Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Megginson

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Megginson

Vanity article. Non-notable. Should be speedy deleted. Spinboy 02:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 03:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I can't agree with speedying for vanity and non-notability because articles, especially substubs like this one, that appear vanity often enough turn out to be about subjects of least debatable notability, and are often the product of redlinks. Megginson was the original lead developer and maintainer of Simple API for XML, apparently a major XML standard O'Reilly Media and others put out books on. I'd need positive evidence that he led the community that developed this for a very short time and contributed very little to it before not voting keep, and at least allow for organic expansion. Add that megginson.com shows he's written two books, chaired one working group and served on another for the World Wide Web Consortium, recieved an award for Outstanding Individual Contribution to the Java Community from JavaPro magazine and Sun, who should know. Why would this man write such a crappy two sentences about himself out of vanity? Samaritan 04:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that we already allowed for organic expansion, and nothing happened (apart from some minor wikification and categorization) in six months. It took the threat of deletion for something to actually happen to this article. Have you considered patrolling Category:Wikipedia articles of dubious importance? That would certainly help, considering that (as was the case here) people do put tags such as {{cleanup-importance}} on such articles and wait for a while to see whether improvement happens, and if nothing happens in a reasonable period nominate them for deletion. Uncle G 13:28, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
• Keep, article needs expansion. 68,000 hits on Google. Megan1967 04:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Recent revisions to article establish notability. ElBenevolente 04:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it significantly, including everything relevant in my comment above and more. Samaritan 04:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I am curious how the nominator came to the conclusion of non notable. —RaD Man (talk) 09:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It's all been said. Inter 09:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable programmer. Capitalistroadster 10:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• At the time of nomination, the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Although it didn't at that time, as it stands now the article establishes notability. Keep. Uncle G 13:28, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
• Keep, and all reflect what we learn from the experience. We are all learning. Hopefully. Andrewa 14:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • PS And well done team, this still needs some work but is on the way to being a great article, which is what it's all about. Andrewa 14:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons noted above by many users. -- James Teterenko (talk) 18:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Megginson is certainly notable in computer programming.193.167.132.66 12:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 20:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.