Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Weinreb

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. Just because something violates a policy (in this case COI), it doesn't mean to say it should be deleted. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Weinreb

Daniel Weinreb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable computer scientist, article originated with COI problems, but still has no evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Definitely a violation of WP:COI TaintedZebra 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This man is notable for two things. For writing the first implementation of Emacs, which has been used by million of computer engineers on unix, and two, for founding symbolics. These alone make him notable. The article should be rewritten tidied scope_creep 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per scope_creep. Smashville 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that Weinreb wrote EINE, which appears to have been merely the first standalone implementation of Emacs, which was already in use as a set of macros in another editor. The article Emacs doesn't suggest that EINE was a particularly notable implementation, and the aticle on Weinreb doesn't suggest that he has done much notable since then. His biog should be redirected to EINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, technically BrownHairedGirl is correct here. Stallman and Steele obviously wrote the very first Emacs (in the sense that any small number of people 'wrote' it). --Gwern (contribs) 01:06 1 November 2007 (GMT)

• Strong keep. Citing COI is a a bogus argument; the strongest language on that guideline is that it is discouraged to edit or write stuff about yourself because you might make POV edits or unsourced statements - everything written in the article is easily verifiable, and if anything, it understates matters. There has never been a deletion reason "Strong delete, subject edited the article'. His article would have been written sooner or later, and I was glad when I saw him create the article because it saved me the effort. Now, notability is established by a number of things (in no particular order):

1. Writing the Eine/ZWEI/Zmacs family of editors (he wrote Eine and kept developing and rewriting it into the others
2. Much development and research of Lisp software, particularly for the Lisp machines (see his books on Symbolics' Lisp Machines and documentation for flavors, among other things[1])
3. Was a major coder for the S-1 Mark II[2]
4. Cofounded Symbolics (this is for me the most major item, which alone would confer notability)
5. "Participated in the design of Common Lisp (one of the five main codifiers, I was one of the co-authors of "Common Lisp: The Language", with Guy Steele, Richard Gabriel, David Moon, and Scott Fahlman)."[3]
6. And so on in a bunch of other countries. One might also find it interesting to read through some of the hits in Google Scholar[4]. If Daniel Weinreb doesn't count as notable, you might as well begin preparing AfDs for the other Common Lisp committee members as well. --Gwern (contribs) 01:06 1 November 2007 (GMT)

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.