Incubator escapee wiki:Articles for deletion/David A. Wheeler

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 of the debate was KEEP—NO CONSENSUS. 7 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep.

David A. Wheeler

Vanity page, apparently written by the subject. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Move to his own user page of course (if he agrees) Kim Bruning 15:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I agree that this would be more appropriate on his user page. --Neschek 15:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. 9000 google hits. Article created by IP in 2002. Niteowlneils 17:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Move to his own user page or delete. Autobiography, vanity, and advertising in current form. Notability not established by article. Software Inspection: An Industry Best Practice Amazon.com Sales Rank: 258,038. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Move to own user page or delete. -- Nickj 00:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: I have heard of this person before (mainly through his sloccount open-source utility, which gets a mention in this article), so I would like to see the content kept, but probably a user page is more suitable. It is a bit of a line-ball call though, so if it's allowed, as a comprise perhaps we could have a redirect from the old page to the user page? -- Nickj 06:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Move to user page and delete. Autobiography is a danger. ("Biography is one of the new terrors of death" John Arbuthnot). Geogre 01:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He's somewhat notable among Open Source people, slightly above my notability threshold for Wikipedia. Article is informative, not vanity or ad. jni 05:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonably well known author.--Eloquence*
• Abstain. Hard to decide if notable enough. --Improv 17:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly has potential to become encyclopedic, a reasonably notable author. —siroχo 22:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. As is surely evident based upon my vote record, I think that we should be spending more time ensuring factual accuracy and eliminating political bias rather than wasting it on debating whether or not something is "important" enough to be (or become) encyclopedic. "Wikipedia is not paper" and "Bytes are cheap" are mantras that are being repeated here over and over again. For a reason. Radman1 18:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way... I made a small contribution to Wikimedia foundation during the last fund drive, and I do hope that those who intone those mantras did so, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Wolfman 02:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep He's well-known enough in (esp. in free software / open source circles) to be listed -- Cabalamat 22:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Are you people on crack? Keep. "I've never heard of him" is not equal to "non-notable". Has done extensive and notable work in writing on open source software - David Gerard 07:22, 24 Oct 2004 (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.