Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Shea

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep.

I also note that a significant number of votes (both delete and keep) argue that this content might be more appropriate in the article about CSS Zen Garden. I concur with that conclusion and will exercise my right as an ordinary editor to be bold and make the merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dave Shea
This appears to be a vanity page. I can find no convincing evidence that Dave Shea is "influential". Kelly Martin 06:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. utcursch 05:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a vanity page as described here. Shea is less known than are his productions, which are influential (if perhaps mostly at second or third hand). Shea's CSS Zen Garden really is a well-known site among site developers. While some of the text and some of the designs (selectable on the right) of the main page strike me as a little twee, there's a lot of solid stuff here: kludge-free, clean CSS that's usable in the real world where most people use second-rate browsers. I'd previously encountered recommendations of CSSZG's solutions in some of the best-informed contributions to htmlhelp.com's BBS; it also comes first in Eric Meyer's short list of CSS resources at css edge. CSSZG is not just another site, or even just another site about sites. Shea is also a contributor to alistapart, etc. While I'd be the first to agree that writing a blog does not make you encyclopedic, Shea's mezzoblue is actually informative: it's a newsletter in the form of a blog.  -- Hoary 07:48, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he is not well-known but his productions are influential, they should have articles, not him. jni 08:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an amateur web developer (who embraces web standards), I have come across css Zen Garden (and Dave Shea) from several different sources, as well as pointing others to it to understand CSS; it certainly has influenced a large number of web developers. I also disagree that someone who isn't as well as his creations does not merit an article&mdash;if his creations are influential, then by extension, so is he. I also do not believe that he "fails the Google test"&mdash;my search for Dave Shea brought up plenty of references to Mr. Shea; in fact, only the tenth refers to a different Dave Shea. Several interviews and/or biographies are among the top links. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 09:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dave Shea is both notable and influential. His blog and his Zen Garden creation have been featured in several mainstream and design publications. His influence is most certainly comparable to that of Eric Meyer, whose article survived VfD. Phils 12:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, CSS Zen Garden is notable, Dave Shea isn't. --fvw *  14:36, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 17:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Wyss 21:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Supposing that his creature is well known, he is not well known except in that context. Therefore, a discussion of him should be with it, and not as a separate article with duplicate material.  Geogre 22:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Certainly a valid point of view, but I'd point out that hundreds (though by no means all) of the, um, creatures who toss or kick balls around for a living are only well known in those contexts. -- Hoary 00:55, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
 * I think that most of them should be discussed only in their team articles, if their teams should have articles. The ones who do something else (become spokesmen for rape awareness before they get indicted for rape, who do public service announcements about drinking and driving after they've been convicted of running over folks while high, or just pose in their underwear for sports magazines) have a claim to being known and sought under their individual names.  For whatever it's worth, I think we generally do only have articles on the endomorphs who have wider accomplishments than running around with balls.  Geogre 04:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 23:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Megan1967 01:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with CSS Zen Garden, and redirect. ~ mlk &#9993; &#9836; 03:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
 * Merge or keep, don't care which. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * A good ol' "if I've not heard of him, he can't be important". Keep. Dan100 11:11, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Without changing my vote to keep, I beg to differ with you. Shea is indeed a lot less known than are his creations -- which I happen to think is very healthy and indeed the way things should be (the reverse of "celebrity culture" whereby David Beckham seems more famous for his appearance in ads and his hairstyles than for his footie) -- so even if you look for him he doesn't spring out of Google and grab you by the, um, whatever. And if you look at the original article, it was very slovenly. I think the onus should be on the writer of a new article to indicate (however imperfectly) how the subject is notable, and the writer of this one hardly bothered. -- Hoary 13:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cleduc 06:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samaritan 08:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stepheno 13:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.