Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Beedle


 * 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.Waggers has summarized the condition of the debate aptly in his !vote. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  11:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mike Beedle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing any notability. As well as a number of other issues. This may even be a hoax. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment it's not a complete hoax: . But I've removed some unsourced claims. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Slatersteven, I urge you to return and strike the assertion about this looking like a hoax. I searched the book title and instantly saw that it was a real book, although it appeared to be a textbook designed to teach computer skills related to the fact that author had founded a small company also called "Scrum".  Then I searched his name, and found this  Chicago Tribume article 29 March 2018 Public's help sought as police investigate stabbing death of software CEO in River North.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to some of the very odd information (they were born at the age of 55) And unsourced claims like they were murdered. There is just something very odd about this. As if someone is tying to create an article with as many iffy "facts" as they can.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (I suspect that this page was created by a mourner, and it seemed cruel to call a page a "hoax," at a moment when mourners are likely to visit the page.)   That aside, there was coverage of him in reputable news media for several years, coverage  unrelated to the  he was murder (he walked out a bar with cash in his hand, and stepped into an alley with the alleged murderer - who has been denied bail.) The killing does not appear likely to be notable, but I do hope that someone who follows the Computing-related deletion will weigh in on his notability as a tech entrepreneur.  He seems to have created more than one tech venture.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory] (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

*Delete Like John Pack Lambert, I note NOTMEMORIAL and see no basis for notability, but feel free to ping me to revisit if someone familiar with Beedle's career, his tech innovations, or roles in corporations comes up with notability that I cannot see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and we need proactive evidence of notability which is clearly lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL
 * Do not delete This page is not intended as a memorial one, I have added more details about his contribution, and I think that this page should exists from many time ago, as he was one of the Agile Manifesto signators. Of course will respect your decision. Daniel Ceillan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable. Mike Beedle has publications with in excess of 3602, 2802, 680, 171 cites respectively (the actual number of cites is higher because they have listed some of these as several papers rather than one). These very highly cited works satisfy WP:PROF. Multiple papers with thousands of cites is notability in any field. James500 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Significant edit made please review your positions. Thanks. Daniel Ceillan (talk) 16 April 2018, at 09:50 (UTC)
 * Daniel, The article looks much better with your improvements. However, the thing that is required with an author or creator of technological innovations is secondary, published work discussing his innovations, things like review of the book.  Articles discussion his company and his work.   Articles in which his contributions are discussed.  Articles and books that his work.  Since you are familiar with his work, you may be able to find such material.  The point is that writing a book does not confer notability according to Wikipedia standards.  There have to be book reviews, articles that discuss the book, other writers have to cite it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have just pointed out, according to Google Scholar, Beedle's books have received in excess of seven thousand citations. That is a clear pass of WP:PROF. Daniel does not need to do anything because I have just proved notability beyond argument. James500 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The "seven thousand citations" figure isn't exactly correct (Google scholar tends to inflate citation counts) and the second and third result is actually the agile manifesto (not one of his books). You can see my comment below for a detailed explanation.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as per User:James500 and Daniel Ceillan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect (or merge) to Scrum (software development) - This is a sightly difficult case. WP:PROF doesn't apply here as the person wasn't an academic. The argument that "Beedle's books have received in excess of seven thousand citations. That is a clear pass of WP:PROF" is not exactly correct. If you look at Google Scholar, the first book "Agile software development with Scrum" is notable (coincidentally I am reading it right now). However, the figure of "Cited by 3615"seems to be inflated. A look at citation count on ACM digital library gives 364 citations. The second and third items on google scholar are actually the same document: "Agile Manifesto" which was signed by 17 people including Beedle. I wouldn't count this as an academic publication and the citation count is inflated as Google takes into account various unpublished technical reports. Overall, the subject's claim to notability is for being one of people involved in describing "Scrum" along with Ken Schwaber in the book "Agile software development with Scrum" (mentioned above). The subject is notable for one contribution WP:BLP1E and it seems fitting to redirect this to Scrum (software development).--DreamLinker (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * hmmmm.  to revisit their analysis of scholarly impact.   Also noting that the murder continues to draw regional attention Stabbing Suspect Previously Arrested 98 Times; This Could Have Been Prevented and more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A theoretical physicist is not an "Academic"? To be the second Scrum adopter, and the one that introduced the name "Agile" is not enough relevance? Agile and Scrum is improving the work-life of millions of people around the world. If you prefer, we can delete the "murder" part (actually, I didn't added it), as it is very fresh news and keep the life history. From an Encyclopedy perspective he was a remarkable person in the Software Industry and the new way to organize work in the Knowledge Society age. I can add more info, and would like to know from your perspective what kind of proof is needed to keep this page. A redirection to Scrum or a merge, for me don't have too much sense. One thing is the framework, and other the person. Additionally, many of the Agile Manifesto Signors already have a page in Wikipedia. Thanks Daniel Ceillan (talk) 24 April 2018, at 07:25 (UTC)
 * I had a look again after your reply. However my perspective on whether this deserves an independent article remains the same. I will explain why I think so
 * A theoretical physicist is not an "Academic"? - I am using the term academic in the context of the notability guideline. The criterion WP:ACADEMIC generally applies to someone who is engaged in scholarly research (typically at an institution) and is known for being engaged in such research. In this case, although Mike Beedle has a degree in theoretical physics, he would be considered an academic only if he had been actively researching in this field. I will add this page to the academic list for more opinions though, in case I am wrong.
 * To be the second Scrum adopter, and the one that introduced the name "Agile" is not enough relevance? - I searched but I wasn't able to find a citation stating that he was the "second Scrum adopter" and that he "introduced the name Agile".
 * Agile and Scrum is improving the work-life of millions of people around the world. - I agree, but this adds to the notability of agile and scrum
 * If you prefer, we can delete the "murder" part (actually, I didn't added it), as it is very fresh news and keep the life history. - A lot of the info in the article as of the current version (if we exclude the murder part) is actually about "Scrum". Ideally, this should be there in the scrum article. There bio information is not backed up by independent citations either.
 * One thing is the framework, and other the person. Additionally, many of the Agile Manifesto Signors already have a page in Wikipedia. - Yes, I have noticed that some of them have Wikipedia articles about them. However, that generally happens when the subject is known for multiple contributions apart from scrum. Not every person who signed the manifesto will be independently notable enough to have their own article.
 * My opinion still remains the same. There is not much bio information available from independent sources. While I value Mike Beedle's contributions, the proper place to mention this is the scrum article. --DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Scholarly research: I'm searching sources.
 * He was the second scrum adopter: sources added
 * He was who introduced the name Agile: sources added
 * The article is about his personal contributions to the Scrum and Agile World. Will expand this later. Also we are considering how he contributed to the first conceptions of Scrum, and more over about Enterprise Scrum. Unfortunately, he had a very low profile, and shared all his methods all around the world and never claimed notability.
 * Other's Agile manifesto signors has simple pages, without more info than that.
 * There is another way to proof notability?
 * Daniel Ceillan (talk) 29 April 2018, at 22:43 (UTC).
 * Almost every source you have added is somehow affiliated to the subject (for example, either the books of his co-authors or the website of agile manifesto or his company enterprise scrum). What we require are reliable and independent sources which discuss the subject. In general a subject is notable enough to have a separate article when multiple independent sources have discussed the subject and the coverage is not passing mentions.--


 * Keep Comment Abstract for Teams That Finish Early Accelerate Faster: A Pattern Language for High Performing Scrum Teams (System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on Conference Date(s): 6-9 Jan. 2014 Waikoloa, pp 4722 - 4728 ( https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6759182 ) seems to have a useful reference to acclaiming Scrum: A Pattern Language for Hyperproductive Software Development as a groundbreaking work ... while he was co-author the abstract notes Mike Beedle's contribution specifically.  Any significant merge into Scrum (Software Development) would would be WP:UNDUE and disrupt it so opposed to that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC).  For example.  I also note isbn 978-1937538392 P.13 cites his joint work for some reason or other.  Arguably may (or may not) fit WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1.  I'm actually quite interested in how it end up here.  A new user creates his first page and a reviewer gets at it almost immediately.  Now the page probably wasn't fit for article space at this time and the newbie has mentioned this.  In hindsight (hihndsights easy) a welcome and a draftification would likely be a good option.  Instead we are at AfD within 9 minutes with minimal dilligence to BEFORE, though that is perhaps understandable as a number of possible vandalism indicators could have been judged to be present and also just possibly as the Beadle surname is associated with a late well known UK TV joker.  Anyway the newbie has improved the article, probably beyond the point at which it would have been dragged to AfD, and I'm not sure he has been given adequate support.  Instead we maybe have had WP:BITE.  I'm assumming good faith here ... its possible he is a sockpuppet and the initial article showed a high standard of editing for a first edit ... but the guy claims to be a Softie (Software engineer) so thats not impossible.  Its also fair to comment new page reviewers have limited time and there is a lot of vandalism they need to deal with quickly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the subject was a low profile individual. We keep separate BLP pages only if multiple independent sources have covered the subject. The other issue that almost all references are either by co-authors or from the scrum website, neither of which is independent. I agree that Beedle's book has been cited by many (although in this case the paper is written by his co-author]. Apart from the book he co-wrote, I am not able to find reliable independent references.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thankyou to for pointing out at least one of the authors making the Beedle contribution claim was a co-author on the Teams That Finish Early Accelerate Faster: A Pattern Language for High Performing Scrum Teams paper in calling it groundbreaking.  Also for generally appropriate article edits.  This is probably heading for a No-concensus AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist - let's see if a consensus can be reached?
 * Keep. Besides the fact that he was one of the original signatories of the Agile Manifesto, a cursory glance at the Google search links show that he has received more than adequate coverage in both academic and news sources. The article could probably do with some improved referencing, but deletion is not warranted here. Molpies! (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This is one of those tricky borderline cases where you can start quibbling over what constitutes sufficiently significant coverage and whether too many of the sources listed could be considered primary sources. But overall I'd say there's just about enough justification to merit having an article on this person, and I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete. If I were closing this now I'd most likely close it either as a keep or, more likely, no consensus (which of course means keep by default). Wagge<b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  15:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.