Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Pearson


 * 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 keep. The article in its state at AfD was apparently quite severely misrepresentative of the subject's accomplishments. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Chip Pearson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being a CEO of a company in itself is not an assertion of notability. The subject lacks enough in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the references provided in the article are mere mentions, press releases, comments by the subject which are not considered as an independent coverage and do not help to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

COMMENT - This discussion desperately needs context, because this article doesn't explain, at all, what this guy is really notable for! He changed MAC computing, profoundly, and permanently.

It's NOT, as the article presents it, that he founded a tech company, that has X amount of revenue, this or that financial stat, or this many employees. No... it's that he is a legit OG in the world of MAC computing because of the massive impact of the tools he developed and popularized. Granted you can't remove that from the company he used to do it, but he (and the company itself) are notable for disruptive innovation, specifically through the software tools he helped develop and popularize.

Here is the real story on notability for this guy, in non-technical terms. Before Jamf, MACs were for hipster dudes in coffee shops to use to do art or whatever, but your work computer? That was going to be a PC, because PC owned enterprise computing, completely. MACs stayed in coffee shops. The reason was that there were no tools to manage big networks of MACs at the enterprise level; they didn't exist. Enter Jamf, with tools for just that very thing. Fast Forward to present day... those tools are in widespread use... Almost all the largest fortune 500 companies and top universities are using them to manage large enterprise MAC networks. IBM! Freakin' IBM, the grandfather of PC computing now runs the worlds largest MAC deployment with like 300,000 devices using those tools. <--- THAT, is what is notable, not that the company made money from it and hired a lot of new employees, etc.

I hope that context is helpful in your analysis, because the article definitely doesn't say it (but it needs to, if it survives). Very few sources lay it out as plainly as I just did, but it helps explain things like, why are college MAC programming textbooks quoting this guy? Why is this guy giving keynote addresses at MAC conferences? Why is this dude the go-to guy for every tech journalist who needs a quote about enterprise MAC computing?

=
== Deleteopedia (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

KEEP - Based on the analysis & source assessment chart below, the cites do meet the general, as well as the more contextual, specific notability guidelines:


 * Meets "significant coverage" under WP:GNG .
 * "Multiple" sources enough, significant coverage in "most" isn't required (as the nomination indicates). Notability  only requires "multiple" sources  with significant coverage, see GNG's WP:SIGCOV (three sources is a general rule of thumb).
 * Sources below are not "mere mentions": This is the meat of the objection, so the assessment chart below addresses this for each source individually.
 * Meets "significant coverage" under WP:SNG  (better than the GNG alone; provides in-context guidelines & examples).
 * A person's" significant coverage" requirement for a single source is lower than other topics. Specifically, this is because WP:PEOPLE uniquely allows combining multiple articles to show "depth of coverage". In other contexts, each source individually must be in depth enough to show significant coverage. When a person's notability is at issue, no single individual source alone must contain significant coverage, stating in WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;    ... and,
 * Company notability is evidence of CEO's/Founder's Notability; Jamf, is notable under WP:COMPANY, which indicates It's not simply "a company" (as the nom states). Wikipedia agrees, (Jamf, specifically, is notable). In the specific context of publicly traded companies (JAMF is its NASDAQ symbol),WP:LISTED indicates a presumption of notability, "given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable" and also WP:LISTED indicates the exact type of source assessed below is ideal. It provides that "independent press coverage and analyst reports.. establish notability".

=
== Deleteopedia (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * KEEP: As per source chart above. RetiredProgrammers (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * KEEP: As per source chart above. VirtualSwayy (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep based on arguments presented by user:Deleteopedia and also meets Wp:GNG. Peter303x (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 3 February 2021 (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.