Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Hanselman (2nd nomination)

Scott Hanselman

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

Software developer of questionable notability. Current sources include a deadlink, a NYTimes article, and an article in ZDNet. This might sound all well and good, but the NYTimes article is about his traveling woes and the technology he uses to avoid travelling, but it's not about his work or achievements. The ZDNet article is more about upgrades to Microsoft Visual Studio. Although it quotes Hanselman, the article is not about him. The article does not appear to have sufficient notability as a BLP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment below suggests that Scott is of questionable notability, but that is not true at all. He is possibly the most quoted expert on Microsoft technologies and tools in the world. He does work for Microsoft, but was hired there because of his broadly recognised expertise. Among his other accomplishments are the most quoted set of interview questions for software developers writing programs with Microsoft technology. He also created the online banking technology that is (quietly) used by more banks in the United States than any other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeFrancisGA (talk • contribs) 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article (on July1) said he had retrieved an article on June 14 (about tech gurus cooking or something) which is now a deadlink. An article does not have to be online to support notability, it just has to have appeared at some time. If someone saved a copy of the article offline, or could access it in a library, he could provide some information here about the depth of coverage. The deadlink was a press release about a free downloadable cookbook with recipes by many people who work for Microsoft. The press release can be seen here from Reuters. It in no way contributes to notability by Wikipedia standards. As it stands, we have some quotes from Hanselman which the nominator says are not really coverage of him, as well as what I consider to be one instance of significant coverage in the NY Times. The AFD nominator is incorrect in asserting that coverage in the NY Times of his health, his family, and his travel habits in the NY Times is not evidence of notability, which he seems to feel must be coverage of his "work or achievements." WP:BIO does not limit notability to someone's "work or achievements." Wikipedia lists "noted" people, not just meritorious and praiseworthy people who have accomplished great things. I agree that the NY Times article's coverage of his travel habits would be an odd basis for a bio without him being notable for something else, but it helps establish notability. If some of the many articles which quote him as a tech guru say things like "he is prominent" or "the noted tech guru" that would help to establish notability as well. Determining that will require plowing through some of them. Note: The result of the last AFD was "Delete." The article was in fact deleted, then a new slightly different article was created. Edison (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do not feel the NYTimes piece really makes a good case for keeping the article at all, because other than mentioning his job title and the fact that he travels, it doesn't support anything else in the article. The details about his traveling is not especially relevant to the article, nor do I think it is especially encyclopaedic. The fact that it's NYTimes is all well and good, but it just doesn't support information that would make a suitable article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepWe can agree to disagree. Notability just means "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded," and the NY Times devoted paper and ink to recording what they thought was interesting or unusual about him. The NY Times material is specifically about him, and not just quoting him about some computer program, like most of the hits. There is also a tech article which [1] calls him a "creme-de-la-creme developer," a "Microsoft Regional Director" and a "Microsoft Most Valuable Professional," and says that he also is "chief architect" with Corillian Corp. His blogs have been widely cited by other techblogs and publications,such as CNET, helping to substantiate that he is well known and well regarded within his field. His own blogging does not contribute to notability, but provides personal information for expansion and improvement of the article:[2]. A stronger Keep argument would require more secondary coverage of the individual. Edison (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my mind, the subject does not at all meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. He is mentioned in the NY Times article, but only as an example of someone who works from home. This sort of mention is very common and the article is not about Hanselman at all and therefore he, himself, has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as required by WP:BIO. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:SIGCOV. An article does not have to be exclusively or principally about someone. He receives several sentences of coverage specifically about him. The dismissal that such coverage is "common" just means that a number of people get significant coverage. So what? Edison (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The coverage needs to be non-trivial if it is to be considered significant. A mere quote, or use of the person as an example of an issue (like working from home) if hardly significant coverage. I can find examples in news articles about specific pensioners who will be impacted by government budget cuts, or specific families impacted by a certain social development or policy. That doesn't make these people notable by way of significant coverage. After reading WP:SIGCOV, I still believe that this particular individual falls short of the notability requirements. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The NY Times article uses Hanselman as an example to illustrate their article. As such I don't see that article supporting notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scott Hanselman is notable. He is a source for many articles currently. The references show notability. for example .net reflector Softdevusa (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]