Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Janis (second 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. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Janis

A DRV consensus endorsed the original deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Janis, but a new rewrite made in the meantime was found to have more merit. This new rewrite is submitted for AfD vetting. Since previous debates concern another version, they are only tangentially relevant; the article should be evaluated here afresh. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Strong, perhaps even speedy, keep. Given the list of awards for her work as a video editor, she appears to be a "professional whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who [is] likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Further evidence of notability would be available if evidence could be shown that as a published author she "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [her] work," but I don't see that here. Nevertheless, the first is adequate enough to garner this a keep vote from me. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Vote' made more emphatic given Jaime234's contribution below. (By the way, if we're not actually voting, what's a better word to call it?) — Mike (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Comment" works nicely. :) Xoloz 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you are looking for "multiple independent reviews" for Janis's books, there are many, including reviews from Publishers Weekly, Village Voice, and the Sacramento Bee on these pages: Reviews for Never to Return (Janis's memoir) and Reviews for Spirituality For Dummies — Jaime234 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles a situation like this, but I don't think it is appropriate for TheRingess to be editing this article, due to his obvious bias against the subject, related to their shared spiritual path, which was discussed during the previous Afd (one would think this might give him a bias *toward* the person, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) He's also the one who began the original campaign against this article. Perhaps he'll voluntarily agree to focus his efforts elsewhere. — Jaime234 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentAs long as I add neutral, verifiable material that is not original research as per wikipedia's guidelines to original research, Wikipedia's guielines to verifiability and Wikipedia's guidelines to neutrality, then I can edit any article. Of course, anyone can revert my material if it doesn't meet those criteria. Also, I would also add, that as long as I treat fellow editors with respect, I can continue editing. Perhaps, my initial nomination used language that was not entirely respectful, but I did apologize and everything seems copascetic. To prevent me from editing for any other reason, as I see it, would be censorship, which seems to violate the basic premise that Wikipedia is founded on. My vote is Keep and cleanup to provide dates and categories for the awards and references from sites that list the individual awards. Also, if a fellow editor feels that I am vandalizing articles or in violation of the 3 revert rule then an administrator can block me from editing. If you truly feel that I vandalized this or any other article, then we can sit down and have a cup of tea and discuss it, or if you feel that something stronger is called for you can request arbitration or report me to an admin. Whichever you choose, there are many avenues for resolving conflict.TheRingess 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 'can' doesn't mean 'should'; no-one is saying you aren't 'permitted' to (your claims of potential censorship isn't necessary, as no-one has a 'right' to edit Wikipedia Wikipedia:Free speech), just that it may not be the wisest decision. I get the impression that Jaime234 is noting that you may be a bit too close to the subject to see it objectively - I can't comment on that, as I don't know anything about you or the subject of the article, but this is the reason judges recuse themselves, and it's worth considering whether this is worth doing here or not. Ziggurat 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Once again, my own language seems to fail me. Jaime seems to have legitimate questions regarding policy. I was trying to point out that there are guidelines for when an editor might or might not be blocked. I also provided links to material that might aid in answering those questions. I am also attempting to point out that as with any other editor, my contributions are judged on their own merit. I am fully aware that editing Wikipedia is not a right. I did not "claim potential censorship". To be clear, I was making no claim that I was censored or will be. Speaking generally, not specifically and certainly not about my edits or my contributions, it seems to me that blocking any editor who has violated none of Wikipedia's guidelines, is similar if not the same as censorship. This is not the same as claiming that I am being censored, or that I am accusing a fellow editor of potential censorship. I wished to provide a fellow editor, with legitimate concerns, links to material that might help address those concerns. As long as my edits and contributions conform to the guidelines, they will speak for themselves.TheRingess 03:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be talking policy, but I'm talking pragmatics. As I said, thinking about what is best and not just what is 'allowed', as just because you can do something within the rules doesn't mean that you should do it. Anyway, I didn't notice anyone even suggesting a block, so I'm not sure why you bring that up. Ziggurat 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps no one did, however, I interpreted the sentence "I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles a situation like this, but I don't think it is appropriate for TheRingess..." as both a request for information on how to prevent me from editing the article (a block), and as an accusation that I have or will edit the article inappropriately. Perhaps, if the person pointed out in what ways I was inappropriate and why they feel I will be, then I might understand better their concerns. In which case, if both they and I agree that the potential exists for me to make inappropriate edits in the future, I can agree that I should be recused. Right now, I do not think that I have done anything inappropriate. My edits should speak to that. If I am too close, then specific examples would also help me to see that. I hope that someone can point out the inappropriateness of my edits.TheRingess 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should take this off topic discussion to your own talk pages. --Ezeu 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, you're quite right. Just over-explicating again... :) Ziggurat 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I have certainly digressed from the subject of this discussion.TheRingess 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep She is an editor and author who has received multiple independent reviews and awards for her work, passing WP:BIO. Dionyseus 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a fine rewrite, but I don't think we can speedy keep a procedural listing. Ziggurat 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. But since I wrote the original article, I would vote thus anyway wouldn't I? As promised I have been making consultations. One of the most significant was with the author herself. A copy of her response is on my talk page. My conclusion is that to my own satisfaction, my own second version of the article describes faithfully factually and without error the summarised significance and history of Sharon Janis. My attitude on verifiability is that every single statement is fully verifiable for anyone who is prepared to make an effort and talk to people. On the advice of the "lady herself" the defence rests has no further comment to add. I will enjoy leaving behind what has been for me a disillusioning and highly upsetting business. Headshaker 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually I've seen authors of articles nominate their own articles for deletion for various reasons, so votes from the creator of the article are always welcomed. I'm glad that it seems like your article will now remain with Wikipedia once this AfD closes on the 22nd, I wish I hadn't voted 'delete' in the first AfD. Dionyseus 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not a speedy candidate. Looks good! --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve.TheRingess 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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.