Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Joel Test

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 redirect to Joel Spolsky. And possibly merge something from history to the article about the person or the blog as determined by editorial consensus. This seems to be the solution compatible with most of the opinions expressed here. Sandstein 10:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Joel Test[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability, and attempting to do so myself only reveals non-independent sources and trivial summaries and reprints. The article itself is nothing more than a summary of a blog post, and has very little scope for further expansion. —me_and 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable. Mark^Dask 16:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nelogism, no coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Dialectric (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I expect this to fail for lack of sources according to the readers of AfD (who aren't practitioners in the industry), it does have recognition in the field. Usually for being out of date (an organisation still doing #3 or #5 is slipping). I'd also argue that Spolsky's blog is one of those few that meets WP:RS.

Mostly though, I'm just not surprised (and once again disappointed) to see WP's systemic anti-Spolsky bias coming out again. Just because the guy is often wrong doesn't mean that he isn't an interesting starting point for doing it better. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree Spolsky's blog may count for WP:RS, that's entirely irrelevant here: the test for notability is independent sources. If there's industry recognition, I'd expect to be able to find such sources; I can't. —me_and 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joel Spolsky. This concept/test does not have the independent sourcing required for a free-standing article, but it's not entirely Original Research; the term does find some third-party use in blog postings and such. Thus it's a reasonable search term. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirecting is a good option, thanks :) —me_and 15:23, 1 April 2011 (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.