Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Love


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state other reasons why the subject might be presumed notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are all clearly primary, either the subject's own writings or interviews with him. Fundamentally, you can't make yourself notable just by talking or writing more, no matter what you have to say. It takes other people writing or talking about you. Googling turned up nothing useful. Further, though not a reason to delete, I note that virtually all the content has been contributed by a small number of SPAs, suggesting the article may be just exactly as autobiographical as it appears to be. Msnicki (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 22.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I looked at one of the interviews (ARS Technica, 23 January 2004) and it says about the topic, "...one of the most prominent Linux kernel hackers of today..."  This is a WP:RS secondary source.  This refutes the statement in the nomination that "Sources offered are all clearly primary..."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * An interview can be a secondary source to the extent it offers the interviewer's own thoughts and analysis. Think 60 Minutes, for example, and the way they'll often weave an interview into a story that involves their own investigation, fact-checking and additional reporting.  But an interview that merely asks questions and reports the subject's answers verbatim is not.  An introductory remark like the one you've cited might possibly be secondary, but only that remark.  One possibly secondary remark does not make the whole interview secondary.


 * And what exactly is the value of that remark? Interviews often start off with some boilerplate biographical material typically supplied by or informally negotiated with the subject and it's often somewhat puffed.  After all, editors want readers so of course they hype their stories.  It's not like they're going to say, "We don't know who he is but we decided to ask him some questions."  As these intros go, this particular remark is on what I'd call the trivial end of the scale.


 * Finally, this isn't even an article about the subject, which is what WP:GNG asks of us. They're not talking about the subject.  They're not interviewing him as a famous person and wanting to know about him.  They're talking about the Linux kernel and they're talking to him because he can supply technical information.  I respect your opinion but mine is that this is still a primary source, like most interviews.  Msnicki (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - according to a colleague, he's published how-to manuals from 'the best' such book publisher. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep seems to pass WP:GNG based on a few interviews. The secondary guideline at WP:NAUTHOR #3 also applies, and he seems to weakly pass there as well (as a body of work, his Linux books are apparently well-received). Article needs cleanup as too many primary sources are used. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2014 (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.