Talk:Kevlin Henney

History
I did a history only undeletion on the old article since this was created as a decent one. --Phroziac(talk) 12:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Advert
Is this really like an advert? It doesn't seem like spam to me 194.74.155.39 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Resumes are adverts; this one's been edited by "more than one" editor whose main activity has been to increase the number of nice things to say about the topic. Tedickey (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how "advertising" policy can apply to living person. IMHO, question of notability can be raised, but as soon as notability is established, I don't see any advertising in the wording. Ipsign (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This has all of the attributes. If it were done a little nicer, I'd have simply tagged it as a resume TEDickey (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I look at WP:NOTSOAPBOX, section "Advertising", I do not see any resemblance (to start with, he's not a company). Can you clarify what do you mean? Ipsign (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic is little more than a list of features, no useful discussion. A run-of-the-mill resume provides more insight into the subject. TEDickey (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, my problem was in that template uses word "advertisement" while its scope is indeed much broader, probably covering all WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Anyway, I agree that wording is inappropriate. As I see it, sections "Presentations", "Quotations", "Source contributions" and this kind of "External Links" don't really belong here. Do you think it would become better if we simply drop them (maybe moving reference to "The Uncertainty Principle" into the plain text, it was a rather important presentation)? Then the article will become a very obvious stub, but at least it won't look self-promoting and IMHO will become more appropriate. Ipsign (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Important" would require some reliable sources from independent third-parties who give evidence that they noticed the given item, and that they found it important. TEDickey (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that if going this way (requiring proof for every minor point of importance analysis), at least half of Wikipedia would go out of the window. Are you sure that there is a policy or guideline which requires me to provide formal proof that certain publication is important enough to mention it for the author whose notability is not disputed? If yes, could you please refer me to one? Also, the very fact of a 3rd-party allowing the subject to be presented on the conference is a verifiable one, and AFAIK qualifies as *some* proof of importance, doesn't it? Ipsign (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I didn't mean to *say* in the Wiki article that this publication is "important", what I've meant is that in my opinion it is important enough to simply mention this presentation as a fact (which is IMHO a verifiable one); is it ok in this interpretation? Ipsign (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure - that's why anyone can challenge any unsourced statement, and lacking a source, remove it. TEDickey (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that we're still talking at cross purposes; I've made change I was intending to (see phrase "In October 2009, Henney..."), are you going to challenge it? If yes, please elaborate in detail (with references to specific policies/guidelines). I feel it is verifiable statement of fact, and as such may belong here. It can easily be that I don't understand something, but I would really appreciate a detailed explanation. Ipsign (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The link given doesn't provide the cited information, however this related link does TEDickey (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed it. Ipsign (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks TEDickey (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As per Ipsign, I have removed presentations, quotations and source contributions. Relevant material should ideally be worked into the prose. The external links section is standard, and I think all the remaining links fulfill WP:ELYES. Regards,  (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you feel that first two references to minor articles in C Vu and Overload belong to the Wikipedia? As far as I know, there is nothing really special about them. Such authors usually have tons of articles (only Overload bibliography lists a few dozens for Kenny), and my feeling is that listing all of them isn't a good idea, and listing only two is IMHO quite strange - why these two? Ipsign (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I definitely see your point and have no objection to their removal. Regards,  (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)