Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Kister

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~~. The general consensus is that he is not notable for an individual article. Given the various things he was involved in, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to just one of them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is contention on this point, I have changed the result to redirect, with discussion to continue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Jack Kister. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kister[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

NN engineer, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. No sources found (including those in the article) that provide more than namedrops, casual mentions and primary sources. Article notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded ten years ago with the rationale "going to deprod out of a perhaps irrational belief i can find more...." We've waited ten years for more to be forthcoming; enough is enough. Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Java Hurricane 12:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's coverage back in the 1980s in works such as Microcomputer System Design and Applications and Microprocessor Development and Development Systems. We have continuing coverage in more recent works such as The System Engineers Handbook and High-speed Serial Buses in Embedded Systems. The worst case would be merger into a page about the subject's notable work such as VERSAbus. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would ask you which specifically of those works provides the "substantial coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires, except that you haven't yet responded to any such request from me with any answer beyond deflection, obfuscation and the like. (After all, that would require that you actually read these sources beforehand. For my part, I favor a definition of WP:BEFORE that is not "Ooooo, sourcez!!!" and grab the first half dozen hits off the list, without so much as bothering to examine them.) Had there been a valid redirect target, I'd have already done that. Ravenswing 18:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above are Andrew Special (tm) "term pops up in Google Books" hits - slight passing mentions. As are the sources provided in the article. Applicable policies include WP:LetterSaladBombingIsNoReplacementForSubstantialSources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Corporate press releases and a couple non-notable engineering handbooks mentioning him in passing does not make someone encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of small mentions in nonsignificant works don't justify a wikipedia article. Galebazz (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into VMEbus, where his invention/standard is mentioned. I basically agree with Andrew but do not see the extensive coverage yet. I invite Galebazz, JoelleJay, Elmidae, JavaHurricane, and Devokewater to give this another look. Being so widely accredited with a major technological development, this is at the very least a probable search string. BTW, the three books (1982, 1992, and 2020 – speaking to the continued interest), were published by *major* publishing houses for the science/technology domain. gidonb (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The coverage not being there is what makes this a GNG fail -- a work being published by a large publishing house, as I'm sure you know, confers no waiver of the guideline -- and being a GNG fail, an article on the subject cannot be sustained. That being said, a merge isn't on, simply because there's not a clear redirect target; several potential ones are listed in the article, and I didn't redirect in the first place because of that. Beyond that, Kister being cited as the Inventor! is not borne out by the article itself, which cites numerous engineers and teams by name as making substantial contributions to the hardware. Ravenswing 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This "official response by the article's nominator" reads confused to me versus the article and my opinion. In any case, there is no need for arguing with each (!) single person here who reaches different conclusions. Instead, please concentrate on a better WP:BEFORE and do not WP:PROD when disagreement can be expected. 14:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD is, in fact, a discussion; if you're unwilling to discuss it, you shouldn't be at AfD. As far as when "disagreement can be expected," I'm no more of a psychic than the next person, figured -- perhaps naively -- that the purpose of WP:BEFORE is to identify sources that satisfy the GNG, and trusted in the good faith of other editors not to just throw up some source, any source, in defiance of the GNG's requirements. (That being said, would you care to identify which sources you found that provide significant coverage to the subject, if you believe that BEFORE was inadequately performed in this case?) Ravenswing 15:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should add my opinion to discussions. And yes, sometimes I get a question and am delighted to answer. As the nominator, you should not WP:BLUDGEON under every person's opinion who thinks differently with totally irrelevant information. It's annoying in the extreme. Arguments for the sake of arguments. For example, I count 4 times the mentioning of the WP:GNG under my opinion but if you would care to read that guideline you would immediately see that there is absolutely no relevance between the WP:GNG and what I wrote. This is not an invitation to bring other relevant or irrelevant stuff to my attention, just to do better next time! gidonb (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did get a question. Which you are ducking. Fair enough. Ravenswing 02:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not ducking. I always improve references immediately in the article. This article was no exception at all! I try not confront nominators with the sources they miss. Since I favor merging, the WP:GNG and sources do not matter whatsoever, per that very guideline. You try to waste people's time, to no avail. For me, it's all about the article space. Take a look at the article history and see what you can learn, if anything. There's no need for me to convince the nominator. Your intention to delete was clear from start. gidonb (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VMEbus Mentioned in the target article, a plausible search term and of course redirects are cheap. Not broad enough coverage in RSs for a stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into VMEbus, unless additional independant sources significant content on the subject are found to warrant standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant job that qualifies him to have a page. Nika2020 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2020 (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.