Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Larman


 * 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 still desperatly needs more and better sources, but notability has been established and beyond that it's cleanup. The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Craig Larman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Googling turns up nothing except WP:PRIMARY sources, which are unhelpful at establishing notability. The subject has written several books but falls far short of the achievements contemplated by WP:AUTHOR. Realistically, the article offers no reason why this individual should be notable. Msnicki (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLPDELETE. See also related discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - Seems to easily meet WP:ACADEMIC #1 (maybe #4 and/or #7 also). Just from "Scholar" links in the AFD Nom, his book Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (3rd Edition), for example, is listed as cited 75 times by other published academic works. Of the 7 books cited in the article, 6 of them are in the Library of Congress Catalog http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=craig+larman&searchCode=GKEY%5E*&searchType=0&recCount=100 Celtechm (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, cite reliable sources supporting the claim, as required per . — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Response I guess the basis of my argument is in the following passage from WP:BIO: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." My interpretation is that primary sources are enough, so long as they adequately establish that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" per WP:AUTHOR. I believe both apply here. Celtechm (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict between WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC: there is no requirement for biography coverage, but reliable sources should demonstrate the recognition. As you apply to recognition as a reason to keep this article, my question steel stands: what sources acknowledge this recognition? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree... Not a conflict at all... WP:BIO simply provides additional guidance to apply to BLPs for "academics" that is not also given in WP:ACADEMIC (Namely that primary sources can be used to prove notability for Academics). Examples of such recognition are easy to find if you bother to look for them. Example is Google Scholar info on 3rd book listed in article "Applying UML and Patterns:..." lists 2352 citations of this work.. 75 of the citing works are listed here: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1044919 (Use the "Cited By" tab) I see opportunities to provide similar data for several of his other books that each have 500+, 300+ and etc citations. Take a minute to look and see for yourself. So... In Summary... Even if we only count the 75 citing works I have specifically named here (of potentially 2300+) for the one book (of his 7 or more known books), I think we can establish that his work is "notably influential in the world of ideas" per WP BIO and proves notability. Celtechm (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did you get this idea? WP:BIO clearly states otherwise: "primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." The additional criteria you cite are specifically attributed as not guaranteeing inclusion. Ultimately states that in such situation separate article is inappropriate. Also note, that the fact that a person is cited doesn't mean that [s]he is "notably influential in the world of ideas"; this approach stretches the guidelines by too far — any claim of such influence should be verifiable to reliable sources, not to the numbers of citations in other works. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See my first Response. Passage = ..."academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." I think this is very clearly written as an exception to the "normal" guideline that you are quoting. Feel free to disagree. Celtechm (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you've noticed the "their biographies" part of the sentence? Biography is only a subset of person's coverage, along with recognition, which is the basis of additional criteria of WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. That is probably the reason that both guidelines insist on insufficiency of primary sources for the purpose of determining notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't follow your logic. What that passage means to me is that Wikipedians don't write a very good manual. I've explained my interpretation extensively. If you believe the words "their biographies" is somehow a critical factor that drastically alters the meaning of the guideline, please explain your reasoning. Convince me. Celtechm (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether there is something to explain. WP:BIO states "Basic" and "Additional criteria", clearly stating meeting "Basic criteria" (subject must be covered in multiple published independent reliable sources, describing him/her in depth) is necessary but insufficient for passing guideline. "Additional criteria" are attributed as unnecessary and insufficient; about academics they say that academic's biographical trivia may be covered with primary sources, which doesn't interfere with the "Basic criteria". That is explained in detail within WP:ACADEMIC: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Verifiability. However, for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." That is: in the lack of reliable, independent sources the subject should not be included. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Yikes, I did a quick Google Scholar on "Craig Larman" and his first single-authored book is cited by 2352.  Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC -- which does not require coverage of the individual, but cites / discussions / uses of their work.  That's what the the first test means: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and if you look at all the other tests you will see that this is a common thread.  We don't look for mainstream or secondary resources covering the individual -- that's quite rare, since it's much more important that consumers of media receive adequate information about footballers, entertainers, celebrities and occasionally politicians if sufficiently scandalous.  The gist of WP:ACADEMIC is that scientists and academics are notable through their research.  --Lquilter (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regardless of the above !votes, in order for this article to be kept there must be reliable sources in the article as it is a BLP. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 16 August 2012 (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.