Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bartosh

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 of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 10:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bartosh

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

I hate to AfD an article right after the subject's died, but this page seems to be a memorial. It was created just after the death, and is the only page the author has edited. I don't think the subject is notable, but I'm hoping some people who know more about computers than me will have some more informed opinions. I'll abstain, for now. djrobgordon 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• *Keep* Computer authors and experts are notable enough, at least as notable as cricket players. It mainly needs more information about his achievements.Williamb 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination, article is featured on main page as todays featured article. --

Banana04131 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Actually the bad faith nomination of Phil Collins (todays featured article) actually just links hear. Disregard my previous vote. Banana04131 00:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. -- Kicking222 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An IP vandal put AfD notices on a bunch of pages, including the aforementioned Phil Collins article, but the "this article's entry" link points here. I'm fixing them as I find them. GentlemanGhost 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Based on his authorship of the (today's Amazon sales rank is #12,237), he is a notable writer on the topic of Mac OS. (Article could use some re-write.) —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Today's Amazon rank is almost certainly inflated because he just died. (FYI, I currently have no vote on this issue.) -- Kicking222 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable technical author. Sdedeo (tips) 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Everyone deserves to be remembered. He's a published author, not necessarily an unknown person. MattWise 02:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Appreciate the sentiment that everyone deserves to be remembered, but that's what obituaries are for, not Wikipedia. Tychocat 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep, This was a person who was a well regarded technical expert in the Mac community. He co-wrote the authoritative technical book for Mac OS X Server. At the time of his death he was employed by Apple as a consultant in Japan. He was a former Apple employee who Apple regarded high enough to actually hire as a consultant (something Apple rarely does). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.58.160 (talk • contribs)

• *Keep* per Williamb. If author were a cricket player at the same level of success, he would probably have an article page, and a fan club. ॐ Priyanath 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The only people who would question his notability are not part the Mac community. He was definitely a notable author/person, and I am frankly surprised that he did not previously have a wikipedia page.--Briantemple 04:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  NOTE: Users 4th edit out of 5 in total whilst writing this.--Andeh 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  NOTE: Andeh, Apologies for being fairly new to the wikipedia contribution community. I stand by my comment/vote, but if my not having a ton of edits lessens the keep argument in any way, please disregard my edit on this afd.--Briantemple 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep O'Reilly books are usually big sellers, so I think that alone is probably enough to satisfy WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If he was any form of athlete we wouldnt be discussing this.--Kev62nesl 05:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He has achieved a considerable amount of success in his area of work. Moreover, this article is verified and he is definitely not a non-notable person in the Mac community. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he doesn't fail WP:BIO. However, the obituary part may need to be removed. --Coredesat 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad nomination, very notable article. — Wackymacs 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — He was one of the greatest in OS X Server knowledge, and well famous in the Mac community world wide. He deserved an article before he died. // hugin 09:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but I'd like to explicitly express my view that this was a model good faith AFD nomination - djrobgordon stated right up front that he/she wasn't qualified to judge and requested input from more knowledgeable editors. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Random the Scrambled 11:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - for everything already mentioned 124.168.3.68
• Keep - published author of particular renown in his field. Zerbey 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, It is rather ludicrous to suggest this is a bad faith nomination. WP:AGF, but it is odd that he suddenly gets a write up after he passes away. Apparently nobody in the Mac community felt he was article worthy when he was actually writing all those books that qualify him under WP:BIO? As a content issue, suggest removing the obit at the end as it isn't really appropriate.--Isotope23 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is quite the norm that people are recognized for what they did when they die because of the amount of media attention reporting the death. — Wackymacs 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:Bio.Englishrose 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Wencer 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable24.27.202.53 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We have a guideline for this: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Those voting "delete, non-notable", please explain why you believe he does not qualify for this. Those who want the article kept, providing sources that show he passes this guideline would be helpful. — Haeleth Talk 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, subject is obviously sufficiently notable according to WP:BIO guidelines. Silensor 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well within the confines of Wikipedia's policies. Kthejoker 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bartosh was a very well known and respected author, consultant, and trainer. The AFP548.com posting about his death received over 14,000 viewings in less than 24 hours.Macshome 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree that this article passes WP:BIO. I found no evidence of multiple non-trivial publications written about him. For those who contend that he does meet WP:BIO, please explain why. Adambiswanger1 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Adambiswanger1 - the above arguments for the article passing WP:BIO are based on the 'Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work' section, not the 'The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)' section.--Briantemple 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  True. That's actually the criterion I meant to use. I did spend about 10 minutes searching Google earlier, and I could not find any independent reviews other than those buyer feedbacks on Amazon.com. Wakemp has provided a review though, which is helpful to your case. In any event, I don't feel strongly about the delete, so I'm not going to pointlessly push my case. Thanks Adambiswanger1 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the books that are being used as the reason for 'notability' are widely regarded as definitive in their subject, which is common for O'Reilly titles. reviewed at Slashdot In Addition, Michael was a speaker at major conferences for O'Reilly and Apple over a the last 7 years. Archive presentation at Macenterprise.org Wakemp 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Published author, noted computer expert, sounds like enough to stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.250.26 (talk • contribs)
• Keep AFP548.com has a review of his book as well. [1]. Multiple reviews - here are some more [2][3] - try this google search if you need more [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.188.173.253 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• *Keep* Why? From the guidelines; The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field: Within his field of Macintosh support and development, this is absolutely the case - his book 'Essential Mac OS X Panther Server Administration', published by O'Reilly (O'Reilly Media of course being considered the quintessential and ultimate source for technical resources) was considered the "bible" and last word on the subject. While it's difficult to provide sources that verify with certainty that he was respected within the community (unless you join the lists he frequented and contributed to), he regularly assisted fellow Macintosh support and development professionals with technical issues and his contribution is vast, articulate, accurate and on the whole, unquestionable. His articles, posts to lists and multiple presentations, seminars and training sessions are most certainly widely recognized within his field and in many cases archived for future reference by the community.
  Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work: Reviews: [5] [6] [7] [8]
  Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? Absolutely. Though there are more hits that are obituary-related now, even before his death, the subject had tens of pages full of unique hits. This is only a man "not notable" to those outside his profession, just as Marc Okrand is not notable to those neither nerd nor linguist. 216.254.21.13 05:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• *Strong Keep*, his contributions to the OS X community are very notable, along with the reasons to keep listed by other members. --Aika 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

He seems to be notable enough to have an effect on society through computer software, if not than might as well get rid of people like Charles O'Hea who ever he is. Enlil Ninlil 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - A Google News search for him does not give any results in the mainstream media, and he does not appear to be notable enough to me. StuartH 07:20, 18 June 2006 (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.