Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jono Bacon


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Jono Bacon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO; has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources independent of the subject; see also Articles for deletion/Matthew D. Sacks. —  Jeff G. ツ  03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - he has released a lot of relevant books and scientifical articles, those include the 2009 title "The Art of Community: Building the new age of participation", which spawned a seminary which still occurs until recently every year, he is the one which also went from Ubuntu's developer to be its "official" guider, he has collected a lot of material from willingly ubuntu user and created The Official Ubuntu Book, he is mentioned in several relevant sites which are within internet scope, LinuxToday, Linoob, TechBytes, but also from mainstream news sites and newspaper such as ComputerWeekly, OnLamp, TechRadar, InfoWorld, PC Magazine, Linux Magazine, among others. Eduemoni↑talk↓  04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He has not only appeared in those magazines, but also contributed within them. Edue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 04:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - while the article had no independent third party refs that showed WP:N I have now added one that does establish this. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. Even accepting Ars Technica as a reliable source for the sake of discussion, the story mentions Jono Bacon only in the context of planned future accomplishments (see WP:CRYSTAL).  The Southern California Linux Expo page bio is promotional in nature and presumably not fully independent.  The O'Reilly sources identify Bacon as an author of specific books, but that isn't enough for notability, and since O'Reilly published and is trying to sell these books, the independence of these sources can be questioned.  All the referenced pages in Bacon's own blog are, well, right out per WP:SPS.  Same with the page from Mark Shuttleworth's blog.  If there is any other source here that meets the requirements of being "reliable" and "independent of the subject", it's hard to find a needle in a haystack.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming that O'Reilly, a major publisher, cannot be used as a source for information as to its own authors? Francis Bond (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. O'Reilly is presumably a reliable source of information about its authors.  However, what we're dealing with here is notability — and the policy says that notability requires substantial coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject — and O'Reilly does not satisfy that requirement w/r/t Jono Bacon.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep In my opinion it was already adequately sourced, but I have added an interview in Ubuntu User as well. Francis Bond (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the independence of pretty much all those sources (except the Ars Technica one) is really suspect. We need substantial coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2011 (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.