Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Beltzner


 * 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. The central problem, which the "keep" opinions mostly don't really contest, is the lack of independent reliable sources covering him in any detail, which are required not only per WP:BIO, but also for verifiability, which is especially important with WP:BLPs.  Sandstein  06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Beltzner

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure on this one. It's like, he should be notable, but he's not. #3 guy at Mozilla, it seems, but he's not discussed in RS that I can see. 32nd google hit brought this, but I just don't think we've got enough to go with here. Current references in the article are mostly unimpressive. لenna vecia  14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking that I'm not sure. Having read the discussion and looked more closely at sources, there's nothing of substance discussing the subject, merely commenting on the company and quoting him, thus I believe this article surely needs to be deleted. لenna  vecia  04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The position is almost certainly notable, and the sources are enough to show that he holds it. Lack of more formal sources is usual in this area, and it's appropriate to adjust our interpretation of RS accordingly. DGG (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources DGG about his activities and position -, , , , , , , , etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first 3 are not in fact about Beltzner or his activities or position. They feature Beltzner talking about his company. Therefore, they seem to be of no use in building this article. After the first 3, I got tired of checking. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per notable position and work. Unfortunately developers in open source don't get quite the same individual press coverage that others (such as minor politicians) do. Their work is often less public and controversial, and most interviews are deliberately with smaller, independent blogs if anyone.  However, there's coverage around.  Beltzner gets 147 hits on Google news, including     (will add more in a bit).  Flying  Toaster  17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - Keep votes say his position is notable. He's the director. What does that mean? What, exactly, is his position? It's not explained in the article, but if he's notable for his position, it should be. لenna  vecia  18:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Director means that he's responsible for the successful planning and operations of Firefox - includes things like managing developers, setting priorities, creating & implementing development plan.  Flying Toaster  18:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant for the article, not here. I wasn't asking literally. This information needs to be pulled from RS and put into the article. That's where I was going with it. لenna  vecia  20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG and FT have unfortunate cases of notability-itis. As Jenna seems to recognize, it's ultimately independent sources (that are actually about the subject) that make an encyclopedia article possible to write. That's why Wikipedia defines notability and includability in terms of RS's, not the other way around. To declare someone or something "notable" just because s/he/it sounds big and important, and then to "re-interpret" the RS requirement to accommodate one's baseless declaration, is the tail wagging the dog. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "dog" is someone having done notable things. The "tail" is the default  guideline that 2 RS shows they are notable. It's the actual notability thats important.  DGG (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Divorce notability from 2RS, and any argument for a subject's notability stands on quicksand. (Why is Beltzner, or what he has done, notable? "Zomg #3 guy at Mozilla" is quicksand.) Divorce notability from 2RS, and you beg the question: why should Wikipedia's inclusion criterion be notability as you define it, and not 2RS? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notability dependent on 2RS, and you';re at the mercy in both directions of the errraticness of coverage and the incompleteness of online search for sources. Base it on what people do thats notable, and you're on the firm ground of human accomplishments. DGG (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A resume recounts human accomplishments. An encyclopedia article summarizes research, reporting, or opinions that have been published on its subject. Wikipedia does not and cannot correct for "erraticness of coverage." If you think Beltzner is so important that he should be the subject of careful inquiry and study, feel free to write a book or article about him or get someone else to. And surely you don't think that FUTON bias is a problem in Beltzner's case? He is, after all, the #3 guy at Mozilla :). 160.39.213.97 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BIO notes that the person should have been the subject of published secondary source material, and in most of the news links above Firefox is the subject, with Beltzner receiving nothing more than a passing mention. Many of the news articles are republishing the same story, so even the trivial coverage is less broad than would seem at first glance. Finally, none of the sources would allow us to write more than "Mike Beltzner is a director at Mozilla", as none have any biographical information with which to write the article. Kevin (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Subject does not mean primary subject, nor does it mean as you apply it. It is clear from the wording that it refers to "being discussed in secondary material". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In which sources is he being "discussed"? There is definitely a difference between being discussed and being mentioned. If you are the subject of the article, you are being discussed. If you are mentioned in the article, you're not the subject. Kevin's interpretation is pretty much spot on. لenna  vecia  05:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruption moved to talk page. لenna  vecia  17:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Subject does not mean primary subject" &larr; Huh? Yes it does. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it "clearly" does then it would say so. It does not. Have you read Notability (people)? "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". That line right there is there because of people not being the -primary- subject but a cursory subject. The "multiple" sources would be a handful. There are over 30 provided so far. That is more than enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being third guy at Mozilla and director of Firefox means he is notable. Coverage in secondary sources is a useful criterion, but it's not perfect. Notability is not the same as media fame. We still need sources to have an article, and there are, just not independent of Mozilla. Mozilla-related and primary sources are reliable enough for basic biographical information. Here is one, a blog but Mozilla-connected. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Verifiability may be satisfied. What you are forgetting is NPOV. And no, NPOV doesn't just mean neutral tone. Constructing an article from information published by one's employer represents the POV of that employer, and lacks the POV of anyone independent of Beltzner. Please don't help Wikipedia host a company's profiles of its employees. Let Mozilla's website do that. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not much of an issue for a basic biography unless he is extremely infamous for something. Not every articles needs a "Criticism" section, even if some Wikipedians seem to think so. If his Mozilla bio says that he is widely considered the best programmer in the world, then we should not include that as a fact, but it is reliable enough for facts like his position at Mozilla, his age, educational background, etc. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google News search is not lacking for coverage . The article needs a solid rewrite, but I don't see the point in deleting it. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage of Beltzner? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. As I stated above, it's just him being quoted. Perhaps one is notable if they say notable things. لenna  vecia  14:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources simply mention him when discussing software and other topics. Unless we can find primary third-party sources that discuss the person, it should be deleted. Willking1979 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My edit summary should have said "delete", not oppose. My bad. Willking1979 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know that what you say is actually part of you, right? And coverage of your words is a primary component of notability, right? Notability is proven once there is widespread mention of -importance-. That does not mean that it has to have biographical details in that, only justification for why they are important to write about. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: No substantial notability. The man works for a web-based corporation. Obviously you'll be able to prove he exists with simple web searches. And you may even be able to find basic biographical information about him. That doesn't mean he has lasting notability or significance. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per obvious notability according to WP:CREATIVE and their work at Firefox falling under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" and "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I've just argued to keep below, I have to say I don't think this particular criterion applies. What, exactly, is he known for originating or creating? He didn't create Firefox - Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross did. He currently manages it, but that's hardly the same thing. Robofish (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. As observed above, passing references do not amount to demonstrable notability. Eusebeus (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essentially per Ottava Rima. Wikipedia, unlike Citizendium, uses notability rather than maintainability as the article inclusion criteria; that is, Wikipedia has in addition to maintainability a secondary concern of including "famous people". This makes things complicated for people that are obviously notable, especially in a given field, but lack significant third party coverage in mainstream media. Fortunately, most articles about famous computer geeks don't come under this kind of scrutiny, as long as the articles are neutral, not overly self-promotional, and most importantly, not created by admins under scrutiny. Vesal (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I'm really not sure about this one, and spent some time thinking about it; but ultimately I'm convinced by the claims that, despite the lack of RS, he is (just about) notable. There's little available in the way of coverage from reliable sources; there is a blog interview, and he also apparently gave an interview to the Inside the Net podcast, but pretty much nothing from major media. On the other hand, I agree that the position - Director of Firefox - 'should' be notable; so I just have to go with my gut instinct here. (I realise WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't much of an argument, but for comparison, we do have articles on various various other Mozilla employees, who seem to be less important than him. All have marginal notability, but I don't think any of them are problematic enough to delete.) Robofish (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, he can't be seen as having created firefox, and the abysmal quality of biographical information is astonishing (unless we can include that he is an "optimist by nationality" and his job is to make sure "there is enough love in each release".) If I cared very deeply about procedure, I would change my vote to weak keep as well. Vesal (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having written my essay below, I've looked at the other people Robofish listed.
 * Christopher Blizzard. Fails WP:BIO – working on notable things that others conceived doesn't make you notable. Talking about these notable things in the press (instead of talking about yourself!) doesn't make you notable.
 * Dave Miller (software developer). Maybe passes WP:BIO as page says he was "one of the main original developers of the Bugzilla bug tracking tool"
 * John Resig Probably passes WP:BIO as creator of something and an author.
 * Johnny Stenbäck Possibly passes WP:BIO due to list of publications.
 * So actually, most of these are more notable than Beltzner. But I might put them to the test next week...! Bigger digger (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The position of "Director of Firefox" is not notable. Sorry, to get a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it does actually help to make my point. Is the Director of IE notable (can't find his article)? How about Chrome? The CTO of Opera has a page, Håkon Wium Lie, but he's notable for his work on CSS. By suggesting that the Director of a major software product is notable the inference is that all his compatriots in the industry are notable. How about the Director of MS Office? And why restrain it to software? Where are the pages for Ford's Director of Commercial Vehicles, the director of Coca-Cola's Fruit juice business? What about the head of HR for ExxonMobil? I use firefox, I love it, but the current director of its roll-out has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm afraid most of the keeps are suffering from systemic bias: "I use firefox a lot, so the person who makes sure it gets to my desk must be notable" (obviously, I'm simplifying to make my point..). The firm which does X probably is notable, but the person performing that task at a specific moment in time is not notable unless they do something amazing or something terrible that gets the required depth of coverage.
 * (cont...) Have another look at WP:BIO. Beltzner did not originate a significant new concept nor did he play a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, it was already created when he came along to look after its refinement post-release. He could be notable if there was some decent coverage of him. While looking at the Google Chrome article I came across Lars Bak (computer programmer) and clicked him. He seemed like a small cog in the wheel, but he has patents to his name and the Financial Times ran an article on him. Beltzner's page does not meet WP:BIO, nor does it meet WP:GNG due to a lack of decent coverage. By those standards, set down by community consensus, the page should be deleted. Maybe he deserves a mention in the Firefox page due to all his quotes connected to it, but once he is replaced I would expect the next person to get a mention. Oh, but I'm sure he's a nice guy and I like ultimate frisbee too :-) –Bigger digger (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is fairly convincing, and I guess the most relevant stuff that don't exist is Mike Connor, the former Firefox Director. I really should change my vote to delete, but then, he likes ultimate frisbee and this article isn't harmful to animals. Vesal (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bigger digger. I don't use WP:PER a lot, but he's basically said everything that needs to be said. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Close but no guitar, the sources aren't quite enough to get him past WP:GNG. All of the keep arguments seem to be baseless, assuming that he's notable just because of his position. Inherent notability is pretty much a crock. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:29, 27 May 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.