Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Nelson

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 Mandsford 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Nelson

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}}.

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

There's been quite an edit war over this biography lately, driving the subject, User:RussNelson, to start removing content out of frustration at the interpretation of Wikipedia's editing rules by User:Toddst1 and others. He also applied a prod tag, which is inappropriate as the deletion is not uncontroversial. Whether other editors view this as the subject seriously wanting this bio deleted or not - which can influence the decision of the closing admin - I leave to them. It's clear that we need to assess the notability of this biography, and that won't be accomplished at AN/I, where this is now featured, and it won't be accomplished via edit warring. I am bringing this here because I believe we need to properly assess whether this biography meets inclusion guidelines, not because I have an opinion that it must be deleted. Fences&Windows 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially the entire claim that Russ Nelson is notable rests on his having been president of OSI for ~~about five minutes~~ about a month, and that can be adequately covered in one sentence in the Open Source Initiative article. There's no need for an article on this individual, and certainly no need for the current dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the wishes of the subject, the head of a major organization like this is notable. He would be notable regardless of his having resigned, or the reason for it. The extent to which the material about is resignation should be emphasized is subject to the usual BLP rules. In this case, it seems somewhat relevant, so it should be included. At present, it occupies too large a proportion of the article, but the solution is to add other material. (As a completely uninvolved party, I have made an edit to the article to diminish that emphasis). DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - founding open source member and at one point head, why are we being rude to people like this, its totally unnecessary and like shooting ourselves in the head. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the deletionists that my article (which is a convenient shorthand for "the article about me" not intending to indicate ownership) should be deleted. I've been written about in other places which I cannot find online. For example, my software, the Clarkson Packet Driver Collection, received an award from PC Magazine in 1991. I have a copy of the magazine, but I can't find anything online. There's an interview of me by Dr. Bernie Aboba in his early online publication, The Internaut. My software was at one point running on every McDonald's cash register (for which I have no published reference, but it contributes to my notability if not notoriety.) The reason I went through and deleted things is because I anticipated that eventually Mrs. Toddst1 would find my citations suspect, and delete them, just as she had already started deleting things. Eventually, once everything which is not perfectly cited has been deleted, there is no article left. Unfortunately, you can probably do this with about 70% of all articles on Wikipedia. I do not think that this improves Wikipedia, and I do not think Wikipedia would be better off without me. (And, Gavia immer -- it was a month, not five minutes, Accuracy counts.) --RussNelson (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "about five minutes" comment was not meant to be read literally, but since you object I have adjusted it. For what it's worth, my opinion about whether we should have an article on you is not an opinion about you personally - I haven't got one of those. Part of my reason for having the opinion that I do is that you shouldn't have to deal with the sort of disputation on your article that has already occurred. I don't like to see us causing that sort of stress when there is (with my apologies for the phrasing) not much for us say in your article if it stays within policy. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reference in a 1991 issue of PC Magazine is a valid one, and should be added to the article. References do not have to be online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, given the importance of the position and the off-line references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Presidency of Open Source Initiative and subsequent resignation under pressure gets the subject over the notability bar from my perspective. A pretty terrible article that needs a great deal of work, as it sits, but it looks to be a case of "improve, don't delete." Carrite (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (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.