Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal L. Schwartz


 * 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 Kept. Consensus is clear that subject meets general notability requirements beyond the event mentioned in the biography, especially as an author. Steven Walling &bull; talk   02:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Randal L. Schwartz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The one independent source cited discusses his arrest and conviction for hacking but this is WP:ONEEVENT. Msnicki (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: If the argument for deletion of Schwartz's entry should carry the day, it would be very clear that Wikipedia's deletion/BLP criteria are even more out of touch with reality than observers popularly claim. This person has written works important to the programming community - I'm looking at the copy of Learning Perl sitting on my bookshelf right now.  Imagine a reader should like to find out more about the author of the book he just read and enjoyed, only to discover that that author does not exist on Wikipedia.  How would this situation benefit anyone save the more legalistically-minded editors?  Wikipedia exists for the world's convenience, not yours.  I'm not sure how this argument even got started, but please, for the sake of sanity, don't carry it much further.  If you feel the quality of the article is poor, improve it.  Deletion isn't helpful.  Quality is. Roufeov (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm surprised he isn't more notable, but it could be we are close enough in the computer industry that I run into his work and postings frequently.  No substantive entries in Google Scholar, and the first two pages of Google Search are his own website, postings, or social networking.  —EncMstr (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to observe: we don't source articles in WP by doing a Google search, looking at the first two pages, and saying "nope, no reliable sources here". That argument doesn't work in AfD when someone points out all the Google hits their Tulsa blues rock band got, and it doesn't work the opposite direction either. Again: even a casual look at Google News Search finds plenty of sourcing for Schwartz; he's more than notable, he's *notorious*. Newmadrid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep: Six books on the Perl computing language + conviction and expungement of same for hacking doesn't make him notable?Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This point has been discussed twice very recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) in a discussion of changing the rules for authors based on arguments that came up in the (similar situation) Jesse Liberty AfD and in rejecting a proposal that simply being published should be sufficient to establish notability.  Notability is not about whether someone seems notable.  It is all and only about whether people who have no connection to the subject actually take note and that they do it in reliable sources.  Msnicki (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Randall Schwartz's books are widely reviewed (see the Google News link above) and he has a well known algorithm named after him. I think this is sufficient evidence that people have taken note and definitely invalidates any argument that he is only famous for the hacking incident.  If the only problem is lack of sources, just add them, please don't waste our time with an AFD. Francis Bond (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability of an author and the notability of his works are two different things. You can have one without the other.  The reviews are of his books, not discussions of the author.  All they tell about the author is his name.  It's possible those reviews justify articles about his books, but they do not justify an article about him.  Msnicki (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I made my argument clear. In addition to being a well published author and columnist, Randall Schwartz has an algorithm named after him, and is also noted for being involved in a fairly well publicized hacking trial.  The combination of these makes him notable, even if you argue that any single one does not.  Francis Bond (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not according to the guidelines. His own books and his own columns are useless for establishing notability because they're not independent.  His transform (really just a Perl idiom, not a new algorithm) may be notable (I somewhat doubt  it is), but that's not the same as saying he's notable.  Again, the notability of an individual and the notability of his work are two different things. I agreed (above, in my nomination) that coverage of his arrest and conviction was reported in reliable independent sources, but this is WP:ONEEVENT and it happens to be one of disrepute that has since been expunged; it would certainly not be fair to the subject to base a WP:BLP on that.  (Since the expungement, he's been legally entitled to say "no" on employment applications to questions about previous convictions.  But by reporting it here, we're ensuring it never really goes away, that it will always be easy to find and will continue to follow him.)   Msnicki (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting the point of WP:1E. The idea is not that the encyclopedia shouldn't cover "single events" (that's a nonsensical idea, inasmuch as 9/11 is also "one event". The idea is that where there's a competing interest in an article about the event and an article about the subject, tie goes to the event. But there's no such competition here. The article on Schwartz is the logical, encyclopedic venue for coverage of the Intel hacking case, which was monumentally important during the '90s and covered extensively, not just in the WP:LOCALFAME -prone tech press but in the mainstream media, and not just during the events and the trial but for years afterwards. Again: I think you should let this one go; I feel like we may all be spinning our wheels here. Newmadrid (talk)


 * Keep: Same justification as Francis Bond. The article needs more attention to Schwartz's notability; lack of detail on Wikipedia does not constitute lack of notability. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: While the article wasn't too content filled earlier, as it stands right now it seems fine. Schwartz has been extensively covered in the press. Ryan (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Note Subject of article has canvassed for article to be kept - see this tweet.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This isn't even worth discussing. Randal L. Schwartz is a celebrity in the Perl and Smalltalk communities and is more than notable enough to be on Wikipedia.  Just to provide one more citation to support this, he's a speaker at the 2011 OSCON conference.  See:  http://www.oscon.com/oscon2011/profile/4443 OSCON is an important conference in the software world and they don't invite just anybody to speak.   If we look at the criteria for notability of creative professionals:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Creative_professionals  We see The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. which is clearly the case with Schwartz, and also The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums..  Schwartz' books have clearly received significant critical attention.  In short, Randal Schwartz is clearly notable if we follow Wikipedia guidelines. Sprhodes (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC).
 * It seems to me that the significant contribution contemplated in that section is a genuine contribution to knowledge, some real scholarly research as described at WP:SCHOLAR, not just a bunch of how-to manuals. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline doesn't state that, and I personally reject that interpretation; as I see no evidence to support the idea that such was the intent. To me, this argument sounds like a deletionist leaning on their own subjective interpretation in order to further an agenda. And in any case, a person only has to meet one of the criteria to be consider notable, as I understand it.  And Schwartz clearly passes the The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors test... the OSCON invitation alone justifies that.  And when you look at the weight of all the evidence taken together, rather than nit-picking it looking for a reason to delete the article, it's more than obvious that this article belongs here.Sprhodes (talk)
 * Nonsense. I rely not on my personal opinion but upon WP:CONSENSUS.  The question of whether a bunch of how-to books are sufficient to establish notability has been discussed twice recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people);  I gave the links (1 and 2); did you read them or would that get in the way of calling me names?  Msnicki (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote above, or were you too busy scrabbling around desperately looking for a way to justify some pedantic argument for deleting this article? Never mind, don't bother answering, because we all already know the answer.  After all, if you read what I wrote, you'd notice that I never suggested that we fall back on "being published alone establishes notability."  You're also conspicuously avoiding where I pointed out that Schwartz easily meets two of the criteria for Creative Professionals, when meeting even one is enough to establish notability.  Sprhodes (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is ridiculous. Is Wikipedia going to become a home for only people notable to the lowest common denominator group of general civilians? Randal is incredibly notable by every standard within his community; the large and wide-spread Perl community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgrommes (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Then it should be easy to suggest a couple sources WP:RS offering the significant coverage of the subject (not just of his books) as required to establish that his notability meets WP:GNG, not just your own sense of subjective importance WP:FACTORS.  Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Schwartz has been written about in the New York Times and on CNN; the front page of the 1990-1999 Google News Search shows a story from each, multiple years apart. It's good that you raised the point that this article needs improvement, but even a casual glance turns up reliable sources of the highest order for this particular topic, and I think you should let this one go. Also: the WP:1E cite here doesn't hold up; an article about Schwartz is the reasonable, encyclopedic place to cover the story of Randal Schwartz hacking into Intel.
 * I think the friends-of-Randal-Schwartz "guardians" of this page (see talk) have done the article a disservice by vigorously expunging the material that best establishes Schwartz' relevance. It's not surprising to see that the result appears NN. But the subject clearly is. Newmadrid (talk) (former WP'er, anon) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep: Randal is a renowned technical author, a long time host of a very popular talk-show and a very active member of the free software community, as pointed out above many times. --Rbanffy (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of which constitute policy-based reasons to keep. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Here is a long list of reliable sources covering the trial. Jfire (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The trial or his influential books alone convince me this should not be deleted. AndresMonroyHernandez (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: User:Jfire's sourcing alone should merit a speedy keep, but even if it wasn't enough to have a decade-long cite record in top tier news outlets, the subject is also the author of extremely popular programming books. Note that even the sole "delete" argument as of this posting admits to knowing who Schwartz is, and being surprised not to be able to find sourcing (as noted above, he didn't try very hard). Newmadrid (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm going to stay out of this, as it seems to be quickly turning into a war, but I'd like to point out to those who wish to defend the reputation of Mr. Schwartz that the references you add *must* follow the guidelines of WP:V. I don't believe that the consensus of this discussion will be delete (it needs some really good references,) but if it is, I highly doubt it will be because, as some on Hacker News have suggested, that it's because he's 'too old' or from a generation the editors on Wikipedia cannot relate to. I would also like to remind Mr. Schwartz that suggesting your followers to come here and defend this article may seem like a good idea, but it makes you seem (no offense intended) somewhat biased and maybe a bit emotional about it, although I can certainly understand that as it's an article about you. Just remember that it's not *your* article. Also, if people here wish to complain that this is the reason why Wikipedia is 'bad' or 'jumped the shark', remember that if it weren't for the ability to have your voice heard, you wouldn't be able to argue at all. -- Mithrandir∞  (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a dog in this race. However, I suspect people who know me as a notable person do.  Hence the call to action.  It's not an attempt to bias the discussion: it's an attempt to have people who consider me notable to speak up.  If that's not fair, I'm confused. Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, no problem with that. What is troublesome is those who do have a dog is this race. Those are the people who IMHO should not be the voice of majority in this discussion. -- Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I just added multiple references to where Schwartz was identified as an expert or notable figure, and interviewed by numerous media outlets, including well known ones like Dr. Dobbs Journal and InfoQ, as well as some lesser known ones. This alone, not to mention the material that User:Jfire turned up, should put this discussion to rest.  Notable, KEEP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprhodes (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary sources and as such, under the guidelines, not useful to establish notability. However unfair this seems, this really is how the guidelines work.  It's not about how notable it seems like the subject should be, it's whether individuals with no connection to the subject actually take note and that they do it in reliable sources.  The interviews don't give you the independence.  (Here's the giveaway:  Who's doing the talking in an interview?)  Msnicki (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Author of one of the most popular Perl books. On the boards of major Perl and Smalltalk foundations. Host of what is probably the most widely listened to free and open source podcast. How is this even up for discussion??? Tim.the.bastard (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2011 (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.