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. The general consensus is that he is not notable for an individual article. Given the various things he was involved in, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to just one of them.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
NN engineer, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. No sources found (including those in the article) that provide more than namedrops, casual mentions and primary sources. Article notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded ten years ago with the rationale "going to deprod out of a perhaps irrational belief i can find more...." We've waited ten years for more to be forthcoming; enough is enough.
Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There's coverage back in the 1980s in works such as Microcomputer System Design and Applications and Microprocessor Development and Development Systems. We have continuing coverage in more recent works such as The System Engineers Handbook and High-speed Serial Buses in Embedded Systems. The worst case would be merger into a page about the subject's notable work such as
VERSAbus. Applicable policies include
WP:ATD;
WP:BEFORE;
WP:IMPERFECT;
WP:NEXIST;
WP:NOTPAPER and
WP:PRESERVE.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 13:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would ask you which specifically of those works provides the "substantial coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires, except that you haven't yet responded to any such request from me with any answer beyond deflection, obfuscation and the like. (After all, that would require that you actually read these sources beforehand. For my part, I favor a definition of
WP:BEFORE that is not "Ooooo, sourcez!!!" and grab the first half dozen hits off the list, without so much as bothering to examine them.) Had there been a valid redirect target, I'd have already done that.
Ravenswing 18:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Corporate press releases and a couple non-notable engineering handbooks mentioning him in passing does not make someone encyclopedic.
JoelleJay (
talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete A couple of small mentions in nonsignificant works don't justify a wikipedia article.
Galebazz (
talk) 19:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge into
VMEbus, where his invention/standard is mentioned. I basically agree with
Andrew but do not see the extensive coverage yet. I invite
Galebazz,
JoelleJay,
Elmidae,
JavaHurricane, and
Devokewater to give this another look. Being so widely accredited with a major technological development, this is at the very least a probable search string. BTW, the three books (1982, 1992, and 2020 – speaking to the continued interest), were published by *major* publishing houses for the science/technology domain.
gidonb (
talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: The coverage not being there is what makes this a GNG fail -- a work being published by a large publishing house, as I'm sure you know, confers no waiver of the guideline -- and being a GNG fail, an article on the subject cannot be sustained. That being said, a merge isn't on,
simply because there's not a clear redirect target; several potential ones are listed in the article, and I didn't redirect in the first place because of that. Beyond that, Kister being cited as the Inventor! is not borne out by the article itself, which cites numerous engineers and teams by name as making substantial contributions to the hardware.
Ravenswing 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This "official response by the article's nominator" reads confused to me versus the article and my opinion. In any case, there is no need for arguing with each (!) single person here who reaches different conclusions. Instead, please concentrate on a better
WP:BEFORE and do not
WP:PROD when disagreement can be expected. 14:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
AfD is, in fact, a discussion; if you're unwilling to discuss it, you shouldn't be at AfD. As far as when "disagreement can be expected," I'm no more of a psychic than the next person, figured -- perhaps naively -- that the purpose of WP:BEFORE is to identify sources that satisfy the GNG, and trusted in the good faith of other editors
not to just throw up some source, any source, in defiance of the GNG's requirements. (That being said, would you care to identify which sources you found that provide significant coverage to the subject, if you believe that BEFORE was inadequately performed in this case?)
Ravenswing 15:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually I should add my opinion to discussions. And yes, sometimes I get a question and am delighted to answer. As the nominator, you should not
WP:BLUDGEON under every person's opinion who thinks differently with totally irrelevant information. It's annoying in the extreme. Arguments for the sake of arguments. For example, I count 4 times the mentioning of the
WP:GNG under my opinion but if you would care to read that guideline you would immediately see that there is absolutely no relevance between the
WP:GNG and what I wrote. This is not an invitation to bring other relevant or irrelevant stuff to my attention, just to do better next time!
gidonb (
talk) 01:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, you did get a question. Which you are ducking. Fair enough.
Ravenswing 02:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Not ducking. I always improve references immediately in the article. This article was no exception at all! I try not confront nominators with the sources they miss. Since I favor merging, the
WP:GNG and sources do not matter whatsoever, per that very guideline. You try to waste people's time, to no avail. For me, it's all about the article space. Take a look at the article history and see what you can learn, if anything. There's no need for me to convince the nominator. Your intention to delete was clear from start.
gidonb (
talk) 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
VMEbus Mentioned in the target article, a plausible search term and of course redirects are cheap. Not broad enough coverage in RSs for a stand-alone article.
Pavlor (
talk) 05:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge into
VMEbus, unless additional independant sources significant content on the subject are found to warrant standalone article. -
Kj cheetham (
talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete No significant job that qualifies him to have a page.
Nika2020 (
talk) 21:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
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. The general consensus is that he is not notable for an individual article. Given the various things he was involved in, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to just one of them.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
NN engineer, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. No sources found (including those in the article) that provide more than namedrops, casual mentions and primary sources. Article notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded ten years ago with the rationale "going to deprod out of a perhaps irrational belief i can find more...." We've waited ten years for more to be forthcoming; enough is enough.
Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There's coverage back in the 1980s in works such as Microcomputer System Design and Applications and Microprocessor Development and Development Systems. We have continuing coverage in more recent works such as The System Engineers Handbook and High-speed Serial Buses in Embedded Systems. The worst case would be merger into a page about the subject's notable work such as
VERSAbus. Applicable policies include
WP:ATD;
WP:BEFORE;
WP:IMPERFECT;
WP:NEXIST;
WP:NOTPAPER and
WP:PRESERVE.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 13:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would ask you which specifically of those works provides the "substantial coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires, except that you haven't yet responded to any such request from me with any answer beyond deflection, obfuscation and the like. (After all, that would require that you actually read these sources beforehand. For my part, I favor a definition of
WP:BEFORE that is not "Ooooo, sourcez!!!" and grab the first half dozen hits off the list, without so much as bothering to examine them.) Had there been a valid redirect target, I'd have already done that.
Ravenswing 18:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Corporate press releases and a couple non-notable engineering handbooks mentioning him in passing does not make someone encyclopedic.
JoelleJay (
talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete A couple of small mentions in nonsignificant works don't justify a wikipedia article.
Galebazz (
talk) 19:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge into
VMEbus, where his invention/standard is mentioned. I basically agree with
Andrew but do not see the extensive coverage yet. I invite
Galebazz,
JoelleJay,
Elmidae,
JavaHurricane, and
Devokewater to give this another look. Being so widely accredited with a major technological development, this is at the very least a probable search string. BTW, the three books (1982, 1992, and 2020 – speaking to the continued interest), were published by *major* publishing houses for the science/technology domain.
gidonb (
talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: The coverage not being there is what makes this a GNG fail -- a work being published by a large publishing house, as I'm sure you know, confers no waiver of the guideline -- and being a GNG fail, an article on the subject cannot be sustained. That being said, a merge isn't on,
simply because there's not a clear redirect target; several potential ones are listed in the article, and I didn't redirect in the first place because of that. Beyond that, Kister being cited as the Inventor! is not borne out by the article itself, which cites numerous engineers and teams by name as making substantial contributions to the hardware.
Ravenswing 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This "official response by the article's nominator" reads confused to me versus the article and my opinion. In any case, there is no need for arguing with each (!) single person here who reaches different conclusions. Instead, please concentrate on a better
WP:BEFORE and do not
WP:PROD when disagreement can be expected. 14:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
AfD is, in fact, a discussion; if you're unwilling to discuss it, you shouldn't be at AfD. As far as when "disagreement can be expected," I'm no more of a psychic than the next person, figured -- perhaps naively -- that the purpose of WP:BEFORE is to identify sources that satisfy the GNG, and trusted in the good faith of other editors
not to just throw up some source, any source, in defiance of the GNG's requirements. (That being said, would you care to identify which sources you found that provide significant coverage to the subject, if you believe that BEFORE was inadequately performed in this case?)
Ravenswing 15:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually I should add my opinion to discussions. And yes, sometimes I get a question and am delighted to answer. As the nominator, you should not
WP:BLUDGEON under every person's opinion who thinks differently with totally irrelevant information. It's annoying in the extreme. Arguments for the sake of arguments. For example, I count 4 times the mentioning of the
WP:GNG under my opinion but if you would care to read that guideline you would immediately see that there is absolutely no relevance between the
WP:GNG and what I wrote. This is not an invitation to bring other relevant or irrelevant stuff to my attention, just to do better next time!
gidonb (
talk) 01:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, you did get a question. Which you are ducking. Fair enough.
Ravenswing 02:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Not ducking. I always improve references immediately in the article. This article was no exception at all! I try not confront nominators with the sources they miss. Since I favor merging, the
WP:GNG and sources do not matter whatsoever, per that very guideline. You try to waste people's time, to no avail. For me, it's all about the article space. Take a look at the article history and see what you can learn, if anything. There's no need for me to convince the nominator. Your intention to delete was clear from start.
gidonb (
talk) 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
VMEbus Mentioned in the target article, a plausible search term and of course redirects are cheap. Not broad enough coverage in RSs for a stand-alone article.
Pavlor (
talk) 05:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge into
VMEbus, unless additional independant sources significant content on the subject are found to warrant standalone article. -
Kj cheetham (
talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete No significant job that qualifies him to have a page.
Nika2020 (
talk) 21:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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.