mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Atkinson (software developer) (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Atkinson_(software_developer)_(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 as unsourced WP:BLP, and redirect to phpBB. No sources are provided to support any biographical facts beyond a role in software development. The opinions acording to which this role or his being interviewed (about the software, not about himself) confer notability are given less weight because they are at variance with WP:BIO.  Sandstein  07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Atkinson (software developer)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
James Atkinson (software developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

One possibly reliable source and that's it? Contains quite a bit WP:OR (he currently lives in Canada? where does it say that?), and is, overall, a giant WP:BLP1E violation Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep He's notable for the phpBB work (giant evil steaming pile that it is). However much you like or dislike it, it's massive and being its Dr Frankenstein must convey some sort of notability. I'm interested in this article and its narrow one-product nature just to know that there are no other ghastly security nightmares out there waiting. WP:OR, {{unref}} etc. is an issue for improvement, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we just have a stub, then we have a stub. We keep those (labelled), we don't delete them merely for being stubs.
Secondly, I don't believe I've ever been required to be WP:CIVIL to a pile of PHP code. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, your comment still violates WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"conferred" isn't the same thing as "inherited". In this case, notability is conferred (and thus wiki-valid) by his role in phpBB (as his role in this was active and crucial). His partner (assuming for the moment that he's married) would not inherit (i.e. not wiki-valid) his notability though, as that role as a spouse isn't relevant to the original source of the notability (phpBB). That's the difference between conferrence and inheritance. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting semantic argument, but I cannot find any wikipolicy that backs your interpretation up. Quoting WP:INHERITED, Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.. Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what Andy Dingley said. Atkinson's involvement in the development of phpBB confers notability upon him, that isn't the same as inheritance. Clearly you're a touch excitable on this matter and in the interests of keeping the peace I won't address the remainder of your comments. Be well, X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job it's WP:NOTAVOTE then. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated in enough AfD's to know that that doesn't hold any weight what-so-ever. If 90% of people vote keep, without giving any reason, and the 10% of people who vote to delete give very cogent and very real reasons, admins aren't going to care. They're not going to risk getting the 90% of people who voted to keep mad at them. Sure, the closing admin could cite WP:JUSTAVOTE, but those people who voted to keep aren't going to care - they're going to be mad, no matter what. And if the percentages are really close, as they are, here, the closing admin will say that there's no consensus, even though there is. The 50% of people who voted keep didn't form a consensus because all they did is cast a vote whereas the people who voted delete did form a consensus because they didn't just vote - they presented very cogent and very real reasons.
But hey - you want to play that game? Fine. The argument you presented for keeping this article is dead wrong as per my earlier reply so your vote should, pending a better argument, be ignored, per WP:JUSTAVOTE. Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you assume good faith? I argued that there are reliable sources that establish notability and have explained why I don't believe that BLP1E applies. You're obviously very passionate about this deletion, but that doesn't mean people who disagree with you have no base for their opinions! --Karnesky (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't your justification that I discredited - it was Andy Dingley's. That said, I still don't believe one interview is enough to justify inclusion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. You had initially referred to all who want this article kept as a collective entity. You also failed to remark that some deletion comments only argue BLP1E, which is meant to keep current events/news from over-running the encyclopedia, and which I don't really see as fitting here.
The Linux Mag interview is a second source that is not in the article, so there are at least two separate interviews with Atkinson. --Karnesky (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I've participated in enough AfD's" WP:NOTAPROOFBYAUTHORITY either. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to prove anything with my first paragraph. The paragraph you should really pay attention to is my second one - the one where I suggest your vote be ignored. That doesn't involve any appeal to authority arguments - what that involves are wikipedia policies, plain and simple and if you believe that attacking the first paragraph invalidates the second, see ignoratio elenchi.
And as for the first paragraph.. that's not really an argument for anything. That's just me sharing my own experiences. And per those experiences, I don't believe the admin is going to ignore your vote, even though, at this moment, they should, since the only argument you made has been shown to be invalid. If you, none-the-less, want to believe that the first paragraph is an attempt to make an appeal to authority argument, go ahead. A no consensus closure, which is what I think will happen, per my first paragraph, means you essentially win, by default, and if that upsets you, that's your problem, not mine. Personally, I'm opposed to a no consensus closure, but I'm not the one doing the closing Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (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.