Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Chen


 * 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. I discount the suggestion that the subject requested deletion - he did not - and accord less weight to the arguments relying solely on WP:GNG, as WP:BLP1E, being policy, must be accorded much greater weight. As far as Silverseren suggests that there has been consistent coverage over time, their argument is refuted by Rankiri and Nuujinn. I give little weight to the subject's belief that he does not satisfy our inclusion criteria, though that belief appears to be consistent with the general consensus of the debate. Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Chen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Raymond Chen does not believe that he meets Wikipedia notability guidelines and after reviewing the article, I tend to agree with his assessment. Most of the sources are web-based (the majority of citations are to his own work) and those few that are third-party don't seem to rise to the level needed under WP:N and WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren C 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, he's wrong then. After a quick search, I managed to find these sources, which i've added to the article.
 * "The spammographer" - ITWorldCanada
 * "Microsoft Blogger Tracks 7 Years Of Spam" - InformationWeek
 * "Microsoft man collects spam" - The Inquirer
 * "Blogger: Spam explosion peaked last year" - Media Life Magazine
 * "Windows Vista drops support for old DVD drives" - Ars Technica
 * "How long does spam keep, anyway?" - CNET
 * They are enough to establish notability for him and the work he does. Though I do agree with his point about Ginsberg. It's a shame there. Silver  seren C 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked over these sources and none of them contain any significant biographical information. They simply mention Chen in passing. We can't write an article based on stuff like this; that constitutes original research via synthesis. We should especially not do this for people who have themselves said that they don't think they meet Wikipedia notability requirements. *** Crotalus *** 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first three links are entirely about him. Information on the work that he has done and is working on counts as biographical information in the case of his achievements. The sources are enough to prove that he is notable, as they are not trivial mentions (which is about a single sentence by Wiki definition). Silver  seren C 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Information Week article is titled "Microsoft employee Raymond Chen has compiled unique evidence of the explosion of spam." So yeah, its about him.   D r e a m Focus  09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Information Week article amounts to nine sentences (of which three are "Why save every spam? Good question. Chen's answer?") on TechWebNews six years ago.  The other sources are a brief mention on "Ry's Blog" and similar highly passing references of the sort you would expect for someone perhaps most remarkable as the subject of his office's humorous "Dress Like Raymond Day" circa 1995.  This is just not a person of notability sufficient to sustain an article in an encyclopedia of global scope.  I appreciate Silverseren's contributions, but frankly they only serve to highlight the fact -- as Raymond Chen himself is aware -- that he has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 22:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep. The point about Justice Ginsberg is a valid one - and I've long thought we should have Featured Topics for Presidents and Supreme Court justices, to push those to Featured levels of quality. On point, there are multiple sources about Mr. Chen, so it would appear that we have some modicum of notability. Enough to keep? I think so, if barely. The funny thing is this - if Mr. Chen's article is kept, and he comments on it, and his comments are picked up by other sources, it's possible that reliable sources discussing the notability of the subject will actually increase the apparent notability of the subject. Which is just recursive enough to be amusing. Oh, bugger, I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article consist mainly of trivia scrapped from various MS-related blogs. There was a brief burst of news about him in several IT venues for his collection of spam (linked above); at best that's wp:blp1e. Thoroughly fails wp:author and wp:anybio otherwise. The subject seems to request deletion as well. Pcap ping  16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It surely wasn't a brief burst of news. There's been consistent coverage of him for six years. And him not meeting WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO does not make him non-notable, as the page itself says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Notability."
 * And he certain meets the GNG, so the article passes notability policy. What other reasons do you have for deletion? Silver  seren C 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And he is most certainly not asking for deletion, he was just stating that he was surprised he had an article on Wikipedia, as he doesn't consider himself notable (or not as notable as some people). As the article was before, it certainly looked that way, but the new sources show otherwise. Please do not misconstrue what someone else says to serve your own opinion. Silver  seren C 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made to the article. Brad 21:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, sorry, but if this is the improved version, it must have been something awful before. Most of the references are primary sources, passing mention in a few decent sources, and a list of external references with similar and a few paragraphs regarding his spam collection from 2004. Looking at this brief burst of news| this, I see a more passing references from blogs and articles, and some web search engine generated pages. No significant coverage beyond his spam collection. I think one event applies here. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a persuasive argument. So far, I only see a bunch of trivial mentions and some minor WP:BLP1E coverage of the subject's vast spam collection. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2010 (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.