Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp

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 delete. With all respect to Mr. Knapp's accomplishments, the arguments that this is a case of WP:BLP1E are convincing, and have not been substantively rebutted. Several people advocate retention on the basis of WP:IAR, but that too is a weak argument in light of that policy's wording, which is: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It is not apparent to me (and the people making this argument would have had to show) how exactly the rule that we don't cover people known only for one event would in this instance prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. A clear rationale for why IAR should apply would have been necessary particularly because the policy whose derogation is being advocated, BLP1E, is part of one of Wikipedia's core policies, WP:BLP. The article has been userfied as requested. Sandstein 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Knapp

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

With all respect to Justin Knapp, who is an excellent Wikipedian, I believe that this is a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Merge~~ or Redirect. It´s one event, and kind of too trivial to be notable. Mentioning the "Special Barnstar medal" and the "Golden Wiki" in the article appears very Wiki-internal and just strenghten the feeling of trivia. With regards Iselilja (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Striking out delete. Merge or redirect to History of Wikipedia, 2012, per my comment in the relisting section. Iselilja (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC) - Changing again, to delete or redirect. Sorry for the back and forth, I am not so familiar with considering other options than delete or keep. Iselilja (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bow in awe to his accomplishment, but yeah, delete per nom. One event isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1E does not apply here, considering the massive amount of coverage Knapp has amassed. I list just a few sources quoting him:

That said, you can't just simply ignore the staggering coverage, can you? Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Still, it's pretty clearly a case of BLP1E--even if 40 papers did publish a story on the event. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This fat dude known only for one event has his own article -- thanks to evidently strong and overwhelming coverage, very much like this case. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERCRAP is strongly deprecated as an argument in deletion discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whereas essays like WP:ATA should be largely ignored and my point is no less valid. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Bonkers. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: While I feel that the delete arguments are significantly stronger, I'm not ... quite ... convinced there's a policy-based consensus given the keep rationales and the lack of any discussion of alternatives to deletion (policy). --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Prior to deletion, please move to User:Koavf/Justin Anthony Knapp. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but who said anything about deletion? Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mind deleting that cut-and-paste move? Obviously Koavf can have the page userfied if it gets deleted, but there's no sense in having an out-of-date copy lying around, especially when it's an attribution violation. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly If it gets deleted (and it appears that it won't for now), then please use the actual move function immediately prior to that in order to save the edit history. Thanks one and all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is absolutely no policy-based argument to keep this page. It is clearly WP:BLP1E, he is a low profile individual only covered by the media because he reached 1,000,000 edits, and let's not compare the significance of reaching 1,000,000 Wikipedia edits to the murder of a Beatle, BUT for the first time in a deletion discussion I am invoking ignore all rules! Come on, we're Wikipedia, he's the first to reach 1,000,000, leave the page. :) J04n(talk page) 11:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side note apparently the handle "koavf" isn't only reserved for Wikipedia. [8] Don't know what purpose it serves though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 (Nonsensical Babble) ☯ 12:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A-ha! More like BLP:2E, now Koavf is a UN speaker?? ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 (Nonsensical Babble) ☯ 12:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only because I may brag for having the idea to create the article in the first place ;-) but also because I think we shouldn't be too strict in applying the rules; I definitely agree with J04n in this case :-) --Itemirus (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Secret ^account 03:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More policy based arguments please, IAR and creating the article aren't policy based. Secret ^account 03:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what IAR is for. To not mention policies. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:IAR is a policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The UN speaking gig didn't attract any coverage in reliable sources, and there's no indication (and it seems unlikely) that his editing milestone will have any lasting impact. Pburka (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UN's website itself counts as an RS. Besides, this is an exceptional BLP1E. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that 1E is only for low-profile individuals – does Koavf count as low-key? Also there's no need for "any lasting impact". What we have now (more than 40 rses) is already enough. WP:NTEMP! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UN website is a primary source, and Koavf is a low-profile individual outside of Wikipedia. If his speech at the UN had been notable it would have been covered in independent sources. Lasting impact is required to distinguish between news and encyclopedic topics. I don't think that an individual reaching the one-million-edit mark is a significant event: it was bound to happen eventually. Is this more notable that the one-billionth iTune download? Pburka (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if necessary, citing WP:IAR. There is an absolute tonne of coverage here, and some of it goes beyond *just* being about his 1 million edits - a lot of interviews with him, the Justin Knapp day started by Jimbo is also sort-of its own event as well. International coverage as well. Ironically, Wikipedia editors seem to be very active at trying to delete their fellow Wikipedians' articles - I've seen a couple of these sorts of AfDs, one of which was blatantly notable outside of the Wiki. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J04n, and because the subject apparently^{[citation needed]} shares a birthday with Kirk Hammett and me! -- Trevj (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): IAR has no bearing here at all. The article is pretty awful and there's little, if any, room for expansion. Probably best deleted, but there's a possibility of merging this into one of the trillion Wikipedia sub-articles (e.g., History of Wikipedia). --MZMcBride (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we're going to IAR, we should create articles on everyone else mentioned here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage seems to be multiple, independent articles and interviews, rather than say one AP/UPI article regurgitated endlessly. I think he has become a sort of second face of Wikipedia to the world now. BLP1E doesnt have to apply, as some 1E's are rather big. this is not that big, but is enough. 2 more reasons: he appears to be locally famous in his home state, and as an IAR, his public image and accomplishment may attract more editors, while us deleting his article for borderline reasons may discourage new editors unfamiliar with the arcana of notability, but disappointed we cannot honor our heroes in this small manner.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for merging. I inserted one sentence about the 1 million milestone in the Wikipedia history, 2012 section, where I think that information is meaningful. If the Justin Knapp article is deleted, we could add a few biographical notes, but I don´t think we should expand the history article more than that. I am not familiar with the merging concept, so I don´t know if such a brief mentions counts as merging? As for Ignore All Rules. That rule specifies that a rule may be ignored if it is necessary for improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Thus, one may ignore the letter of a rule, to adhere to another and more fundamental principle of Wikipedia. But in this case, I don´t think we have seen which fundamental principle ignoring the rules of notability would favor. IAR is not a carte blanche card to ignore all rules simply because it´s cool, nice or may be good PR for Wikipedia. The background here is also that we have people on Wikipedia each day who are frustrated because their favorite, cool person or thing is not considered notable. In this respect, this case may be a test on whether the community is able to hold Wikipedia related articles to the same standard that we normally hold articles on other topics. Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Surely BLP1E *doesn't* apply as he's notable for his Wiki day in addition to the number of edits? They're linked, but still separate. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the references are from between April 19 and April 23, 2012. It's one event. He hasn't received any significant coverage in reliable sources, since then, demonstrating that the event did not have any lasting impact. Finally, I point out that WP:BLP1E suggests that the normal way of dealing with these articles is to merge the biographical information into the article about the event. What would we even title that article? Pburka (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the dates of the references are irrelevant - you can have two different events on the same day, for goodness sake.[9] - July 2012. [10][11] were May 2012. I stand by my point that it's almost certainly 2 events - the Wikipedian Day, and the edit total. The UN speech, although minor, should in itself tip this into being more than a single event. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you're proposing that Justin Knapp Day and Justin Knapp's one-millionth edit are completely unrelated events, and you believe that they're both notable events which make the individual notable? These convoluted arguments for inclusion (BLP2E, BLP3E, IAR) are really just a form of WP:ILIKEIT arguments. This article is news at best, trivia at worst. Pburka (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Kindly explain to me how they have to be completely and utterly unrelated to be separate events? I'll give you an example, a professional athlete appearing in two matches, one of which was a qualifier, the other of which was a heat. Knapp's 1 million edits are blatantly notable, and pass WP:GNG by a million miles. And the Justin Knapp Day is almost as well covered. The events are related, but no more so than a lot of others. And I'd never heard of this guy before the AfD, and think the article itself needs improving. But he's notable, for two events that pass GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does pass WP:GNG, however it also meets the criteria for what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not news. This event has no enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Writing a biography of a person who was only involved in a non-notable event (or even several non-notable events) is a violation of both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If the event or events he was involved in were notable then we should have articles about the events and include Knapp's info there. Pburka (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not show that WP:BEFORE has been followed, or the applicability of WP:BLP1E except that the person is living. The claim that applicability is "clear" without defining the "event" creates confusion. Without evidence to the contrary, we WP:AGF of the editors who did the work of creating the article. Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can persuade me that he has received serious press attention. What I'm seeing is some very limited and ephemeral attention. Most of the attention appears to be from blog-ish sources, and I don't feel that is sufficient to establish notability. Everyking (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are talking about some forty over sources citing Koavf. BBC, Indianapolis Monthly. Not notable? Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Dot, gizmodo, United Nations. Not notable? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The long list of sources at the top of this page is not persuasive to me, because I see only a few that could perhaps establish notability. We routinely delete articles about subjects that have gotten much more attention than that. The first article you mention is the one from the BBC, but that article only mentions the subject as part of a list of Wikipedians—he's clearly not the focus of the article. Everyking (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Or redirect as Iselilja suggests. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Exceeding an arbitrary edit count isn't really a notable event. Most of the sources focus on Wikipedia, rather than a biographical account of Knapp. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 17:46, 28 February 2013 (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.