Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brion Vibber


 * 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 No consensus. Tyrenius (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brion Vibber

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yes, he's useful, has a day named after him and so on, but I really don't think he's notable. I very much doubt he would have an article if he wasn't working for Wikimedia. Seriously guys... what's next, an article about Rob Church? The article isn't even any good. This should redirect to either MediaWiki or Wikimedia Foundation. Yes, I realize I could point it to either of those things without listing it here, but you know full well that drama would ensue – Gurch 13:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you let Vibber himself know? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, though I assume he isn't concerned about whether or not he has an article, since it's been there for several months and he hasn't made any comments on it. Perhaps he isn't even aware of it... or he avoids it so as not to be accused of creating a conflict of interest, which I know some other people (e.g. Jimmy Wales) have been accused of a few times (whether fairly or unfairly, I don't intend to comment) – Gurch 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have left a message – Gurch 15:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. No redirect needed. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think leaving a redirect behind may be a good idea simply because redirects are very effective at discouraging re-creation – Gurch 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the page was originally a redirect for nearly a year, and then only created a month ago. I'm not sure how effective such a redirect would be in the future. Rigadoun (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Names of people famous for one organisation and nearly unknown outside them are usually redirected to the organisation's article, because that would serve the reader searching on the name best - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep being the CTO of Wikimedia seems notable, and this person has been at the forefront of other notable projects as well. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems common here (and quite reasonable) to include the primary authors of notable free software. It makes sense--if the software is notable, why shouldn't its creator(s) be? There are articles on folks like Eric Allman (sendmail), Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP), etc. It's pretty hard to argue that these guys are notable for something else. I anticipate the argument that free software is often written by hundreds of volunteers, but just as in the above cases, there are usually a small number of initial creators and/or primary authors that are really the driving force behind the software. Certainly Mediawiki is a notable piece of software--it might not have been if it hadn't been used by lots of other websites, but it has indeed overtaken other wiki software and is now a pretty major part of the infrastructure of the net. I think at least its primary forces--Me, Magnus, and Brion--merit articles here. We may not be RMS or Guido, but certainly one doesn't have to be a "celebrity" to be an important author/inventor/scientist. Yes, I realize that I am arguing for the inclusion of my own bio, but with full disclosure at least. --LDC (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a redirect to MediaWiki at least ;-) For comparison, look at someone like Thomas Dickey, who has an article as the maintainer of several minor but notable packages - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Borderline keep - Brion's getting increasingly noted and doing press and talks and so forth. Failing that, back to a redirect if he's not famous enough this year - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have zero competency to vote on subjects in this field, but as a matter of simple logic, I find Lee Daniel Crockers reasoning sound, if his characterisation of the situation is accurate. It should be noted though, that it is not known what Brions own view on the matter is, and that should have some (don't know how much) influence on the decision. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Unless a biography's subject wants the article deleted (and Brion would have informed us if this were the case) their opinion is not normally taken into account; I don't see how this is any different 86.139.87.58 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. It is practically empty anyway. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2007 (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.