Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berny Goodheart


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Berny Goodheart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Article has no third party references. Goodheart wrote what appear to be some obscure and mostly out of print technical course books. Amazon --Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Uncertain but maybe delete for now simply so it can be restarted better later (if it can, as this has existed since May 2004) as I simply found nothing better than this, this and this. Pinging tagger and author .  SwisterTwister   talk  05:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment His notability is from pre-1995, therefore requires paper sources to back up. He was an early Unix person known to all at the time and his books were pretty much the standard references in the field. (I was using them at work in 1993 for example. We didn't have the Internet then.) I realise this article needs moar for 2015 as opposed to 2004 ... I'll ask around - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted on my social media "Anyone able to add moar to the Berny Goodheart article on Wikipedia? It's skimpy enough that it's just been put up for deletion, and frankly it needs references to why anyone cares about this guy to stay. Please spread around the old Unix people you know." So hopefully we should be able to turn up Wikipedia-suitable actual references for his notability.
 * (Anyone here from my link: this is not a vote, please add references to the article :-) ) - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the AUUG journal is available via Google books and yields at least mentions:, , some of which review his books. He is also mentioned in some O'Reilly books. Given the paucity of information from that time, hopefully these will be sufficient. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if this individual is notable, the article doesn't stand on its own as even a stub - it reads like Linked-in profile and has has no citations in 11 years.  Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced BLP of questionable notability. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2015 (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.