Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gulker

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 keep. –MuZemike 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gulker

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article has a number of references, but most are primary sources. In addition, there are a number of unreviewable references where the title of the reference implies the subject of the Wikipedia article is not the subject of the reference. ttonyb (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zero Google news (GNEWS) hits is unsurprising, given that his main period of activity was more than five years ago. There are a good number of by-lines and quotes on Google books. There are several references and some photo credits on google scholar. I'll admit that the article as it stands is a little heavy on links to the subject's blog. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Unfortunately, by-lines, photo credits, and quotes are not part of the criteria to establish notability. Until the reliable sources you refer to are added, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A look at the article's references shows that the subject has been noted noted by many reliable sources, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Oregonian, Akron Beacon Journal, Editor & Publisher, The Cole Papers, Salon.com, The Vancouver Sun, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and a peer-reviewed ACM paper. ARK (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, being noted in numerous publications does not denote "non-trivial" coverage. ttonyb (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the ref list and you'll find that it does contain several instances where the subject of the article is the subject of the reference. I've just added another.
It probably bears remembering, too, that technology pioneers and innovators are often noted by their peers and collaborators rather than the press, so while self-published accounts such as Kurt Foss's and Dave Winer's may not count as reliable sources, they might provide a sense of the subject's notability and standing among the people in his field. ARK (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a paragraph based entirely on self-published materials and added several more citations from reliable sources. Even if the standard for "non-trivial" coverage is indeed "multiple" citations from reliable publications that are not only in part about the article's subject but wholly or mostly, I'm confident the article is well past this goal post, even its current, imperfect state. ARK (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Re-stating my position in a clearer manner).

I believe the subject is notable
Contrary to what the proposer implies, there is nothing in WP:RELIABLE that references need to be reviewable. If the proposer is in doubt about their nature, they are welcome to track them down and report back. From what I can see they're all the kinds of things a major library will have.
Given the nature and period of the subject's work it is to be expected that most material is either locked up in pay-per-view newspaper archives (which Wikipedia:Linking says we're not allowed to link to) or on the subjects' self-published website(s) (which are rightly held as primary sources rather than the secondary sources we're mainly looking for here).
There are a whole range of by-lines, photo credits, and quotes which back up the fact that these unreviewable references exist and are on the subject, even if the proposer is not motivated to track them down.
Even after you remove the self-published material there is still a great many references and most of those talk extensively either about the subject or about his work.
The number of references and the apparent material is considerably higher than appears to be acceptable in a large number of our media and journalism people pages.

For these reasons, I think the article should be kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 1) No on doubts you believe the subject is notable; however, believing may not make it so. 2) I must have missed it, but no one indicated the references had to be reviewable, I only pointed the title of the article, "implies the subject of the Wikipedia article is not the subject of the reference." 3) There is nothing wrong with references in a pay-per-view situation. 4) "a whole range of by-lines, photo credits, and quotes" may exist, but this is not "non-trivial" coverage, nor does it negate the issue pointed out in item #2. 5) See #2. 6) Each article must stand on it's own merits and their adherence to Wikipedia guidelines should determined based on the merits and not other articles. ttonyb (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. It sounds like he is near the end in a cancer battle and one needn't use a crystal ball to project a plethora of dedicated new biographical sources to mine in the fairly near future. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 August 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.