Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Hickey


 * 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   merge to Clojure. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rich Hickey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability is not established. Artem Karimov (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hickey is the creator of Clojure. This is undisputed and alone makes him notable. He is one of the key pillars of the Clojure's community for over 4 years now. Clojure rose to fame due to his video lectures on blip.tv which are still popular today. He was interviewed several times and presented several keynote lectures. Some can be found here. Do not delete! 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability is not inheritable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Clojure may be notable but its creator may be not.
 * There are no independent reliable secondary sources. His keynotes or videos may be very popular but they do not add to notability unless they get reported in the media. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about this and this? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These sources are not notable themselves. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd argue Code Quarterly is notable; it is a magazine with an editor, not somebody's blog. That said, it is kind of new. 66.194.235.133 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Magazine with editor? Good. But merely saying "it is notable" is not enough. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or this (LinuxJournal) --216.26.125.63 (talk)
 * The article is about Clojure and adds little to Hickey's notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an interview with RH. At least half of it is about his opinions. And it has a giant picture of Hickey in the lead. And the journal, which is quite reputable, mentions: "An in-depth look at the new language from the man himself." Which totally hints to anyone who still is not quite sure of RH's notability that he's the man. I think this should put this to rest. We're not dealing here with some obscure person. Artem, why are you so strongly in favor of deleting this entry based on technicalities? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my god! The article has a photo in the lead! You know what, I also have a giant photo in Facebook. Still, common sense suggests that the man is not covered in RS and therefore there is nothing to post in Wikipedia, anonymous. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Linux Journal is a reputable source. The guy really is notable. Let's at the very least agree to keep the article for the time being. What do you say? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merry-go-round. Again, there was no coverage of Hickey himself. Hickey cannot inherit Clojure's notability. As for "this guy really is notable" I suggest that you read which arguments to avoid at AfD. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE provides for just that sort of inheritance. (I copied the criteria several sections down.)  The relevant point is the provision for situations where "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."  Clojure has been the subject of several independent books.  The question then is, is Clojure "significant or well known"?  You can argue that it's not; just don't keep pretending that there are no qualification or exceptions to WP:INHERITED. Blowfish (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Or this Expert to Expert: Rich Hickey I realize (WP:NOTINHERITED), but the weight of the other interviewees (Erik Meijer for instance) seems to add weight. Since I've mentioned Erik Meijer it might also be worth noting that Rich Hickey will be one of three keynote speakers at this years' Strange Loop Conference. The list of keynote speakers is a short one that consists (this year) of Erik Meijer, Gerald Sussman, and Rich Hickey. Last year the list included Guy Steele and Douglas Crockford. I don't know if any of this is helpful, but that company alone seems to be reason enough to reconsider deletion. --216.26.125.63 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * MSDN Channel 9 is more of a blog (primary source) and therefore does not count towards notability. And no, by our standards other keynote speakers do not really add any weight to Hickey. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference to Rich Hickey by the very notable Brian Kernighan. Google Scholar results. Mention in InfoWorld. --216.26.125.63 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These are mere mentions which do not help establish notability. And Hickey cannot inherit notability from Kernighan in our case. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The notability guidelines do allow notability for creative works such as books, films, music, and the such. Clojure is a creative work. This case should not be any different for the same logic other types of creative work bestow notability. This article was nominated for deletion twice in the past and it was decided against it. 46.116.139.61 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again fallacy. Clojure's notability cannot be inherited. Artem Karimov (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not and how is it any different from other cases of creative work? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No different. No coverage of person = no article. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why Julian Assange and Jimmy Wales are notable? Why a reputable online programming media infoQ doesn't count as notable media? What's the difference between blogs, TVs, magazines, radio, podcasts and newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenejen (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I consider that a legitimate opinion or a joke? WP:OTHERSTUFF. Plus if you cannot differentiate between primary and secondary, reliable and unreliable, notable and unnotable sources then you should probably not be editing Wikipedia. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked a legitimate question. If notability is not inheritable, then Jimmy Wales and Julian Assange should not be considered because they are notable due to Wikipedia and Wikileak. So notability is in fact inheritable but it seems like notability depends on how influential the media is. Influence is a quantitative concept, therefore I asked the question about what is the difference between those type of media. If MSDN, InfoQ are considered not notable media outlet, then what about Usenet? Consider Erik Naggum, he was a very prominent figure in Usenet in 90's, but outside Usenet and computer programmers, he is not wellknown. But if someone starts to propose deletion of Erik Naggum's page, I bet the resistance will be very high due to he was in fact an important figure in Usenet history. Eugenejen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.194.211 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Insulting people isn't helpful. Blowfish (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rhethoric (i.e. pointless) questions are neither. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But the one doesn't justify the other. Blowfish (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep: See article here along with the previous mention of Channel9 here. His appearance on Channel9, it should be noted, is not a blog, but rather an interview as is clear here. Also, I believe that Mr. Hickey meets several of the guidelines in WP:BIO. Thus, I would recommend keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.27.114 (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Channel9 is a mix of forum, blog and wiki. Neither of these formats are acceptable as a reliable source. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific section of Channel9 is actually produced and created by a technographer at Microsoft - see here for reference to Charles Torre, and then here for a link to his personal Twitter here, where he describes himself as "Technographer at Microsoft (Channel 9)". This proves that the show "Going Deep" is an official production, and thus suitable for notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.27.114 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Though creative works were mentioned above, I think it might be useful to point towards WP:CREATIVE, since it gives pretty specific criteria. To whit: I would guess that 1, 2 are arguable, 3 is likely true in that the programming language has gained some traction, 4 fails except perhaps part c, and 5 doesn't really apply, since I don't believe Hickey is an academic. Blowfish (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) See Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics
 * It may fit into 3 but does this not contradict general notability guidelines? 3 implies the fact that Hickey may not be really covered anywhere but still gain notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's an interesting point that you just made. I would suggest that the most specific guideline should be the important one (and therefore WP:CREATIVE).  At the same time, we may run into a situation where the guidlines under WP:CREATIVE are met, but there are no sources of very good quality to use as material for the article.  So in that case you might be correct.  Blowfish (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So none of the sources offered are legit? Not even the Linux Journal or MSDN one? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well they are a bit marginal. The linux journal one seems reasonable, the others I'm not so sure about. I think a case can be made for Hickey's notability, not a slam dunk case by any means, but a reasonable one.  Sourcing is trickier.  And on balance, I'm not really sure whether this should be a keep or a delete. Blowfish (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's err on the safe side and Keep it for a while longer. 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So this seems to be going no where. If anyone could fetch some more experienced editors to chime in, that would be great. Blowfish (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CREATIVE #2, and #3. User:Artem Karimov's understanding is WP:RS is incorrect.  Reliable sources do not have to be "notable" themselves.  There is not a list somewhere of "approved" reliable sources of "notability".  Any source that meets the requirement of WP:RS is a reliable source.  Many of the links provided by the IPs are infact reliable sources.  Blogs, for instance, can be a reliable source if they are written by a professional or expert in the field.--v/r - TP 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Clojure. If he is truely notable then links to WP:RS will naturally accumulate there and we can reverse the decision. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clojure. No real notability apart from his work on Clojure.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I almost said merge, but I decided this was wrong. Why? Well, I found this page while searching for info on the guy because he wrote Clojure. I feel it is perfectly valid to include people in an encyclopedia who did only one notable thing. Indeed, probably many of the people listed in print encyclopedias for science and maths are most known for one particular achievement. Computing in particular is littered with such personalities: it's the nature of the beast. prat (talk) 14:33, 25 July 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.