Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Field (programmer) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julian_Field_(programmer)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Field (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Appears not to meet criteria for notability under WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:NRVE. There is also COI - User talk:JulesFM is the creator and major contributor to the article. Kudpung (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failed to find significant coverage in sources independent of the subject, under WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 16:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - author of a notable software system. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Can you give sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Here are a few: [1] [2] [3] —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid these are totally inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I think that they are sufficient to confirm that Julian is the principal author and maintainer of MailScanner, which is evidently notable. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the notability categories is satisfied? None of the WP:Prof categories are. The MailScanner page looks like an advertisement itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, totally inadequate as per WP:RS. They were already examined and immediately discounted before this AfD was posted. The sources are clearly neither independent nor biographical of the subject.--Kudpung (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe: I think it passes WP:GNG. I don't believe that WP:PROF applies here; Julian Field does not appear to be an academic. He works at a university, but not in a research capacity. You may be right that the MailScanner article is overly promotional, but that seems to be a separate matter from establishing notability for Julian Field. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung: IMHO the sources are sufficient to confirm that Julian Field is the author of MailScanner, and by that metric I recommend "keep." I agree that more reliable sources are needed for any meaningful biographical information. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2010 (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.