Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D Foy


 * 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 Kept. Consensus is clear that the subject meets the basic requirements of the general notability guideline for multiple reasons, especially as an author, and that this is verified sufficiently to retain the article and improve it. Steven Walling &bull; talk   23:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian D Foy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added an interview at perl.com, which I consider a reliable source about perl. Francis Bond (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An interview isn't really independent. It's not quite the same as if the subject simply self-published but it's not arms-length independence, either.  Also, the perl.com site is Tom Christiansen's site; this isn't a reliable news source.  It's a commercial site owned by someone who makes his living from Perl.  If there's only one article offered in support of notability, I think it should be more than just this interview.  Msnicki (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." From [Wikipedia:RS] In my opinion both perl.com and the Perl review are reliable according to this criteria. Francis Bond (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources can be reliable at establishing the facts they report. They cannot be used to establish notability.  Reliability is never a substitute for independence in establishing notability.  Msnicki (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see also the excellent argument posted today by User:Kww at Wikipedia talk:Notability pointing out that "Articles based on primary sources and sources related to the material (even if secondary sources) violate fundamental Wikipedia policies, not guidelines." Msnicki (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2011


 * Keep "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field." The books alone are sufficient for this. Would references to examples of those books being considered the authoritative reference works on Perl help? Pudge (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was wide recognition of his contribution to the enduring historical record in his field, I think we should be able to find people who say that. No one has.  Reviews of his books are not a substitute; they may establish that his books are notable but the most any review usually has to say about the author is his name.  From the opening paragraph at WP:N, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Msnicki (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "I think we should be able to find people who say that. No one has."  Utterly false.  People say it all the time.  Just because you didn't find any, doesn't mean they don't exist.  More to the point, however, he clearly -- indisputably -- has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  That's the end of story, frankly. I've seen dozens of reviews on Learning Perl and Mastering Perl.  Pudge (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:AUTHOR, and foy clearly qualifies under item #3: "The person has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."   Msnicki's comments above seem to ignore this guideline, which suggests that he or she is not familiar with the relevant policies. —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You've omitted part of the sentence and I think that changed the meaning. What it says is, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  I think the emphasis here is on the collective body of work and on the significance of the work.  I don't think this contemplates a half-dozen how-to books, even if a couple were reviewed.  But also, this point has been discussed twice very recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), at 1, in the context of some arguments that came up in the (similar situation) Jesse Liberty AfD and at 2 in rejecting a proposal that simply being published should be sufficient to establish notability.  Msnicki (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the emphasis is on "collective body of work". It says "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work".  I do not understand why you suppose that the part after "or" is emphasized over the part before "or".  I do not see any emphasis in either direction. I agree that simply being published is insufficient to establish notability, but I don't see the relevance to this discussion for two reasons: The work in question is, as the guideline requires, "the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and second, because proposed policies, whether accepted or rejected, do not supersede current policy.  —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can agree to disagree. By your argument, anyone who wrote anything that got at least two reviews is notable.  I don't think that was the intention.  Only one of the books, the most introductory, Learning Perl, appears to have even been reviewed at all.  No sources are cited in the articles about his other books, so I'm not sure they're at all notable, even assuming that could establish the notability of the author.  I expect more.  I expect sources that actually offer the significant coverage about the subject.  Msnicki (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have assumed, without checking, that Learning Perl is in fact the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. My !vote depends on this being the case. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible Learning Perl has been reviewed elsewhere, but having clicked through the links in the article, this is the only citation offered in the article that might establish notability and, frankly, if this is all there is, I'd argue that's not enough to establish notability for the book, never mind the author. Msnicki (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Poking around and Googling, it looks to me like Mastering Perl may be notable, even though the article doesn't look at all promising. I was able to find minor mentions here and there, not enough to establish notability or even to bother listing, but enough of them to suggest that if someone was diligent, maybe it's out there.  I wasn't able to find anything on Intermediate Perl; I don't think that one is promising, so I have nominated it to Afd at Articles for deletion/Intermediate Perl, though I also corrected the article to add Foy's name as an author if it stays.  Msnicki (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever you like Not that I care if I'm in Wikipedia, but the books are the least of my many contributions to Perl. If you want to delete me, don't argue about the books. It's a stupid thing to argue about. Argue that the article sucks and no one cares enough to make it any good, making it unworthy of Wikipedia. Delete it for being low-quality despite whatever you might think of my contributions to Perl. You don't need any wikilawyering to say the article is bad as written. -- brian d foy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.56.172 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on your notability is irrelevant. Pudge (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Terms like notability have a more technical meaning on WP than people expect from ordinary usage. Notability isn't about whether the subject seems notable.  Here, it's all and only about whether individuals not connected to the subject have actually taken note and that they've done it in reliable sources.  Sometimes that will seem unfair that we'll delete otherwise good stuff just because it didn't have sources.  But it comes directly from two of Wikipedia's pillars:  No original research WP:NOR and the threshold for inclusion is verifiability WP:VERIFY, not truth.  Once notability has been established, primary sources can be used to fill in other facts and other content.  As a rule of thumb, a couple decent magazine or newspaper articles (but not an interview and not a blog) are all it takes to clear the notability hurdle.  It would be helpful to know of anything like that that's been overlooked.  But please see also, An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of.  Msnicki (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep multiple major books on a subject are sufficient for notability . As for low quality, we do not delete for that because it's fixable. Wikipedia is a work in progress.    DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 24 August 2011 (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.