Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mik Kersten


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mik Kersten

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet notability criteria of Notability (people). Was tagged as not notable, but the tag was removed without comment or discussion. The article was largely written by User:Beatmik, who is, one might guess from the name, identical with the subject of the article, so there may also be a Conflict of interest. Chrisahn (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge. Article may need to be rewritten somewhat, but he ahs received considerable attention in reliable sources, both in English and other languages. Sources like (with biographical info on Kersten at the bottom) are reliable and independent, but since most of his notability comes from a single product and company, a merge to Tasktop Technologies Inc. (if kept) or Mylyn may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the creator of this article and I agree that Mik Kersten has received considerable attention in reliable sources. For example, Kersten's opinions have been cited in eWeek on topics as varied as Google Chrome and software industry aquisitions . As shown by these articles, Kersten's notability extends beyond his roles in Tasktop Technologies Inc. and Mylyn. Kersten has also made substantial contributions to the field of Aspect-oriented programming through his contributions to advance the AspectJ programming language. I've updated the article accordingly but tried to keep it concise. Please let me know if you think I should gather further references to Kersten's impact on the technology industry. Telmocean (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, I'd like to add that Mik Kersten is the originator of a significant new concept, the Task-Focused Interface, which has been widely cited by his peers as shown by this Google Scholar search: . This meets the criteria in Notability (people). The Task-Focused Interface is a well recognized term for the millions of users who have downloaded the Mylyn software that implements this concept. Search for "Mylyn" on the download page at . Telmocean (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. I'm Mik Kersten, the target of this entry, and was just informed about the deletion suggestion. It sounds like I meet the Creative Professional Notability guidelines, but I won't comment on that further due to conflict.  Regarding the comment about my edits to this entry, after seeing the original posted, I decided to add my publications so that those browsing Wikipedia would not need to go to my personal page for the most notable publications.  If there isn't utility in that, I'm happy to remove the Publications listing. Beatmik (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — notable enough in my view, although the publications could be pruned to the really significant ones. I suggest the main author selects up to five total, say, or deletes all of them and points to a fuller list elsewhere instead. At the moment this reads more like a CV rather than an encyclopaedic entry. I have improved the categories anyway. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I originally thought it made sense to include all the referred and prominent magaznie publications, but the result is, as you point out, that it read too much like a CV. So I just pruned the publications to only leave the very highly cited and read ones, which left 8. It's hard for me to judge which of the remaining entries is least significant, so if still too long it would be good for someone else to take another pruning pass.  I wasn't sure what to do about the Selected Interviews that were added to this section, so I moved those to the External Links. Also, I'd originally included references to the direct PDFs in order to avoid readers needing to create accounts with the publishers, but I changed all the references to be the publisher. Mik Kersten (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is well-constructed, well-cited and self-supported. --AStanhope (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes creative professional guidelines, see "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * does not pass creative professional guidelines - you did not quote the complete sentence, which reads "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (emphasis mine) Chrisahn (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not having noticed the last sentence (your emphasis) and not including these when I created the entry. There over a hundred periodicals that reference Mik Kersten's work and I'm also aware of the following two independent books:
 * Eclipse AspectJ: Aspect-Oriented Programming with AspectJ and the Eclipse AspectJ Development Tools . "The AspectJ Development Tools" in the title of this book is largely the work of Mik Kersten as described on the AspectJ page.
 * Java Power Tools . This book contains a chapter about Mik Kersten's work on Mylyn. Telmocean (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep several published works and reliable sources establish notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (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.