Talk:Howard Gobioff

Dancer?
I removed "and dancer" from Gobioff's description as a computer scientist and dancer. The reference source mentions very late in the article that Gobioff became an avid dancer in grad school, but it never demonstrates that he pursued it as any more than a hobby. It does not seem inherent to his notability. Keegan (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Keegan,
 * Thank you for the thought that you've put into this edit. Although I wish that this fact had not been redacted, as it is not _not_ factual, I do appreciate you pointing this out. And I appreciate what this experience has made me realize: that writing Wikipedia articles is a democratic process, not an autocratic process. It's given me greater insight into and respect for this area of Wikipedia: the part where the volunteer authors talk it out (not duke it out) over what should and should not be included in an article, and how a topic should best be represented. And I hope to learn more about this aspect of encyclopedic writing.
 * Please help me understand this. What are the notability criteria for minor or lesser facts in a biographical article? I've looked and WP:MOSBIO and WP:WPBIO, but they do not say either way. I even checked WP:BLP, and it was consistent with core content policies outlined there in that it was neutral, verifiable, and not original. Howard Gobioff's dancing may not contribute to his overall notability, but still he was notable for enough other reasons documented in verifiable sources to warrant an article about him. That is not in question. What is in question is whether or not Howard's dancing is notable enough for this article, and I think it is. Howard's dancing seems to be notable because it distinguishes him from all the other computer scientists and Google employees who were otherwise very much like him. His dancing makes him unique. His dancing makes him special. His dancing makes him memorable. And it helps explain that twinkle that you see that you see  in his eyes in his photograph. There's more worth knowing about this guy than the fact that he worked at Google. There was much more to this man than his degrees and his patents and his contributions to computer science. He had a creative, artsy, even gothy side to him. I've seen it all mentioned online. I just need to know what I need to do to demonstrate that it is noteworthy here in on Wikipedia.
 * The fact that Babe Ruth was born in Baltimore, Maryland isn't a noteworthy fact in and of itself, but that fact is still included in his article. The fact that Babe Ruth was born in Pigtown, "a rough neighborhood of Baltimore," makes his story more compelling and his article more interesting reading. The same, I propose, is true of Howard Gobioff being a dancer.
 * There are almost 500 people on the list of computer scientists. And there are almost 200 people listed in the category Google employees. If I had a bot that could tell me how many of those humans were also dancers or artists or musicians, I would read those articles first, if there were any. I hate to play the gender card, but... that's what I'm interested in reading about.
 * I'd really like to see "dancer" back in the article, ideally in the lead section, as part of the hook, but I grant that a more appropriate place may be the section on the Gobioff Foundation, since it may very well have been Howard's dancing that formed the basis for Howard's philanthropy.
 * This article should be about the totality of who Howard Gobioff was, and his being a dancer contributes to that totality.
 * Again, Keegan, I'm grateful to you for this learning experience. And I look forward to your hearing your thoughts on this.
 * Yours sincerely, Msannakoval (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * the guideline you're looking for, that I should have referenced, is WP:LEAD.
 * First, let me say that I think it's interesting that Gobioff was a dancer; if there was an appropriate place to put it in the article I'd have shifted it there, or more likely it would already be there.
 * Howard Gobioff's notability comes from the fact that he played a part in some significant developments in computer science. This alone clearly makes him unique and memorable since he's notable enough on these merits to have a Wikipedia article. The purpose of the lead of the article is to provide the concise encyclopedic nutshell of why someone/thing is significant. As I often frame it to those new to Wikipedia, the lead is all you would find in print encyclopedias. Where we differ is everything that comes after.
 * There are two related parts of LEAD that apply here: relative emphasis and opening paragraph. The issue with "dancer" is that the issue is not addressed further in the article, and there's no other sourcing that I could find that could show dancing to be a significant part of his notability. Putting information in a lead such as Babe Ruth's hometown or birth/death dates is significantly trivial, something that is left to editorial judgement based on the weight that the trivia is given later in the article. Gobioff being a dancer is not significantly trivial if it's never fleshed out in the article.Talent, skills and passions, unless they relate to what makes a subject encyclopedic, are noteworthy for other parts of the article as they may fit, but not the first sentence or the lead in general. If there's a way to create a "personal life" section that contains other sourced information of at least trivial significance, I'd more than welcome the information there. Keegan (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)