Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madore (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 delete. All agree that WP:PROF is not met, except for Stephanefr, whose argument I have difficulty understanding. Sandstein 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Madore[edit]

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

I would have prodded this, but this article survived a discussion in 2005, way before we had any notability standards for academics. The argument that he invented Unlambda is exceedingly weak; I could barely find secondary references to add to that article— it's not a well-known language by any stretch. Pcap ping 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlambda doesn't seem to be notable and should perhaps be AfD'd as well. Usually math notability relies on making a discovery which is notable in its own right, as in appearing in a secondary source. There is no evidence that this is the case here. All the links from the subject's page seem to be published by the subject.--RDBury (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable academically per WP:PROF. Five articles on mathscinet, Maitre de Conference, etc. Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His CV is on his home page, and it doesn't appear he meets the criteria at WP:PROF. It looks like, in 2005, the bio here was kept because of unlambda. We have to weigh how well-known that language is, but given that Madore does not meet the criteria in WP:PROF, I think that it would take an extremely well-known language to warrant a bio. I don't think unlambda is very well known. Honestly, I don't know if I would support a bio for the author of nethack, and that has to be much better known than unlambda. So I think that the article should be deleted for now. As always, if things change, the article can be recreated in a few years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain because I am the person involved, but I have some comments to make. Evidently I do not meet the criteria of WP:PROF, and evidently this article could be an embarrassment for me since it makes me sound like some kind of academic crackpot. (I have no idea of who wrote it, by the way. I never edited it myself.) On the other hand, I strongly think that if this article goes, the one on Unlambda should go as well; this I say as a Wikipedia user: I've always thought that there should be at least a stub article for the creator/instigator/inventor/main author of every single item/event/fact/invention/work which itself has an article on WP, and this would simplify the debates on notability—but obviously the folks who decide on the notability criteria think differently, so this opinion is worthless anyway. One thing I have a hard time imagining, however, is why people invest energy in having articles deleted which like this one are fairly short and at least have the merit of containing nothing wrong or contentious, when those on—say—Charles Musès notable for his Musean hypernumbers (not only is this one nonsense, but it has great potential for confusion) haven't been nominated for deletion even once. I mean, I agree that deleting some articles can be as constructive as augmenting others, but the priority order seems strange (especially as the article has already been around for some time, and some people have spent a little effort in editing it). But at this point, a loud booming voice thunders: “you are not notable!” and I vanish in a puff of logic. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied on your talk page regarding the link between the existence of your bio article and the unlambda article. As for the existence of other troublesome bio articles, that can obviously be addressed by nominating them too. Pcap ping 05:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PROF is a guideline not a rule. M. Madore above statement points out topics that are more important than the question of deleting a page about an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanefr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of subject's reasonable request to do so. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Question: Is the Unlambda programming language notable within the framework of Wikipedia's own guidelines? I'm leaning towards delete for the biographical article due to a noted lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We should discuss that in a separate AfD. The secondary sources I found are pretty thin, I agree. Pcap ping 10:16, 6 January 2010 (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.