Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Everson (3rd Nomination)

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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:27Z

[edit] Michael Everson

Michael Everson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not really seem to be too notable, failing WP:N. All the sourcing is done from sites that may not be meeting WP:RS, or otherwise is made up entirely from primary sources. So WP:V. Gets one lone WP:RS New York Times article, but being mentioned once in one article isn't notable, its <15 minutes of fame... and has passing references in an ISO publication and one PDF, and his own site/blog. Also, WP:COI and WP:VAIN apply. Looks like the subject of the article is heavily WP:OWNing the article as User:Evertype. Recommending delete, in the end, simply not notable and fails notability criteria as defined on the guidelines... - Denny 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • EDIT: Previously nominated 30 Apr 2005, no concensus and 25 July 2006, no concensus, - Denny 14:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. New York Times and NPR,[1] which was already in the article. That's multiple third party reliable sources, notability established. — coelacan talk — 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This article has always bugged me a bit. IIRC, it was created as an autobiography. I'm pretty sure Evertype has admitted to this and claimed ignorance of WP:AUTO at the time of creation...but I'm a little doubtful, given the number of red WP links with the same (or higher) level of notability, that it would have been created otherwise. That said, it's been around since 2004 and deleting it now seems pointlessly punitive. Notability has been established, and he correctly points out that he is allowed to correct factual errors in his own entry. Dppowell 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Some of the sources cited are not independent or reliable, but there seem to be several among them which do add up to multiple reliable independent sources. NY Times, Unesco, NPR. Inkpaduta 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Satisfy notability criteria.Biophys 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael Everson is certainly very well known as a major behind-the-scenes driving force in the world of computer character sets. I have heard about him many years before I have heard about Wikipedia. The Unicode Standard lists him as one of the principal authors. Compared to that, it is rather irrelevant how often a New York Times journalist has interviewed him so far. His celebrity status among the users of ISO 8859-14 and the many other character-set related standards that he fathered is mostly limited by the fact that the International Organization for Standardization sadly keeps the authorship of its standards a rather well-guarded secret. Notability to a notable specialist community should be perfectly adequate to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Markus Kuhn 08:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit: The article could get a good edit, like citing sources for the various claims in the article like him being a Buddhist, living in Lecanvet, becoming a neutralized Irish citizen in 2000, Tengwar and Cirth being under consideration by Unicode, Everson Mono being the third Unicode-encoded font that contains many characters (what does that mean, really?), etc, etc. There are also so many links on the page, which I think is much higher than Wikipedia's other pages. This can be reduced perhaps by listing scripts already in Unicode that Michael has not worked on! roozbeh 11:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improveSlideAndSlip 21:48, 13 February 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.