Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Nicoll

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. --Coredesat 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Nicoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A usenet poster of little known notability, I'd suggest delete Timon 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO. No sources other than his own usenet posts. Ned Wilbury 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as by Ned Wilbury Alf photoman 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does well on search engine test. Many independent sites reference the English language quote, including wordspy.com and linguistlist.org. His book reviews are also reprinted on a number of independent sites including cloggie.org. He is discussed/referred to (not just named) on high-ranked blogs such as scalzi.org and http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/

• Keep IMHO per User:dd-b Dd-b 05:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's fairly well-known as a reviewer and blogger.Paul Drye 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's no less significant than most of the other personalities in the usenet people category. The entry is also useful in that it describes the background behind the "Nicoll Event" meme.
• Keep per above, but needs better sourcing. --Calair 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Sanguinity 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above plus above average in the sense of usenet notability - Skysmith 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with sourcing, etc; the English quote has also been used in a recently published novel. -Lhall 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I run into that death-defying idjit in many nooks and corners of SF fandom and publishing, and his English language quote is even more famous than he is. It is regularly attributed to even MORE famous people, which means that it has arrived as a quote. If Patrick Nielsen Hayden gets an article, so should James. Zora 12:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Saving a newsgroup is a noteworthy thing, and it's worthwhile to publicize a method for doing it. Nancy Lebovitz 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Worth it for the English quote, which has taken on a life of its own; he's someone people might look up, as they will others to whom quotes are atributed if they don't already know the name. (People aren't likely to look up Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln when those men are quoted, because they already know who they are. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. -- Metahacker 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above; in addition his impact on Usenet is just as deep (if not as broad) as Kibo, and has had problems with quote attribution that this article could ameliorate. -- Anton P. Nym 216.191.213.114 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. -- Torquebomb
• Keep as per above. --Zeborah 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. James Nicoll is at least as significant as many other people given entries on Wiki, including myself as an author. -- Ryk E. Spoor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.226.98.189 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. If James Nicoll isn't of enough interest to the public to be a subject, then "Usenet personalities" isn't of enough interest to the public to be a category. And now that he has public visibility as a reviewer of books, his permanently-recorded position in public life isn't even entirely dependent on electronic media alone. Finally, his famous aphorism is reproduced in all media, usually without its originator's name attached, and each instance should be counted as an instance of the appearance of "James Nicoll", whether attributed or not. -- Del C 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen the authorship of the English Language quote debated many times, simply because the true author is a relative unknown, so it's of practical use to have a source page for him. (Disclaimer: I'm a friend of the subject) -- JoeNotCharles 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This sort of person is what Category:Usenet people is for. He is quite notable within that realm. Bryan 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even aside from the Quote (which alone ought to get him over the notability threshold), he is well-known in the science fiction publishing community. Spikebrennan 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. DAllen\^talk 16:52, 18 December 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.