Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn (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 no consensus. Guerillero | My Talk 07:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn[edit]

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

Biography which seems to fail WP:GNG. There are number of passing references to him in independent sources, but these are few and most of the article is based on primary sources:documentation/web sites of projects that he worked on, etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several "keeps" in the previous AfD were predicated on the article improving substantially, but most of that improvement appears to have been based on primary sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few other software developers in a similar situation — software which itself has a bit of notability like Tahoe-LAFS (in-depth coverage of that in independent sources is actually pretty thin, but probably over the GNG bar), but with authors that have less coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Zooko's triangle is another barely notable concept (mostly debated on blogs and such, could only find a couple of academic mentions) but I suppose it makes some sense to have a page about the author, in the theory that he originated two artifacts that eek over the GNG line. (A more serious look at the Tahoe-LAFS shows that is basically a commercial product (albeit with open source) that the authors have written an academic paper about, and which got published at a so-so conference. And it got a few academic citations, on par with numerous others academic projects that enjoy a similar level of academic citations, and that don't (and shouldn't) have Wikipedia page. Besides that, there seems to be just one semi-independent article about it (in ArsTechnica), which is at the level of product announcement, with hardly anything in the way of independent evaluation etc. And finally Mnet (peer-to-peer network)/Mojonation appears to have have a similar level of press press coverage -- an announcement at start with the journalist writing it wondering if it will take off or not.) I suspect though this article is going to be kept given the level of fandom Zooko's works enjoy in the blogosphere and on Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the improvements since last nomination till now look better to me than noted above. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 4 January 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.