Talk:Chris Gulker

Tributes
I'm thinking about adding a Tributes section with links to articles that offer personal perspectives on Chris, which, I believe, would be fitting for this advocate of personal publishing. Examples:




 * I would think putting these in an "External links" section would be sufficient, and more in line with Wikipedia's neutral tone. ("Tributes" sounds a bit panegyric, which isn't really the purpose of WP.) Gabrielbodard (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks, Gabriel! ARK (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Against deletion of this article.
I'm against deleting this article mainly because Chris appears to be widely published (and presumably widely read). I'll admit that it currently has far too many references to self-published material and too many references that don't make it aren't clear in the title that the reference is mainly about the subject. I see no reason these couldn't be rectified. 121.73.68.51 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above was me, having forgotten to sign in. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stuart! The article has been  proposed for deletion because of its subject's alleged lack of  notability. The article also stands accused of being   poorly sourced. I believe that both claims are groundless.  Chris is a respected  creative professional whose work, as  the article shows, has been noted by many   reliable sources, including, amongst others, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Oregonian, Akron Beacon Journal, Editor & Publisher, The Cole Papers, Salon.com, The Vancouver Sun, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and a peer-reviewed   ACM paper.
 * While I strongly object to deletion, I do agree that the article needs more work. ARK (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Direction of the article
It's good to see more references being added to the article, but:
 * They're best added as proper references rather than into the External links section.
 * Ideally they should replace references to the subject's blog posts, which still need to be cut down on (except where they support a direct quote)
 * The "External links" don't reflect on the "direction of the article". They're intended as a list of articles that "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" (WP:ELMAYBE). Once the list begins to infringe on the principle that "links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum" (WP:ELPOINTS), it can be hosted elsewhere. ARK (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed another passage that was sourced from primary materials. ARK (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved the "non-reliable" external links to a separate aggregation page off Wikipedia. ARK (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)