Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Hagen


 * 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   delete. The issue of lack of sourcing is not very well addressed. There are several assertions that Hagen is an important figure in TeX development, but there is no real evidence that being a contemporary developer, or president of Nederlandstalige TeX Gebruikersgroep (NTG) is an encyclopedic achievement, especially when the person and the group he leads, appear to be fairly low profile in the community at large. Much of the referencing is to webfora or other noticeboards where Hagen is a member, and none of that really contributes to the subject's notability. With the reliable sourcing issue unresolved, I am closing this with a deletion result. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hans Hagen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Software developer with no claim of notability and no reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Oneiros (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Oneiros (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. He's one of the most important developers in the TeX world today. The article shows this and has reliable sources (the interview). Disclosure: I'm a friend of Hans.--Oneiros (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. No reliable web notability, and a "strong keep" from the subject's friend is WP:POV or WP:OR. This article is rubbish and should be removed. &mdash; Timneu22 ·  talk 13:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I don't know him personally, but he is very important in TeX community. You can find many conference papers, articles and books written by him. He frequently speaks at TeX conferences, e.g. http://river-valley.tv/tag/hans-hagen/ --Rivanvx (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you find any secondary reliable sources that document coverage of the subject at conferences or of the subject's books? I have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I searched for his name in the Google book search, along with various other things to sort through the results, to make sure it was the right guy. Only entries I find is that they mention his name as the creator of that system. .  Is there anything out there on this guy other than an interview on a site dedicated to his industry, or this http://river-valley.tv/about-us/ site which is just recordings of confidences?  Anything independent of the source?   D r e a m Focus  01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Related AFDs are Taco Hoekwater Till Tantau  D r e a m Focus  01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to ConTeXt until someone finds independent reputable sources discussing the person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He might well be "of the most important developers in the TeX world today" but it is a very small world and there are no independent biographical sources. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's a bit small minded to claim that the pope is notable only among priests.  The natural audience is anyone seriously involved in technical communication who wishes to learn the history of their tools, precisely what an encyclopedia exists to enable.  I also think there is a peculiar notability bias against individuals whose work is so self-evidently important to the community they serve, that no busy-minded person sees any point in publishing a notable article about the fact (which if you think about it, is secondary to the work itself).  There's enough here not to be an outright embarrassment, and if this project continues to deliver at the established pace, his notability will only increase.  On the other hand, Taco Hoekwater is presently so thin as to be far, far away from even a week keep with arched eyebrows. &mdash; MaxEnt 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another short comment after a second read. I understand the sources are weak, but they strike me as adequate to document a person's accomplishments when conducted in plain view.  I don't agree that colour commentary such as His talks are mostly known for diverse style and presenting features that everyone believed were impossible to do with TeX. are permissible relative to those sources.  Finally, it bears noting that he has an auteur relationship to a software product whose notability is not contested.  &mdash; MaxEnt 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For anyone reviewing the article now, please note that none of the 8 footnotes are actually sources of information, they are just external links to projects Hagen is involved with, offering zero information on him. As of now there is just one single source in the entire article and that is the web interview. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Not sure if I'm allowed to vote here at all, but just a few comments to make. The fact that he has been a president of NTG and involved in mentioned projects is something that can be checked in references (if there are not enough references for that part, additional ones may be added; there are plenty financial reports about DANTE/NTG/GUST projects in TeX magazines). The supporting of community can be checked on the mailing list, as well as his presence on conferences and numerous of his articles in magazines. I completely agree that there are no "yellow media" links about his personal life, but I don't think that any of his very personal life that's not connected to ConTeXt would belong to wikipedia anyway. Just about the only non-citable source of information in description seems to be his birth date. I'm not sure if that one is really needed here anyway, but if definition of encyclopedia entry requires that, so let it be. If anyone tells me which references exactly are missing (for which piece of information), I can try to find them and add them. Can someone please tell me how to remove the request to delete the photo? I have forwarded author's explicit permission to use it to suggested e-mail, but got no response so far. &mdash;Mojca Miklavec (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Notability (people) and Verifiability because the unreliable sources are insufficient. Though I would oppose a merge of content sourced to mailing lists and other sources of that nature, I would be all right with a "delete and redirect to ConTeXt". Cunard (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment finding sources outside the TeX community (i.e. independent) about Hans will be hard if not impossible. But I have to ask: Is that really necessary? Have a look at Ulrich Drepper: Surely a notable person. But no reliable sources. (I know that pointing at other articles is a non-argument and I'll happily take this discussion somewhere else). The same is probably true for most entries in Category:Computer specialist stubs.--Oneiros (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  05:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  05:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. In response to the above, just because Hans is a techie who works on computers all day doesn't mean we have any less responsibility in presenting a neutral biography verifiable in independent reliable sources than we do in our articles about Lady Gaga or Michael Phelps.  If anything, it might even be argued that it's more important to source marginal BLPs with extreme care, as misinformation can go far longer without being discovered than it would in a high-profile article with a lot of daily traffic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The only in-depth source about him is an interview in tug.org. Pcap ping  05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The interviews have been published as a book; see the article.--Oneiros (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike others here, I've never said tug.org is unreliable. But, it's only one, even if republished in various media. See also my comments in the AfD for Taco Hoekwater, which uses the same source. Pcap ping  10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. And thanks for Articles for deletion/Ulrich Drepper, although I see a general lack of trying WP:ATD.--Oneiros (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, This entire discussion is misguided in my view. Hans Hagen is the creator and maintainer of one of the most powerful pieces of typography and typesetting software in existence today. The stamp he leaves here and in other areas of the TeX community, such as MetaPost and luatex, is above and beyond the criteria of notability. His biography should be available to people researching ConTeXt and/or TeX. Any deficiencies should be remedied, but asking for a delete is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.From my vantage point as a professional researcher, I can state that it is pedantic at best, and sophistical at worst, to argue for the deletion of an article about an important figure just because available information about that person is limited. The emphasis should be on gathering more information, not a priori denying users access to the limited amount of information that is available on an important figure within an important and dynamic niche and intersection of the software, typesetting, and typography universes. And the current sources from within that niche are perfectly reliable: The people involved with TUG are generally professionals and experts. It is neutral because TUG in general takes a neutral stand with respect to ConTeXt, not one of advocacy. And professionals and experts with a relevant interest will be sure to notice mistakes and/or lack of balance: The TeX community is not monolithic. User:Ishamid:Ishamid (talk) 16:30 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, due to the lack of substantive coverage in secondary sources. -- Pink Bull  17:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to ConTeXt. Clearly relevant to the scope of that article, and insufficient sourced material for a stand-alone bio Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose a merge because the sources in this article are unreliable; thus, the content fails Verifiability and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2010 (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.