Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Mako Hill

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. The consensus seems to be that the article, while not necessarily sourced as well as it could be, is worth keeping. I'll tag it with {{Cleanup AfD}} as well. (non-admin closure) demize (t · c) 23:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Mako Hill[edit]

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

I respect BMH a lot, but I am not seeing how he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)? The references are either his own websites, or websites of organizations he is affiliated with. Hackers and Wikipedians (even WMF members) have no discount policy for meeting this Wikipedia requirement, I believe. Update: considering how nice the article is, formatting and all, perhaps Wikipedia:Userfy would be a solution? Ego Hunter (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs in the article may not be sufficient, but a quick look through a google, gscholar, academic database, etc. search reveals a whole lot. Beyond cites and press coverage, he's on the board of directors at a well-known organization, Free Software Foundation, he's been an advisor to Wikimedia and One Laptop Per Child, he's prominent for his work with Debian and Ubuntu, he's a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center, fellow at MIT's Center for Future Civic Media... easy pass for WP:NACADEMIC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the ping, Ego Hunter. He and I have become friends since I worked on this article, so now I'm conflicted. But I noticed that whatlinkshere isn't helpful, thanks to flooding from the GNU and Linux templates. If you're not getting enough discussion, you might ask the folk who maintain those templates if they have standards for notability and inclusion. – SJ + 09:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article relies almost exclusively on primary sources, and there doesn't seem to be much else out there. Jinkinson's idea at Samuel Jacob Klein to userfy the article seems like a good idea. Eddymason (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many primary sources have been added to the article, and I have tagged them as such. The sourcing on this BLP remains poor, and primary sources (the mailing list posts, his universities' announcements, etc.) do not demonstrate notability. Further, the opening paragraph describes his three books as "best-selling", and I am unable to find evidence of how well these books sold, but it's extremely rare for a technical manual/textbook to be a best-seller, so I've marked that one as requiring a citation. There was a Reddit thread used as a source, so I removed that, and tomorrow I will look at the YouTube video that is cited, but it is one hour long and it is bedtime here, so that will have to wait. Eddymason (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of the primary sources you tagged are consistent with WP:PS and need not be changed to support notability or (more importantly) confirm their validity. Please see more recent versions of the article that reflect my efforts to address this issue in a more nuanced manner. Aaron (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon to have accumulated sufficient academic impact for a pass of WP:PROF, and the sources are insufficient to support a pass of WP:GNG for his free-software activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: usefication is a good idea; the work put into this should not be wasted - the subject is likely to be come notable in foreseeable future, if he isn't already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His history with Debian and Ubuntu, plus his directorship at FSF and roles Open Knowledge Foundation and Wikimedia, imply notability independently of any academic considerations, and his widespread speaking activities imply that notability is widely recognised. The fact the article doesn't use adequate sources is orthogonal and correctable. ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i found out that this article is candidate to be deleted. i have added references to interviews from main stream media (oreilly, linux journal) and reddit (ama). i work for a cultural center mama in zagreb and organized a lot of programs with an aim to bridge the world of free software activism with art & culture. i have hosted several talks by benjamin mako hill in croatia (zagreb, dubrovnik) and in serbia (novi sad, belgrade). he is able to successfully "translate" the values and topics in between different fields and he is recognized for that work. i'm sorry i'm not a experienced wikipedian so i can add quickly all of the wikipedia formalities mentioned in some of the comments above. Marcellmars (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Because of obvious WP:COI issues, I won't vote or edit. I will point out that I was surprised to find that User:Ego Hunter seems to have joined Wikipedia and nominated this biography for deletion in her/his third edit ever and that the account seems to have been created by an experienced Wikipedian specifically with the goal of proposing biographies of Wikimedia leaders for deletion. The username, user page, and highly focused edit history makes me a bit worried about WP:POINT.

Although this — and all other — AfD discussions should focus on the merits of notability, voters' lack of history with Wikipedia are often brought to light in AfD discussions and I thought I would also bring this up here. I'm going to go !vote on the other ongoing AfD's by this user (during the accounts 30 minutes lifespan!) accordingly.

Although I am very clearly biased, I personally think I probably do not qualify for notability under WP:PROF (~~although it might be close?~~ except under #7, which I had forgotten about) but very likely do for my work on free software. I also think that the article references do not reflect this and could be greatly improved. I would be happy to help provide citations to other editors who wanted to improve it although I suspect other Wikipedians can solve this just as well. —mako ๛ 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per ClareTheSharer. If a significant role in several noted projects, coauthorship of some of the highest profile books about major GNU/Linux distributions, along with about a dozen peer-reviewed articles, isn't enough to make one notable, then I'm not quite sure what is. – Miranche^T C 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:PROF #7, especially for his work on free software and advocacy of open access publishing. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As ClareTheSharer and Miranche pointed out, his recognized leadership positions and published work are fine for notability. I agree with Benjamin Mako Hill's concern about WP:POINT - this new editor nominated six biographies for deletion in one day, without apparent indication of following WP:BEFORE's recommendations to try to improve articles before nominating them for deletion. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis of WP:PROF #7 as others have argued already. I'll also point out that since the initiation of this AfD, several credible sources documenting notable activities have been added, suggesting that this really was a case where following WP:BEFORE would have resolved any putative notability concerns. Disclousre: my professional and personal relationship with Benjamin Mako Hill place me in a potential WP:COI situation (we are collaborators on several research projects). Aaron (talk) 17:09, 11 November 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.