Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Pugh (computer programmer) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Reliable sources are king. They're missing here, so fails notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ken Pugh (computer programmer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of reliable, independent sources. This article was nominated for deletion over a year ago and the close stated a lack of consensus. No productive edits have occurred since that time so I am renominating it. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Maybe delete - This would seem like it could be notable but I'm not finding many sources good aside from here, here and here (and I searched, News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary). Most of the results are self-authored and not much third-party or overall good coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is always hard to find independent sources for people who work on the commercial side of computing rather than the academic side. While he is not as well known as Steve McConnell or Steve Maguire (there's an article that needs work), Pugh was a columnist in the 1990s for C User's Journal and C++ Journal. More recently his 2006 book Interface Oriented Design was reviewed in IEEE Micro. His other 2006 book, Prefactoring, won the Jolt award. His 2010 book, Lean-Agile Acceptance Test-Driven-Development, reviewed in SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, is cited in articles on Google Scholar even though it's a practitioners book. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because commercial computing people are less notable in general. Are there any secondary RS that talk about his column or the reviews of his books? Citations are not proof of notability. Significant coverage in independent secondary RS is. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Fails WP:AUTHOR; at best, the allegedly award-winning book, if the award is even notable, would be the candidate for an article. Some of the reviews cited are just one-offs of a particular book.  Most of the others are blogs or promoting the release of a book.  It's also a borderline WP:G11 resume / CV.  Otherwise, it's just a guy writing books about an otherwise-notable concept (Agile or Test-driven development), but he doesn't otherwise appear to be a widely-recognized, widely-cited expert, nor did he apparently originate any of the concepts he writes about.  -- slakr  \ talk / 07:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As StarryGrandma. But Selected Reviews, Selected Conference Talks, Selected Citations and Selected Interviews should go as that what makes it borderline cv. --Averater (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - article reads like a resume Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete CV of a non-notable authour, fails WP:GNG and [{WP:NAUTHOUR]]. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete From Swister Twister: "I searched, News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary). Most of the results are self-authored and not much third-party or overall good coverage." the definition of non-notable. Fails GNG and AUTHOR. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2015 (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.