Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Resig

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Resig[edit]

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

Possibly NN person. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know about the content of the article itself but a quick glance at the Google Books and Google Scholar searches will tell you that not only is this person a notable author published by the most reputable mainstream computing publishers but even things like his blog posts are frequently cited by other book authors and academic authors in their own works. Unquestionably notable. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow and Speedy keep - "Reasons for a speedy keep decision are… The nominator… fails to advance an argument for deletion." "Possibly NN person" is not a deletion rationale. It's clear that the nominator paid no attention to WP:BEFORE, or they would have found hundreds of Google News hits, Google Books hits, and Google Scholar hits. Hell, just looking at the article's Talk page should have been sufficient. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - The rationale for deletion is a guess, and isn't substantiated. See also: WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noted person, mentioned in a goodly number of news articles and in books, as well as published author in field. Collect (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Northamerica1000. AfD noms need to do WP:BEFORE. --Kvng (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From one hand, we're talking about legendary author of jQuery, from other hand, the discussion would be more valid would it revolve around relevant policy which is Wikipedia:Notability (people). The policy defines an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. What we're looking for is an indication if the person has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. Another point to consider is in depth coverage: if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The question remains open whether or not the current reference coverage, which is based on primary sources satisfy the notability criterion. We have couple of options, after inspecting the article references, we could either improve sourcing or merge the current article as a section into jQuery. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works under the WP notability guidelines. The article itself has nothing to do with notability; a poorly-written or poorly-sourced article does not make its topic non-notable, that is not a factor in determining notability at all. It is the endorsement of the editors of major mainstream computing publishers by staking their firms' reputations on publishing his works and the citation of him, his books, and his blog by other book authors and academic authors that establishes notability, whether he's legendary or not. If at present you believe the only two appropriate courses of action are to improve the article or merge it you should retract your deletion nomination and follow the procedures for one of those. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion would be more productive if you would back your opinion by references to reliable sources discussing the subject, so we could establish whether or not the inclusion criterion was met. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AUTHOR is satisfied by meeting one of:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
It's clear to me that he easily meets all three of these criteria. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No argument, John Resig is an author of jQuery and jQuery is big. I've tried to digg news, google book and schoolar search results. According to my findings what we can appropriately cite to independent secondary sources about the subject is just one sentence: "John Resig is an author of jQuery". And if we apply WP:BLP sourcing standarts that's how this article would look like. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, if someone could cite secondary sources which discuss John Resig in depth. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You are wikilawyering at this point and clumsily trying to split hairs: there doesn't have to be in-depth biographical coverage of an author for the person to be notable and have a Wikipedia article documenting them. Obviously there are bio blurbs distributed by his publishers (even if you're suggesting that he didn't write the books that Google Books search engine hits are reporting he wrote, I'm afraid that sources independent of the topic confirm it), his alma mater could confirm his degree and his parents or the hospital he was born at could confirm his birth date even if those things were "challenged or likely to be challenged", and there's all sorts of analysis and criticism available about his writings and the things he has engineered - y'know, the things he's notable for which should feature prominently in the article. It is absurd to pretend that only primary sources exist for this topic or that guidelines for assessing the notability of topics mandate editorial requirements for every sentence contained in an article about that topic. Sorry but your rationale for deletion is invalid. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have alma mater reliably sourced, though it would be nice if Apress bio blurb would read less like resume. Can you point out other relevant bio blurbs? How about sourcing subject's date of birth, for instance? Publishing reliable info about living persons is quite a valid concern from many reasons. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are welcome to click on the Google Books search link generated by the templates you yourself applied at the top of the AfD, find out who his publishers are, and look up his bios on their web sites. YOU are welcome to do research on him now and add to the article, since you are the one so concerned about the quality of this article that you put the rest of us to doing all this instead of researching him and spending time improving Wikipedia yourself. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Kvng (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now agreeing that he's sufficiently notable? What, then, is your rationale for deletion? If we all agree he's notable, then this is just about the article's content—and that is explicitly not what AFD is for. See WP:NOTCLEANUP ("If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted") and WP:UGLY ("The remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion") as just two examples. Honestly, I don't know why this hasn't already been closed as a Speedy keep. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:36, 16 May 2012 (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.