Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brion Vibber (2nd 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 merge to MediaWiki. Sandstein 17:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brion Vibber

Not really notable for an encyclopedia IMO. No reliable sources to back up his notability. D.M.N. (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-notable. If he didn't work for the Wikimedia Foundation his article would have been deleted when it was first nominated.-- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What crap. Major authors of important software are all covered here, as they should be. Wikipedia is at its best when it does exactly what a paper encyclopedia can't: exponentially increase both the depth of traditionally encyclopedic subjects and the breadth of what can be covered. I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to cover anyone who is well-accomplished in their field--even if we can't point to lots of press coverage or other "notability" criteria. Note that the notability criterion is not a policy, just a guideline, and frankly, I think it's a bad one. Brion may not be RMS or Guido (or even the initial author of Mediawiki, since that's me), but he has contributed most of the presently-running code, and is the primary maintainer, of one of the most important software projects on the web (and if you want press coverage on that, note that Information Week magazine listed it in their top ten pieces of web software of all time--though the article only mentions me, not Brion). That easily merits him an article in my book. --LDC (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the apparently most active contributor to one of the most influential pieces of software ever. Passes verifiability as well. I also find LDC's reasoning compelling. Antandrus (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make an argument without using peacock words? Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki. Sometimes we eat our young. I actually believe that BV and LDC are important enough to have their own pages, but unlike LDC I can't see ignoring the notability guidelines. We need some sources independent of WMF to write a fair article, and at this point I just don't see them. So, redirect until they appear, then expand later. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather notable... If you ask me... -- Cat ^chi? 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- From those on the first page there, none of them are reliable known sources that establish notability. D.M.N. (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am so tired of hearing of this "reliable sources" to establish notability. "Reliable sources" have nothing to do with notability. Some person that has over 54,700 hits on google is probably more than notable. He is notable enough to provide the software allowing you to nominate his article for deletion I suppose. I imagine this thing will soon make widespread media coverage making it "magically" turn notable.-- Cat ^chi? 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- 54,000? I have 150,000, and I'm a redirect to Mediawiki...but I'm not bitter, really. :-) LDC (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Don't like the policy? An AfD isn't the place to change it. Go discuss your thoughts on WP:BLP. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No thanks. Policy discussion is something rather rhetorical. Unless you own a cabal your voice is ignored. At best you get insulted or are called names. Just like how it is on this very page. -- Cat ^chi? 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        I can't tell if you're familiar with WP:TINC or not? 124.217.241.136 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) It's not a policy, and (b) Jesus, grow a sense of humor already. LDC (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to get involved with notability arguments, but this is a two sentence stub. Is there not anything more to say about him at all? If it is all private or anecdotal (ie. project-internal) stuff, then there isn't really enough on the public record about him, so I'd be tempted to merge what has been written to MediaWiki. There are links from precisely two articles (at the time of writing, and that is after it has been in existence for 17 months, even if 10 of those was as a redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki. While I (or perhaps I should say we) might think he is extremely important and notable, the world does not concur. Yet. Plrk (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki (or Wikimedia Foundation). Notable for involvement in developing MediaWiki software and role at Wikimedia Foundation, but there does not seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources to make a substantial expansion of the article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to MediaWiki Numerous software developers with similar levels of notability are already covered.--Finalnight (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MediaWiki per above Sceptre ^(talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki, there's really no content in the article beyond his work on MediaWiki (oh OK he speaks Esperanto). --Stormie (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2008 (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.