Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roedy Green (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roedy Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Roedy Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Programmer of debatable notability, despite the glowing endorsement of this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From what I can saw his claim to fame is his dos application that has no sources beyond his own website, a self published book I cannot find anything on and that he was the second chair of a now defunct Gay and Lesbian Organization (GATE) from the 70's (again, no sources other than wikipedia and his site). I also noted that the founder and first chair of GATE isn't even named, he claims to be the second and have only held that role for a few months. Even if all he claims is true and it were referenced, it seems his accomplishments are fine, but not well known outside his own local circles as nothing is referenced. PeteBaltar (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That he's a bit obscure is not reason to remove his article. Lack of proper citation, OTOH... - Denimadept (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:SOURCE & WP:SPIP from this page and his other page it would seem he, or someone that visited his website made both these articles based off claims on his website, I can't find anything to satisfy various sections in the Verifiability rules. Having a website being proactive and writing batch files doesn't warrant a place on Wikipedia. DarExc (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep the article as it is was, is pretty much a disaster, but founding member / chairman of GATE is verified by U of Toronto Press book [1] and by U of British Colombia books [2], his GLBT rights manifesto is verified by U of Illinois Press book [3]. His Mindprod site is listed as a resource in many JAVA handbooks such as this one from Wiley [4] and the National Institute of Standards and Technology counts his JAVA Glossary as a source [5] while his joke "How to Write Unmaintainable Code" is frequently mentioned, such as this Addison Wesley textbook. [6]. Then we have him highlighted as taking some extreme positions and actions against whaling [7] A lot of mentions in a lot of different areas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its funny how standards change, essentially the same article which got overwhelming "keep" back in 2006 was headed for the deletion bin today. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found mentions he was chairman of GATE for a few months, however, its founder and first chair isn't even named. Also Robert Douglas Cook, who would be the most notable of GATE members it would seem, only has a mention of his name and that he ran as the first openly gay MP on the GATE page. I don't see anything that Green personally accomplished in GATE from these sources nor is GATE itself a very large topic. Perhaps a mention of Green in the GATE article may be more appropriate if he's deserving? As to his JAVA glossary being referenced in the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 1998, the link it references is dead [8] and the references to his website and that joke as recommended reading in a couple old textbooks still fails WP:WHYN as that is not very significant IMHO, there are literally thousands of hand books on JAVA and many websites and their creators are referenced, that doesn't make them notable. PeteBaltar (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To address sources found by Red Pen: how many other founding members were there, and what notability criteria does that cover? We don't normally consider people notable for founding companies or NGOs. Having a book listed in a bibliography is not normally considered a sign of notability, unless the book was used in a classroom syllabus. The joke paper is potentially interesting but would need to see how many and types of sources. Working to save the whales is admirable, but not inherently notable, unless there was significant coverage in that aspect. I suspect the reason it was a Keep in 2006 the notability rules were less developed and so people operated on WP:SYSTEMIC bias a lot more than today - kept what they knew and liked. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources offered, especially 1 and 2, meet the requirement for multiple reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG as usually interpreted. Yes, yes, I get it, that these are not fabulous sources but I've lost count of the number of times I've !voted to delete on less but yet the consensus has been to keep. The claim that these sources don't meet our usual standards is believable only if you've never participated in many AfDs. Msnicki (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Founding an organization is not inherently notable. That's all these two sources reveal about Green. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Notability requires reliable independent sources talking about the subject. It does not require that they report that he has any particular credentials or achievements. The test of notability is that others independent of the subject took note, not that we agree he deserved it. Those sources exist for Mr. Green and that's all that matters. I suspect you may be confusing the point of WP:ANYBIO, which is that in some cases, e.g., a Nobel prize, we may accept credentials alone as sufficient in lieu of sources. Msnicki (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you mention have very brief passing mentions of him, 1 2 sentences with his opinions on the GATE organization quoted by the author followed by other peoples opinions who are also named; your second source is talking about someone else who remembers hearing him at a GATE meeting 2. I noticed as well he is not referenced as a founder of the organization, but as a founding member of a chapter of the organization for the city of Vancouver. I still believe this fails on WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are definitely passing mentions of his name among many others. I still think Delete and if warranted add his name to the GATE page, not sure on that one though. PeteBaltar (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point of disagreement. It's always a judgment call whether the coverage in the sources offered is sufficient. I think it is based on having participated in countless AfDs where the consensus over my objections was to accept even less. But I respect your right to your differing opinion as correctly focusing on the quality and depth of the sources, not whether they describe sufficiently impressive accomplishments. Msnicki (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I brought it up was because you had already recognized "these are not fabulous sources" which I could only interpret as a tactic admission they were trivial mentions (obviously) and so concluded you were going with a credential based argument under the special guidelines, since credentials are perfectly valid for certain occupations, such as heads of universities (for example WP:PROF). It's a quirk of the Notability guidelines that certain occupations get a free pass on credentials, and others don't. This is one that doesn't. That is all. Have a nice evening. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only addressing the quality of the sources, not what accomplishments they reported. We have often accepted less, usually over my objections. The prototypical example would be the author of a how-to book on some programming topic. Since lots of Wikipedians are programmers, there are always some who know the book and like it and that's all it takes, no other sources beyond completely trivial mentions needed. Msnicki (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point here but in that case it would be more like saying someone briefly mentioned in that obscure programming book, because the author liked his website, deserves a Wikipage. A published author with various and significant mentions would be one step closer, he doesn't fit with either of these. I'm all for revisiting those authors too :D PeteBaltar (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obscurity is irrelevant. Many articles here on WP are about obscure topics and supported only by obscure sources. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Of course a lot of topics and sources will be obscure. What matters is that the sources are reliable, secondary and independent. And to clarify, I had in mind authors of how-to programming books where often, the only source is the book itself, which is unquestionably WP:PRIMARY. But try explaining that to fans of that book. Msnicki (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, however, quality issue with the sources aside, not one, let alone a significant amount of them meet this line from WP:GNG ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Had this page not been created a while ago by him or a friend, no one would have thought him notable from reading any of these sources. PeteBaltar (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better, it looks to me like I'm in the minority and the article is headed for delete. Msnicki (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, no, I'm just trying to convince you based on how I read into the rules but I'm just as open to you changing my mind by pointing out something I could be missing, no hard feelings mate.PeteBaltar (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I've looked through this and am tending to side with removal. Are there any better quality sources or is there a source where he is more than a brief mention? I'm just trying to see the notability here, which might still be there but the referencing doesn't justify that yet. If he were really notable one would think a unknown book would be eager to give him more than a sentence if they spoke with him but they didn't and they were only interested in his memory of that time, not him. As to the previous AfD I cannot imagine why they all voted keep, I looked at what was there prior to TheRedPenOfDoom editing it and it was not sourced and very poorly written. Kudos to TheRedPenOfDoom on finding these sources, maybe you can find something more significant to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? TomKoenig (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does writing a publication that helps to institutionalize and codify the "discrete signals" used for cruising for public sex count as a noteworthy achievement? [9] ? (the source is from google scholar, but I am not sure it qualifies as a reliable source)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't write this, he is referenced in it briefly as the author discovered the essay he wrote and she even mentions she didn't read it until she finished her paper, it just looks like more of what we already have, an obscure source with a brief mention of this person. PeteBaltar (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
page 14: " Cruising , including sex in parks and washrooms are a part of the culture of the West End which has its own etiquette based on discrete signals (Bouthillette 70). Green and Fairclough helped to institutionalize this conduct, in particular when in washrooms. " it probably has something in there about the wide stance -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a reliable source. To be considered reliable, it must a source with a reputation for editorial control, accuracy and fact-checking. For an academic paper, that typically means publication in peer-reviewed journal. That's not what we have here. Msnicki (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roedy_Green_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069205310"