Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Caldwell (programmer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 since the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Caldwell (programmer)

Christopher Caldwell (programmer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Strong delete This article on a programmer which is, on closer look, a blatant autobiography by the subject. Most of the information is admitted to be "from the subject" and hence unverifiable. And as I detailed on the talk page:

I am afraid I just do not see any notability (according to our guideline) here. This article comes the closest to such an assertion, but from this article we know only that Caldwell is the CTO of a (former) tech company.

Searching Google for keywords relating to this person's various claims to notability yield sorry results:

  • <Caldwell "Net Daemons"> [1] or <Caldwell NetDaemons> [2] yields a few articles, a directory of names, and SEC filings, but nothing that is substantially about the man himself.
  • <Caldwell "Monster Board"> [3] No related results except [4] which focuses more on NetDaemons than on Caldwell.
  • A Factiva search for <Caldwell DNS> (which would turn up articles written by/for the Associated Press) yields lots of hits for "Idaho weekly wheat/barley cash market snapshot", but again, nothing on the subject of this article.

Although this person has written articles that appeared in at least one major magazine [5], the threshold of notability is that there are multiple reliable and independent sources that write about the subject in detail. The subject of this article, on closer inspection, falls well short of this threshold. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I created this entry to tie other entries together. I have already spent way too much of my time trying to augment and defend it - and frankly, the more discussion there is, the more embarassed I am to have had anything to do with it. Whether the information is notable or defendable is no longer the issue. The discussion has far far far surpassed any value of connecting other entries. That Wikipedia implies that the editor of the Weekly Standard wrote computer code is just not worth clearing up.ChristopherCaldwell 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Assuming the assertions are accurate, I see notability. The article needs a great deal of work, but definite potential is visible in its current state. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Maybe later an article could be built but this isn't it. meshach (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A guy with a job; falls far short of WP:BIO. No non-trivial secondary sources; article reads like a (poor) resume, not an encyclopedia article. —Cryptic 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. May have had many important experiences such as programming an early version of Monster.com, but these have not entered the historical record. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the links, I'm still not convinced of the notability of the subject. Sources are needed about the subject, not just mentioning the subject or written by the subject. Unrelated, but User should note WP:AUTO. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with Rjd0060, there is far too much potential here to simply throw the article away.SuperHappyFunCheese (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC) — SuperHappyFunCheese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete copyrights cost $20 bucks and a stamp, not meaningful - the first to write such and such type of program is pure OR - Xerox/Park seemed to have lots of things before anyone ever heard of them but not everyone who worked there is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:AUTO. I don't see any notable things coming from autobiography articles in Wikipedia. Let others write about him, not himself. Wikipedia is not a self-promotional vehicle. Dekisugi (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:AUTO does not say autobiographies should be deleted, just that they should be strongly discouraged. If you wish to change the guideline to such a radical extent, propose it there or at the VP.DGG (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, but for confirmation of notability and cleanup. There are some weak claims of notability that, if confirmed and cited, appears to make this person notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree wholeheartedly that WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, just better policing of the article. RFerreira 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Auto Shmauto, if the core claim to notability is unverifiable, we can't have an article on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 11:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Info Although it has been said elsewhere that copyright registration numbers aren't really proof of anything other than someone's ability to pay $20.00,I have at least found the modern registration numbers to find them in government records: TXu000035863 TXu000035864 and TXu000035865. Just select "Registration number" and then enter the number you want to look up. I was unable to create a URL that takes you directly to the articles because the site has a concept of a session (which times out). Alas we're probably not going to find any published material on these games other than various UNH articles banning them - a dubious achievement. We do have source code and documentation, but no publication. ChristopherCaldwell 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Xihr 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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.