Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Karr O’Connor


 * 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. This very much appears to be an individual that roughly falls into a grey area in certain notability guidelines, given that he's clearly an important part of a highly notable project, and has received some coverage in reliable sources only in that context, while also receiving some moderately significant coverage (primarily in obituary form) in other sources of less certain reliability. Many calls for improvement have been made, though actual improvement from sources has so far been somewhat limited. This is certainly an individual that could be notable under our guidelines, but there is significant opinion in this discussion that as it stands it may fail the general notability guideline, and more evidence is needed to show he passes it. Reliably-sourced improvement is likely required if this article is to stay around long term, but there is not a consensus to delete it in this discussion. ~ mazca  talk 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Karr O’Connor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable computer scientist who does not satisfy WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know if this is the right place to do this, but I think I've demonstrated "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."


 * I'm not sure how to best demonstrate this in a way that will satisfy wikipedia, but certainly on Twitter there has been a global acknowledgement of his contribution. Lots of folks have testified about his contribution to their work in the last week on Twitter @AccessibleJoe - he had a big impact on a sector of the accessibility community for sure. I can't link to it here because Twitter seems to be blacklisted by Wikipedia.


 * I've pulled from several independent sources so the ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]" doesn't seem to apply either. I'm not sure what is missing. I've reviewed the links you sent and do not see what is missing. Mgifford (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve being a major contributor to WordPress's accessibility seems like a biggish deal. Worth trying to find more secondary sources that point to his achievements and wrangling the article more into a wiki-style format.Jessamyn (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Joseph was a very notable figure in web accessibility for over a decade. His effect and reputation affected a generation of developers. Digital accessibility as a whole is a field that hasn't gotten as much attention relative to its contribution to the development of technology, and O'Connor was influential in that community. There are existing Wikipedia pages for other people who similarly participated in W3C or web standards who don't seem to meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps rather than deletion, we could work a bit more on the article to make the case for inclusion? Shepazu (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all up for improving this piece.. I am uncomfortable with it still being marked under Articles for deletion. I've added references from IMDB, from the official journal from the California State University, Northridge as well as an acknowledgement from a book. Certainly it can be improved to be closer to the Wikipedia guidelines, but there are a lot of references already to indicate that this is someone who contributed. And yes, for folks outside of the web industry, contributing to WordPress's accessibility is a big deal. It affects 30% of the entire web. Celestina007 can you look at this again? Mgifford (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest here, and some apparent advertising intent. Deb (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry Deb advertising for what? I'm a bit confused here. Also unsure where there is a conflict of interest. Mgifford (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep calling him "Joseph", which people don't normally do with someone they don't know. If you were closely connected with him, that would be a COI. Also, you've included two external links in the text, which people generally do for advertising purposes - for example, referring readers to an Amazon page where they can buy one of his books or to a site where they can sign up to a conference. Deb (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I call lots of people by their first name. That said, I've already said I probably met him once. In no way would I say I was closely connected with him. I am happy to remove the external links. I was just trying to add references in a different way. I do not know that anyone will financially benefit from any of the links. I certainly didn't think it was a big deal to link them one way or another. I will change it though if it makes a difference. Mgifford (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You've offered zero evidence of conflict of interest; and the CoI you allege is far from "clear". Do you have any evidence, or would you like to retract the allegation?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — What  is saying & what I’m voicing very loudly is that your article is quite promotional & that you may have a possible conflict of interest with the subject of your article.Celestina007 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is it promoting? It may be badly written, but I do not understand what it is a promotion of? I do not have a COI. I did meet him once (I think), but am pretty confident that this is not sufficient to block me editing the article. I am stubborn, but that again isn't a reason to block participation. Mgifford (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. None of the sources in the article are reliable.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete- Not notable. Very poor sourcing. IMDb and various blogs (including wordpress) are not reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WordPress's own blog is a valid source for the voice of WordPress; and permissible under Wikipedia policies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * while it may be permissible to use some content from wordpress as a source, it is still a primary source.  We need multiple secondary (not primary) sources to establish notability.  Wordpress cannot be used to establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when was a company, writing about one of its former employees, in an official company organ, not valid for establishing notability? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since always. Otherwise every time a company hires someone and issues an official press release, that person would gain auto-notability. We need sources from outside the company where the person used to work.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve Since Wordpress is 35% of the web https://kinsta.com/wordpress-market-share/ his focus on getting accessible templates definitely improved the web. As well, a podcast is roughly equivalent to a newspaper column and appearing in as many as he did as well as running them? Keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.77.241 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — It should be noted by the closing administrator & all fellow editors that the IP address above has its first edit as the “Keep & Improve” !vote and as of this comment hasn’t contributed anything outside this. Preety strange. sock puppetry at work here?Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...or Dynamic IP address allocation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm an Accessibility Contributor to WordPress: this request for deletion was pointed out during our last week meeting and I'm writing because I'm probably the only one in the group with some knowledge of Wikipedia policies.
 * The problem with this request for deletion is twofold: there is a problem of possible conflict of interest and a problem with the content of the article.
 * - Possible conflict ot interest
 * I started contributing to WordPress a couple of years ago and I didn't know about Joseph Karr O’Connor himself before his death, since he left the group in 2016. As such, my point of view is not biased by having known him personally.
 * Mgifford is a Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer; he has a profile on WordPress website, but he doesn't contribute to WordPress. As such, I don't think there's a conflict of interest because WordPress and Drupal are independent projects. Instead, the fact that Joseph Karr O’Connor contributions to web accessibility are recognized outside the WordPress community may be an indication that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."
 * Also, when talking about WordPress, there is a difference between WordPress and WordPress.com: the latter is a blogging/hosting platform managed by Automattic Inc., the former is an open source project/software (naming can be really confusing, if you don't know the difference). Joseph Karr O’Connor was a contributor to WordPress open source project (as I am), not a former employee of WordPress.com. I know Wikipedia doesn't consider commercial promotion as the only form of promotion, but I don't think there's any form of promotion.
 * If there's a conflict of interest, it's about web accessibility (Mgifford also added the accessibility section to the WordPress article), but in this case I would like contributors that claim about a possible conflict of interest to better explain that, as requested by Mgifford.
 * - Article content
 * Here there are two problems.
 * Web accessibility experts are widely recognized as such inside the field, but work is generally done in groups and personal contributions are very difficult to register: as such, apart from personal blogs and social medias, it's very difficult to find sources to support the relevance of a single person. Also, Joseph Karr O’Connor was an expert on cognitive and learning disabilities, which is an even more specialized field inside web accessibility. Making a quick search, the only independent, but solid source I was able to find is the draft of this document on the World Wide Web Consortium website, where he is indicated as an "Invited Expert". I would say that this might be a good starting point and that with time it'll be possible to find more independent sources about him.
 * The article was first written a few days after Joseph Karr O’Connor's death, probably in the attept to honour his memory and his contributions to web accessibility in general and WordPress accessibility in particular. There have been some improvements since, they are probably not sufficient at the moment, but consider that this article is the work of a single person. I'd be happy to help with rewriting this article, so that it meets Wikipedia standards, but there's very little time left before the deletion will take place (if it takes place) and I can't do that in the next few hours.
 * In the end, I think that the article can stay on Wikipedia after some cleanup and adding more sources. I would suggest not to delete this article in the first place, but I explained at the beginning that I am involved in the same project Joseph Karr O’Connor was involved in and I don't want this to be considered as a potential conflict of interest. — Ryokuhi (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I did try to do some rewrites on the article when this AfD first came in. I did not know the subject so those edits should be okay. Would love to help with a rewrite with more sources, I do think the subject is noteworthy (and I voted keep above) Jessamyn (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I would like to see some further input here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Still on team Keep and Improve I feel like the criteria this article could meet is I feel like the problem we're getting into is whether "WordPress accessibility" is a field in and of itself or "important" enough to merit independent acknowledgement of the people who work within it. Secondary issue is that the sources for this sort of accomplishment are largely online and not, say, in major news media or print media. My argument is that they should be and this article has gotten significant enough rewrites that claims of promotion or conflict of interest are no longer relevant (fwiw, I didn't know Joe until helping with the article rewrite, in case that's relevant to my opinions here) Jessamyn (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (Joe is cited by all WordPress accessibility people)
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (Joe was a pioneer in accessible themes for WordPress)
 * Keep and improve I made revisions to help clarify the significance of the activities and accomplishments that were cited in the article when considering the subject’s notability. I knew the subject of the article, as did many involved in disability inclusion and technology accessibility. I vote to keep and improve the article so that others have the opportunity to further document his vital role in advancing accessibility. Glacialgrandeur
 * Comment — It should be noted that the account above was merely created three hours ago(from the time I am making this comment) & came directly to this AFD to !vote a keep. Quite a precocious talent if you ask me.Celestina007 (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin — An SPI has been opened here — Sockpuppet investigations/Mgifford. Celestina007 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - He seems to be a notable part of a major project- wordpress may not be popular with netizens, but the normie blogger types still use it by the millions. Still, the keep is weak and there's not a lot of coverage for him.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2020 (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.