Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer

Article about User:SimonP, though not created by him. Is being the top Wikipedia editor generally notable? I don't think so, but let's see what others think. NawlinWiki 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I expected to vote delete, before I did a Google search and saw how much has been written about him. The Globe and Mail article has been copied all over the place, there's an interview in U of T Magazine, and several quotes in other stories about Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like the Wikipedian with the most edits would be notable based just on that... but the press seems to disagree. --Allen 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let SimonP decide. violet/riga (t) 19:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd say he shouldn't decide, unless he is really, really, really unhappy about the article. I mean, modesty alone might provoke one to vote Delete on an article on oneself, and this is not a good reason to have an article deleted. --Xyzzyplugh 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete With all due reverence and awe at SimonP's superb work, there will always be an editor with highest edit count. While the news articles do establish some notability, it is a borderline case so I say delete per WP:SELF. Will the article be referenced in the future? Best to limit the crossovers between editors and subjects as far as is possible. --TeaDrinker 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, he is now famous in Canada, at least among Globe and Mail readers. A friend e-mailed me a copy of the the Globe and Mail article, so the aftershocks from the article are reinforcing the fame. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you are going to delete this, then there's lot to delete before deleting this entry. What is more relevant, the most ative user of the biggest "encyclopedia" or the detailed history of an obscure fictional cartoon character? Just my 2 cents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.165.182 (talk • contribs)
Keep. WP:SELF does not apply here; it would if the article had a link to User:SimonP (it doesn't). Wikipedia is now big enough that it is beginning to hear echoes of itself from the greater world; that's simply a fact we must live with. While we should strive to uphold WP:SELF, we should not impose an institutional bias against articles referencing Wikipedia; we should have Simon Pulsifer for the same reasons as we have the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. SimonP's prominece comes not from being Wikipedia's top editor but from having a half-page profile by one of Canada's major daily newspapers. —Saforrest 21:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Seigenthaler is notable in his own right even if Wikipedia didn't exist - its not the same Bwithh 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seigenthaler is notable in his own right, but I was referring to the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, which directly concerns Wikipedia. —Saforrest 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. That's why I made my point Bwithh 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of info here, by a respectable paper - it would seem SimonP is now notable... Dev920 22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Move Out of Wikipedia Article Space It's great that he's such a prolific editor but this does not make him encyclopedically notable. Remember its not just notability, its encyclopedic notability. Being covered in a couple of newspapers or even more source is not proof either - as I keep saying, much or even most of the material carried in mainstream news sources every day is non-encyclopedic, and we shouldn't just make articles based on whatever's covered in the news. There is a place for this kind of page but not in the main article space. I recommend a Hall of Fame page for editors who are extraordinarily prolific. User:Lord_Emsworth (who has also been mentioned in major media sources such as Wired and The New Yorker but not by his real name or in as much detail), for instance, would be on such a list as well. Note that keeping the Simon Pulsifier article as an encyclopedia article also discriminates against extraordinary editors like Lord Emsworth who prefer to be less revealing about their true identity and avoid Media labels such as "King of Wikipedia" (not enough detail known on Emsworth for an article - but certainly enough for a Hall of Fame list). Bwithh 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly "discriminatory", as our job is to record notability in the world at large (and yes, Wikipedia is part of the world, which is exactly the point), not to reward profilic contributors. If another profilic contributor chooses to avoid media interviews, then he should be left out because he isn't notable, just as some guy with a billion dollars who nobody's ever heard of would be left out of Category:Billionaires. —Saforrest 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's task is to record encyclopedic notability in the world at large, not whatever's in the newspapers. I strongly feel the Hall of Fame idea is fairer and much more decorous and more appropriate. Bwithh 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bully for him, but this article is about as self-referntial as you can possibly get. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it self-referential in a way that the Jimmy Wales article is not? —Saforrest 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's made the foray out of WP:SELF -- Samirधर्म 05:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I think making over 80,000 articles can be notable enough. He might get in the book of world records or somthing.--Scott3 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has now become quite famous and the notablity issue is beyond doubt. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Non Notability" is a weak position - obviously, he is notable. Look at the press articles. -- Stbalbach 13:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not everyone who has an article written about them deserves a WP entry. If he was the most prolific poster on any other site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. --Dtcdthingy 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but he's the most prolific poster on WP - not anywhere else, so we are having this discussion --Allkindsoftime 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, press mentions make him worthy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --light darkness^(talk) 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His name is being mentioned in the press related to this site. I think that earns him the right to have an article on him. We congradualte and honor those who make landmark pages (like the 1-millionth article), this is pretty close to the same thing. Jimmy Wales has a 5 page article about himself complete with his political views and college experiance, I don't see anyone petitoning that page. Although granted, voting has no meaning on here... so I dunno why we bother. Ghostalker
Keep Any establishment or initiative such as Wikipedia itself needs role models to survive and thrive. If this initiative of a 'free encyclopedia' has to survive then it needs its own heroes and role models. SimonP is truly one of them. We must keep this article as it is of a pioneer and a role model for all of us.Devpriya piyadassi
Keep– He has become a celebrity over night based on the Globe and Mail article. There are many articles about overnight celebrities, such as about William Hung on this site, who become an overnight "sensation" for more debateable reasons in popular culture or what is fact and what is not then this. The way I see it, Simon is now popular culture. Everyone who read page 2 of the Globe and Mail knows about this guy, and its true, he does live with his mom and has no girlfriend. the Globe and Mail said so at the end of paragraph 11.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirovnik (talk • contribs)
Keep His relationship with wikipedia is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that he is a public figure due to press coverage and therefore merits an article. It is rather POV to think that wikipedia should except itself from phenomena in the world. The fact is that wikipedia has now become established as a notable subject and will have to learn to cover itself as objectively as any other subject. Tyrenius 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the wide press coverage this person has received, and notability stemming from a very notable site both in pop-culture and academic circles. Yamaguchi先生 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per all the above. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I'm uncertain if the press coverage is sufficient, but the arguements above are fairly convincing Computerjoe 's talk 20:17, 9 August 2006 (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.