Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Spolsky


 * 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. Though the references may not meet our usual standard for notability, there is consensus that the subject is notable per criterion no.1 of WP:AUTHOR. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 19:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Joel Spolsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Almost all the sources cited are WP:PRIMARY, either material written by the subject or interviews with him, and not helpful in establishing notability. The one exception is the completely trivial Imdb search result, also not helpful in establishing notability. The subject has indeed written 5 books, but this falls far short of the achievement and wide recognition contemplated by WP:AUTHOR. Msnicki (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Author of several commercially published books (eg: ) and writing for magazines (eg: ). Also an Editorial Review (and hence reliable) on Amazon here states "Joel Spolsky is a globally recognized expert on the software development process." -- Ritchie333   (talk)  16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazon's "editorial review" is what they say about the author of a book they're trying to sell. It's all been cribbed, including that "globally-recognized expert" stuff, from what the subject says about himself on his bio page.  Even if was completely reliable (and frankly, I've got doubts about some of that "globally-recognized" hyperbole) it would still definitely not be independent.  Msnicki (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Well known software designer, author and blogger in the software community, founder of Fog Creek Software, and co-founder of Stack Overflow. He has been featured in a number of industry related independent sources as well as outside of the industry such as . --LoudHoward (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If he's that well-known, where are the reliable independent secondary sources talking about him? It's not very helpful to assert that you think he's well-known, etc., etc., without sources because here on Wikipedia, our personal opinions don't count.  Most of us are anonymous.  More to the point, neither WP:FAME nor WP:POPULARITY automatically confer notability.  If he's as notable as you think for the reasons you give, there should be a usable source out there that confirms that.  I don't think there is one.  Msnicki (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Spolsky is very well known in the software world, he's been a columnist in Inc. (magazine), and a Google search omitting his own sites still manages to turn up many thousands of hits, including several hundred visually-verifiable images. RossPatterson (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, per WP:FACTORS, neither WP:FAME nor WP:POPULARITY establish notability. As a rule of thumb all it does take to establish notability is 2 good sources.  Out of those "thousands" of WP:GOOGLEHITS, can you pick out even just 2 reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject?  I doubt it.  Msnicki (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Exactly what's unreliable and un-independent about the published books? I don't think Apress let any old book be published by any old person without some sort of editorial control over it. He's had a couple of under his belt now, that makes him notable in my view. Feel free to disagree all you like. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The information in his books and his capsule bios may be reliable but it's not independent because it was written by the subject. The whole point of notability is that others not connected to the subject must actually take note and they must do it in reliable sources.  This is why his books, blogs, interviews and everything else he had a hand in creating is unhelpful in establishing notability as we use the term here on Wikipedia.  From WP:Notability, " Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."  From WP:Third-party sources, "A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials."'  Also from WP:Third-party sources, "Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important."  Hope that helps.  Msnicki (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNUM aside, images??? You propose to verify statements in biography of living person by citing images? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BIO: though definitely significant, the subject was not a topic of multiple publications in reliable sources. As Msnicki argues, the 'author profile' writings in the sources by subject indeed are not independent of him. What is worse, similar descriptions exist for nearly every contributor to such sources, so concluding notability on such sources equals to recognizing all journalists (and people with at least two books written by them) inherently notable, which goes against common Wikipedia practices. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question Would an example of sources such as these not be enough to help establish notability? Keynote speaker profile from RailsConf 2008, GigaOm reference in an article about Facebook, Ars Technica reference in an article about Apple. --LoudHoward (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "speaker profile" is yet another of those "globally-recognized expert" things obviously supplied by the subject. The other two sources are trivial mentions, simply quoting the subject; they're certainly not about the subject.  So, no, they are not very helpful.  Msnicki (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In first case my rationale above applies. In second and third cases I would second the 'trivial mention' position, as statements by subject are used to cover completely unrelated topics. Quoting someone doesn't mean considering him worth mention or significant; the quoted material is implied significant though. Still it is quite below the WP:AUTHOR criteria #2–4, which you might wanted to address with these links. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes WP:AUTHOR. Is cited so often that even his blog posts get indexed by Google Scholar .—Ruud 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Possibly notable just for his own business interests, but certainly notable as a writer and commentator on the software industry. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering WP:AUTHOR: Spolsky passes 1. easily by being widely cited. See references to "Joel Spolsky" in printed books: searching for "Joel Spolsky" on Google Books - after removing self-references and hagiographies we are left with quite few dozen bona fide references to him and (articles on) his blog. That completely leaves out the large number of meaningful references to him and his work on well-known blogs and websites - though I have to agree that the top of the list of Google hits isn't very 'independent' and 'secondary'. So, try (yes, I know, he once worked for Microsoft) or see how the ACM directly feeds his blog into their 'blog roll' which consists of 37 blogs by ACM Queue authors, . 2. is covered by his Joel Test even if nothing else should show up. Number 3 and 4 are a bit difficult to apply to non-fiction authors in general, except for independent reviews and critiques. I agree that having a few of those would help, and I'm sure they exist - though my assertion is worth nothing here, of course. I would outright reject the assertion that interviews can never establish notability: while what the interviewee says is not independent at all, an interview in a respected and established periodical (as in: the New York Times, or ACM Queue, or the Wall Street Journal) is a clear indication that the interviewed person is notable. 89.98.48.31 (talk) 11:24, 10 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.