Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Reekes


 * 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   redirect to Sosumi. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim Reekes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Utterly non-notable programmer. No in-depth coverage of this individual to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG, only passing mentions of creating a sound for Apple WP:BLP1E and a few interviews about this. Nothing beyond passing mentions, references to this article in media, and unreliable sources about the man. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to provide evidence subject is notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful.  All I found were lots of trivial mentions and WP:PRIMARY interviews.  Msnicki (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sosumi. He is discussed in many online sources but also in history books. For example The Apple Revolution (Random House 2012), Apple Confidential 2.0 (No Starch Press 2004). His name is out there and people will want to link to it and find it and we have enough sourcing to discuss in the Sosumi article. I believe he is a significant creative, but the sources don't have it yet covered beyond the Sosumi story, which is not enough to build a full biography article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This presumes that article survives its own AfD. Msnicki (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that one should be Kept, per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability established by and  and a general cultural frenzy for anything having to do with Apple. ~KvnG 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * IMDB only offers a one-line confirmation that he appeared in a documentary along with a lot of other people; that's a trivial mention. The second source is a blog entry that merely reprints the subject's own remarks verbatim; even if this was a reliable source (it's not) it's still WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability.  Msnicki (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I admit, I haven't watched the documentary. What leads you to believe his appearance is trivial? Boing Boing is an online magazine, not a blog. It is certainly not self published. I consider it reliable. There is a bit more to the article than the direct remarks. ~KvnG 16:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't say his appearance was trivial, I said the one-line entry in IMDB is trivial. His appearance might be a big part of the documentary.  But all of that is WP:PRIMARY, it's him giving his own opinions.  It's possible that documentary includes lots of other people talking about Reekes not the Macintosh, but that sounds unlikely and, even if true, would invite closer inspection whether any of it's really WP:INDEPENDENT.  Msnicki (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I am considering the documentary, not IMDB, to be the source. I don't understand how a documentary would be considered WP:PRIMARY for the purposes of establishing notability. The filmmakers considered Reekes notable enough to interview for a film about personalities at Apple. I consider that WP:SIGNIFICANT. ~KvnG 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the difference. From WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." And from WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." I hope that's helpful. Msnicki (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The film is made by a couple independent filmmakers. There's no indication that it is produced by or commissioned by Apple or Jim Reekes. It does quote information from primary sources as any good secondary source does but those excerpts are edited and put into context by the filmmakers. As is clear from the WP policy you've quoted, this is what secondary sources do. I've discovered that the film is available on YouTube (you'll have to search for Welcome to MacIntosh yourself as WP won't allow me to put YouTube links on this page. Definitely looks like a secondary source to me. Let me know if you don't agree. ~KvnG 23:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I do not agree. This is an insider's account of his own involvement in the story.  That's about as WP:PRIMARY as it gets.  See above.  To argue otherwise, you need to provide evidence that some substantial part of the documentary is really about Reekes himself, not merely adding his first hand account to the Macintosh story.   Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG actually does not require secondary sources, only sources independent of the topic. In any case, Reekes has no connection to the documentary, he is independent of its production and marketing. It's like if someone gave a quote to a journalist writing a newspaper article, that quote would be notable. Or if a journalist wrote a magazine article, or book, about Reekes based in part on interviews with Reekes. It's no different with a documentary. The producers and directors have full editorial control and can include/exclude content, make Reekes look any way they want. It's not a work by Reekes, it's a work about Reekes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not quite correct. From WP:GNG, ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." (emphasis added) And from WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added) The exceptions are the cases identified in WP:ANYBIO, where there's evidence of notability in lieu of sources.  This is not one of those cases.  But also, there is a difference between including a clip of Reekes telling his story and the documentary offering any secondary opinion of him or what he's said.  That's missing. At this point, I'm going to let it rest.  The closing moderator should certainly be capable of resolving questions of what the guidelines ask of us and I'm satisfied I have this right.  Msnicki (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 14:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2013 (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.