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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman[edit]

James Heilman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• "Internet Brands Inc versus Ryan Holliday et al" (PDF). Wikimediafoundation.org. Retrieved 16 December 2012. This is a link to the Wikimedia Foundation website. This is unreliable.
• Teigen, Sarah (October–November 2012). "Medical translations for minority languages" (PDF). Multilingual. Retrieved 12 January 2014. This is a primary source. It does not establish notability.
• Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). "Editing Wikipedia Pages for Med School Credit". New York Times. Retrieved 12 January 2014. This ref does not mention Heilman but was added to article.

I have decided that the article James Heilman does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and have therefore decided to start an AFD discussion. The secondary sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Editors may argue some of the primary sources are relaible but the vailability of secondary sources covering the subject is the test for notability. There are some non-independent sources that have been added to the article which don't show the BLP is notability. For example, The Wikimedia Foundation website is unreliable. I understand it may be difficult to determine what is the threshhold for a Wikipedian to be notable but if User:Koavf is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then I think this article is not notable. This is what Wikipedia is not. Most of the article focuses on Wikpedia related non-notable events that are not of enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS. There is still some cleanup needed to remove some of the unreliable sources and the text that failed verification even if it is kept. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing personal in the least, sure the fellow is a great human being and a solid contributor, god knows we need more of them, but I question if primarily wiki-only activity is inherently notable. If we deleted @Koavf: ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp ) this appears to be analogous. The alternative is many prominent wikipedians getting their own articles for being prominent wikipedians; @Eric Corbett: comes to mind, for example. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The litmus test I use is: if Heilman was associated with any other organization, except Wikipedia, would the reporting exceed WP:BLP1E. I believe it would. The ink blot controversy, using Wikipedia for medical students, Cochrane collaboration and Wikivoyage are all separate events. If someone in a corporation were to repeatedly show up in the news, that would qualify. Just because it's Wikipedia should not prevent it. Deepest respect to User:Koavf, but the millionth edit was one (incredible) event reported multiple times. My opinion is the sources are reliable and WP:ACADEMIC is the incorrect standard to apply.Ian Furst (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the claim of notability is entirely about Wikipedia/Wikimedia activities, I agree with Montanabw that we're in dangerous territory by allowing this article. I am, however, open to arguments otherwise, so I'll be keeping an eye on things here so see if any comments change my mind. (And, also as Montanabw says, this should not be taken as in any way a reflection on James Heilman, about whom I have no animus.) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

"This is a link to the Wikimedia Foundation website. This is unreliable." I disagree.

"This is a primary source. It does not establish notability." It is unclear to me why you are singling out a single source. Of course no single source alone establishes notability. The article currently has 20 references.

" This ref does not mention Heilman but was added to article." Yes, I agree. Reference 18 (Teigen) already supports the statement so this reference does not add to the article. It should be removed.

"The secondary sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC." There are at least three separate "events": uploading Rorschach images, manoeuvring editors from Wikitravel, and medical translation. All three areas have (at least) some suitable sources.

"There are some non-independent sources that have been added to the article which don't show the BLP is notability." Your use of the word "some" makes the statement irrelevant. Your overall assertion is that the sum of all the sources leaves the subject non-notable. Rather, the statement is justification for clean-up, not deletion.

"if User:Koavf is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then I think this article is not notable." I am not able to view the nature of that article at the time of its deletion. The consensus from the AfD was that the article was based on one event. That situation is not the case with this article. Also, be aware of WP:WAX.

"This is what Wikipedia is not. Most of the article focuses on Wikpedia related non-notable events that are not of enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS." You are confusing an article about a single event with an article about a living person. The policy explicitly refers to "stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The WMF is a reliable source only for it own statements about itself. As a repository for the documents of others - in this case a court - it has no reputation for accuracy. Certainly if this is a public legal document it must be available from somewhere else. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• He presumably is mentioning the problem with primary sources because WP:Notability at the WP:GNG defines primary sources as being irrelevant for establishing notability. Sources must be both secondary and independent to "count" for notability. This means that most newspaper articles don't "count", since most newspaper articles are primary sources (NB "most": an analysis piece or a retrospective would be secondary). The WMF page is both primary and of questionable independence, and so certainly doesn't "count", even though it meets WP:Verifiability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please point me to a place which defines newspaper articles as "primary". The vast majority of newspaper cites are for articles written by a reporter who is not a participant, and are therefore, by definition, secondary sources. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Problematic BLP for a variety of reasons. Best deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Multiple extremely high quailty sources have covered James' work on medical content and in other areas of Wikimedia. First a note, I know James and work with him on the board of Wiki Project Med Foundation; I didn't create this article but once it existed wanted it to be thorough. (In any case, feel free to consider that a fair disclosure). Three quick points about the nomination: 1) The source which didn't mention Heilman specifically was merely used to wrap-up the description of the event which had been covered in multiple reliable sources. It was a capstone, not a pillar of notability. 2) The 'primary' source is written in a Trade Publication and is used to support Heilman's work with Translators Without Borders. I can accept that this may not add to notability, but TWB is a reliable source for their own partnerships and who leads them. That this was published by an independent magazine gives it more weight. 3) The Wikimedia Foundation citation is merely to a hosted pdf from a U.S. District Court. It's a primary document illustrating the claims made in multiple other reliable secondary sources. We can probably find a copy elsewhere, but are we really suggesting WMF isn't reliable to host a document of a court case they were involved in? All told, I think Wikipedians do often gain notability, and while we shouldn't be promoting inside-baseball to outside readers, the intersection of Wikipedia with 'real life' means that some of us will inevitably become 'really notable'. When this happens, we should cover it like anything else. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:ACADEMIC is the wrong measurement; this subject meets GNG. BLP1E is also a red herring. There is no case for deletion here. Roccodrift (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Attention closing admin. Roccodrift has been accused of puppeting. If the editor is indef-blocked then I don't think his vote counts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note: The above statement was deleted by Roccodrift as a "personal attack", and restored by QuackGuru. It is not, however, a personal attack, since the conclusion of the SPI was that Roccodrift is clearly someone's sock, although it could not determine whose, amd the editor behind the name should be editing with their primary account. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Attention closing admin, part II: Roccodrift has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (of whom, I don't know) by MastCell, who said that the evidence that he is a sock of Belchfire is "suggestive but not conclusive". Jinkinson talk to me 23:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell continued: "However, it is clear that Roccodrift is an alternate account being operated by an experienced Wikipedia." BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sock or not, Roccodrift is correct that WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BLP1E are inapplicable, as Doc James is not primarily notable for his work in academia, nor does his purported notability stem from a single event. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as a new article (<1 week old), it has WP:POTENTIAL. Tag for refimprove and come back to it in a couple of months for an AfD if need be. – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article has "potential", but there are questions about its sources and notability, it should be moved into userspace until those issues are cleared up. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I have fans who have followed me to this AFD discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His notability seems abundantly clear to me. We should have no bias against WPedians. It is after all possible for things relating to WP to be notable. I don't think including him, or the very few others we do, shows any particular bias in their favor DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles close to the event are primary sources according to Wikipedia policy. I think the primary sourced should be removed from the article. See WP:PRIMARY. If the primary sources were removed from the BLP it would be a much shorter page. Editors have not shown this article is notable and the primary sources are being overused to discuss an alleged Wikipedia controversy. For example, the primary sources are being misused to discuss the Rorschach test. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources#Secondary sources for notability. Editors at the BLP are not exercising extreme caution in using primary sources. The article relies on too many primary sources which is a BLP violation. This is a bias (and non-notable) article about a living person. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; while I have mixed feelings about the notability of Wikipedians, I think that the points that are presented in the article would be sufficient to establish notability for a non-Wikipedian. There may be a strict procedural justification for deletion, but I don't think that such a justification would respect the spirit of the rules in this case. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I have immense respect for James and his work, and he had done more for health content on Wikipedia than anyone can imagine, but I am unsure whether that creates encyclopedic notability in its own right. There is very little precedent, and I note the deletion of Justin Knapp's article (but the existence of an article on the Essjay controversy). Perhaps the article should be kept for expansion, but we simultaneously need a wider debate on what a Wikipedian needs to do to achieve notability. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - would vote Delete (although marginal), but remain strongly opposed to Dr Heilmann's controversial position and so don't feel I could vote fairly. That said, I'm concerned that his principal claim to notability was less of his own choosing than one might be led to believe. He became the public spokesman for a position held my the vast majority who expressed an opinion (I think the RfC "vote" was eventually about 3 against about 30). Dr Heilmann himself was, after all, re-adding material previously added by others. Maybe the press took such an interest in him as he was "a doctor"? He may be notable by Wikipedia standards, although these seem to be still being debated. But to the non-Wiki world, I fear his article might look a little odd alongside the others linked in the Rorschach test article. He might even be at risk of becoming some kind of blue-gowned poster-boy of Wikipedia's ideals of non-censorship. I'm also concerned that the debate here illustrates that creating such an article as this may itself prove controversial (within the sometimes rather self-obsessed world of Wikipedia). I'd be very interested to hear Dr Heilman's own view here, after all there might be WP:BLP issues he wishes to address or other points he might like to correct. Surely his contribution can't be censored? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. James wrote on his talkpage 13 January: Am involved thus will leave this to others. Also I only write about medicine. Know nothing about notability requirements for people. --Hordaland (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A fair comment. Although some have argued, quite strongly, that the Rorshach is not medicine? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Reading through the sources, it seems as though Dr. Heilman has achieved notability for several independent reasons: his work to turn Wikipedia into a reliable and neutral source for medical knowledge, his controversial efforts to include forbidden knowledge, the lawsuit filed against him, and his advocacy for translations. Some of these are more notable than others, and the translation work, in particular, needs more independent, reliable sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the sourcing issues have been resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Hordaland mentions, as I am involved I should not get a vote either way. I, however, do not have a strong opinion on this article. While I am honored that some feel I am notable I also have no concerns if people delete the article as being not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that sources in our article in major publications centered around his activities on Wikipedia on at least three different occasions (the Readers Digest "Is Google Making Us Sick" story, the stories in several sources about the Rorschach test and subsequent complaints against the subject, and the NYT story about a plagiarism incident discovered by the subject) are enough for WP:GNG. If we think he's doing this in his capacity as an academic then he also passes WP:PROF#C7, or alternatively if he's doing this as a hobby then it doesn't matter whether he also passes WP:PROF: being an academic doesn't disqualify someone from being notable for some other reason. It's also irrelevant that all of these activities involve Wikipedia: they're diverse enough to avoid WP:BIO1E and there's nothing in WP:SELFREF or other policy that says we can't write about Wikipedians who achieve external notability for their Wikipedian activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (though of course I would vote this way since I created the article). Other users have made what I feel are convincing arguments that Heilman is not just notable for the Rorschach test image thing; sources supporting this conclusion include the Readers' Digest article, the New York Times article about the Wikitravel lawsuit, and the Bulletin of the World Health Organization article. Jinkinson talk to me 21:34, 16 January 2014 (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.