Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilya Zhitomirskiy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stephen 04:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Zhitomirskiy

[edit]
Ilya Zhitomirskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently deceased Russian software developer and co-founder of DIASPORA*, a social networking website. PRODded for deletion, but I feel a discussion may be more appropriate. As suggested in the PROD, he seems to be known for one event. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear case of being known for one product or one event, and to be fair, I never heard of said product until his death, as it was in the obit headline. He was one of four creators, none of the rest of whom have articles. It would therefore be fair to say his death contributed to the article's creation. The Diaspora article indicates the software was still in alpha testing in the middle of September 2011, so I think we're seeing notability based on speculative hype (CRYSTAL) rather than anything solid that meets policies and guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we're going to delete everybody known for one product or event, let's get rid of Margaret Mitchell and Harper Lee, who are known for one book each. I see thousands (meaning there are probably exponentially more) of entries of various people of little or no noteworthiness on Wikipedia (i.e. TV actor in Brazil). Unless the standards are tightened and enforced globally, there's no real justification to delete this while keeping all of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.228.156 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When someone who advocates open info dies of alleged suicide, there's always a considerable probability that the suicide is forged. --Mrigoroliveira (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Mrigoroliveira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep – Diaspora and its developers have been in the News (NYT, Wired, in Germany: zeit.de, spiegel.de, heise.de, golem.de etc.) for more than a year now. When he died it was clear that the story would be reported in the news. The developers of Diaspora are notable indeed. In a few weeks the network will be opened for everyone as the Beta phase begins. It's his work.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are countless reports on his death in mainstream media, such as the BBC [1], CNN [2], IBTimes [3] and SMH [4]. even the Daily Mail [5], a UK tabloid, is running a long story. Anyone who gets this level of coverage should be covered in Wikipedia, too, regardless of whether or not he would have been notable otherwise. Yes, it's ironic that he wouldn't have been here had he not died, but now that he has he's getting the exposure that justifies, or even necessitates, a stand-alone article.--Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether he is notable for one even he is notable. A Quick Google search comes up with enough to easily meet GNG. WP:ONEEVENT is a guideline not a die hard rule and it should be noted it says that as the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. This is the case with this person. Article needs improved not deleted Edinburgh Wanderer 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what exactly would you expand it with... seeing as all the biographical information worth recording about him is.. there :) (I am genuinely curious - if there is something that doesn't fit with the Diaspora material that would sway my view) --Errant (chat!) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. All the refs popping up are about his untimely death, indicating that the news coverage is just because he died. The article already says that and not much else. Based on the refs the article isn't going to grow much over time and it is unlikely that this situation is going to change much in the future, as his accomplishments are now all in the past. - Ahunt (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ahunt, @ErrantX: Point taken, but then Wikipedia shouldn't be a museum where people are enshrined for their (supposed or real) "accomplishments". What exactly are Kim Kardashian's or Paris Hilton's "accomplishments"? The only reasonable touchstone we have is popular interest in a person, and the popular interest in this particular death is evident. (Whether popular interest follows media coverage or vice versa doesn't matter.) The article doesn't need to contain much information - it should merely reflect what is known and verifiable. If that's (relatively) little, this also is relevant information. (That said, I'm pretty sure his co-workers are going to publish more on his accomplishments sooner or later.)Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No long-lasting notability. Pristino (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pristino: Who said that notability has to be "long-lasting"? What's relevant is that he is notable *now*; people may come across his many name years from now and should then be able to find out who he was ("ah, so this was someone who was in the news back in November 2010"). Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that would be policy.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that would be a guideline, not a policy. Likewise is the guideline that states "notability is not temporary", so pick your poison. Bongomatic 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what bureaucratic category it falls under. The point is that policy/guidelines say so.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anders, whether you care or not, in Wikipedia terms (as in everyday life), a guideline has less authority than a policy. A guideline is a rule of thumb that can be interpreted differently depending on circumstances. Besides, you're also misreading the guideline. What is says is that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" and "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." It doesn't say that events that aren't "precedents" or "catalysts" for anything are not notable—that would be an obvious non-sequitur. If that were the case, there'd be no place for current topics in Wikipedia at all. After all, who decides what is "long-lasting"? Would that be one year? Ten years? A hundred? The media attention that Zhitomirskiy now has—posthumously or not, deservedly or not—clearly makes him notable; if not as a person or as a programmer, then as a topic. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. More specific notes on his privacy work, writing, and other work leading into Diaspora might support expansion. Other project founders are likely notable as well; iirc there is some documentary footage of their work's development which will come out. – SJ + 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree to Ahunt: Theres not much to be written about Z. and it doesn't appear that this will change over time. We are not even completely sure whether the product he worked at as one of the engineers will hit marketability any time soon (it might eventually) and whether it'll crack some heads ... theres too much of "if", "then", "eventually" and "maybe" in here ... So I'd say: DELETE until further notice ... it will be soon enough to dedicate an article when the programme will have taken over Microsoft and FaceBook or whatever. Up til now hes just a deceased pal had gotten together with a bunch of people to work on something thats not available yet. LagondaDK (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently important like remaining. Its company has a high rate of growth, reason why at some time its history will be important. Rakela (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Full length obit in NYT. Bongomatic 12:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is well known for diaspora, the distributed social networking project, which had a major impact and had got widespread media attention. There are lot of contributors (1106 forks on github) for this project also. Anish A (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable through Diaspora. RAP (talk) 15:09 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only notable through Vaporware Diaspora. --84.150.19.220 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 84.150.19.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Creating something that challenges the way we think about Internet and how we share our personal data is a huge accomplishment. Raising over 200.000 USD for a FLOSS project (the original target was 10.000!) was almost unimaginable before these guys pulled it off. Also, if 84.150.19.220 had managed to link to the actual Diaspora_(social_network) article, (s)he would have found out that this "vaporware", even though only alpha in September, was considered "already quite usable for some purposes". It also has at least 180.000 users - a bit much for mere "vaporware", don't you think? --Ronja (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's not only notable just for his death, but for his software product as well. See here, here, and here. There's also reliable sources about his death as well, obviously, see here, and here. He passes the notability guidelines quite easily. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very obvious Keep Full length obituary in the NYT has always been accepted here as definitive proof of notability . Our own opinions about significance are not what we go on for notability -- the basic principle of WP:N is that we go on what the real world thinks is notable. Amusing here that some people think they're better judges than what we use as our most reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you're on that ever so high horse ;) consider that the obit wasn't published till yesterday... Also as further points; use of NYT obits as a standard for notability is surely our opinion of what is notable, plus I worry that many of the keep voters are falling for the problem you highlight; i.e. their own view of what is notable (very few actually cite anything not contrary to our policy). I am unsurprised to see the NYT doing an obituary for him. Diaspora made a brief-but-big noise in the tech world and the NYT has recently had a very big technology focus (which they do surprisingly well). QED. My argument here essentially comes down to the fact that, having died young, there is basically nothing to say about this individual (as it stands the article is ~50% a re-hashing of the Diaspora article with his parents/education tacked on). We get caught up in this thing of OMG NOTABLE, often without stopping to consider if the article is useful :) This ignores our editorial role. --Errant (chat!) 10:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately or unfortunately, there are certain notability guidelines that are bright line tests, so further a further (subjective) "editorial role" in determining which articles are kept and which are not is not merely unnecessary, but inconsistent with the way things are done. (I don't think you would make much headway trying to IAR every time your editorial discretion differs from incontrovertible application of the guidelines.) Bongomatic 05:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very little in terms of Notability is "brightline"; if anything, our BLP1E rules should be brightline, but they tend to be inconsistently applied (or, rather, discussed at length). If it's written on a policy page somewhere "A NYT obituary means the individual is notable" then I am happy to bow to that. I suspect, though, that it is a convention. --Errant (chat!) 09:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Discussion for deletion should come at a much later time when the true impact/legacy of Diaspora* is realized. The other founders may be noteworthy and Zhitomirskiy was obviously a catalyst for the founding of the company and representative of the open-source, privacy in social networks movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.214.188 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever the final outcome of the Diaspora* project is, it is a project that attracted significant interest worldwide. The death of Zhitomirskiy is part of this story, mainstream media are discussing about it, e.g. check this article on Forbes. Like it or not, this makes Zhitomirskiy more relevant than his fellow Diaspora* founders. --MauroVan (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Diaspora* (software)/(social network) pages are developing quickly and will most likely continue to expand, in great part as a result of all that is included on Ilya_Zhitomirskiy, although not necessarily due to those reasons. You can't have either without the third, and merging would mean creating a section within both of those that would:
  1. create duplicate content in multiple articles, and
  2. create sections in articles which don't necessarily belong directly within those articles.
--jonnynut 13:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I agree, and would like to add that having a big deletion box on top of this article when it is obviously in the news everywhere else, may deter potential Wikipedians from joining. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was only created on day of his death therefore it was the first opportunity for it to be brought to AFD. Personally i have voted keep as i feel he is notable but its wrong to question timing its purely unfortunate but not wrong. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:02, 19 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilya_Zhitomirskiy&oldid=1137926836"