prominent content contributors are deemed notable. Montanabw^(talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received extensive coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia just happens to be the subject of the discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - are we ready for snow close yet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I'm persuaded to support keep at this stage. Changing my position from the first AfD, which I had completely forgotten about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2017 (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.