Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig L. Russell (software architect)


 * 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. — Aitias // discussion  00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Craig L. Russell (software architect)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No real notability shown. BLP lacking reliable sources, none found Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails notability requirements. Based upon the edit history and the license of the photo, the article is either an autobiography by the subject or the photo has a false license. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - appears to have co-authored at least one O'Reilly manual. Possible notability. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: You found no sources? Okay, here's 35 Google news hits, 80 Google scholar hits, and 20 Google book hits (a couple of which aren't him, but most are). I believe there's enough there to establish notability. And autobiography isn't a reason to delete, in any case. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found no independent reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Do any of your hits satisfy the guidelines suggested by wikipedia policies? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are you changing the rationale for the AFD? I was talking about notability (per the rationale) not whether there are sufficient sources to write an article about someone we agree is notable. So far as notability goes:
 * WP:CREATIVE: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Google Scholar appears to show him easily qualifying here.
 * WP:CREATIVE: 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. Again, Google Scholar shows he was an author of the Object Data Standard; this ACM search shows it's been cited dozens of times.
 * WP:ACADEMIC: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources...the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. See previous.
 * WP:ACADEMIC: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity...may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. I note that Java Data Objects, which he co-authored, is held in over 100 libraries and was published by O'Reilly.
 * He contributed to 97 Things Every Software Architect Should Know (ISBN 9780596522698, also published by O'Reilly); contributors are described as "today's leading software architects."
 * And so on, and so on. He qualifies under both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC in terms of citations; now it's just a matter of finding sources that talk about the person and not just his work. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is this we you talk of? Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I concede I did not consider the true relevence of the google scholar hits before my reply, I have not looked enough at what relevence the results are. When I said about reliable sources, "none found". I was meaning independent reliable sources ABOUT Mr Russell. I concede that citations and influences may make him notable but I'll leave that up to someone who better underdstands such requirements. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep : Subject clearly passes notability requirements as shown by Dori. Article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Varbas (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned account User:Azviz. I have removed his comments as banned users aren't allowed to post under new accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dori did not show that the "Subject clearly passes notability requirements". Hits are not reliable sources. Varbas (and other editor name used) knows that. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per everything Dori said, good work :) Jenuk1985  |  Talk  13:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - rubbish article, but he is notable per WP:CREATIVE. Bigger digger (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (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.