Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean M. Burke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Withdrawn. Though still a borderline case, I'm satisfied with the additional sources provided to show the notability of the subject re the general notability guideline. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean M. Burke[edit]

Sean M. Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability. Doesn't meet any of the specific notability guidelines and the claim for general notability is tenuous at best. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 12:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Burke is a published mainstream technical author and prolific contributor of open-source Perl modules. He is prominent in the Perl community and has been consistently so for well over a decade. Joseph N Hall (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Burke is both a substantial and long-time contributor to the Perl community, and a noted researcher in the field of Native American languages. Schuyler Erle (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article was self-created by User:Sburke (Sean W. Burke) as evidenced by admission here. Sean Burke: please be aware of WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). Associates of Sean Burke, please be aware of the WP:CANVAS ethical guidelines. This AfD is not a vote, arguments need to be backed up by 1. Rules and 2. Sources. As is, the article has no sources, and the two Keep votes are not based in any of Notability rules (see WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE). If you wish to save the article recommend producing multiple reliable secondary sources that discuss Sean Burke in-depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I have essentially no interest in contributing to Wikipedia and haven't for years? People like you, and comments like the one you just made. Write your own damn shallow articles and live in your own damn supercilious, self-centered, templated universe. Or else stop acting like you own the place. Joseph N Hall (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep your comments WP:CIVIL. There's no reason to abuse another editor in this fashion and if you keep it up you may be blocked. Qworty (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Qworty. It was evidently a mistake to address anyone directly so I have striken that part of it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and whose work fails WP:BK. Strictly promotional article per WP:ADVERT. Keep votes appear to be from his meat puppets. Qworty (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meat puppets? Please avoid ad hominem attacks and keep this discussion WP:CIVIL.Mark viking (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Am I allowed to take part in this discussion on this page? —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are definitely allowed to participate in this discussion. Conflict of interest restrictions don't apply to discussions about articles.Mark viking (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comparing this article to articles of other notable people in the Perl world, one reason for lack of sources is that sburke's books and CPAN modules are not listed in the sources sections. But the books and CPAN modules by themselves don't establish notability in Wikipedia culture. Secondary sources are, if not required, then very helpful in establishing notability. Are there any interviews with Sean Burke or any articles about him in particular? Are there any reviews of his books by journalists or impartial sources, establishing notability for his books? What about independent articles on any of his CPAN modules? I did a quick search, but there are too many Sean Burkes in the world for me to easily sift through the results.Mark viking (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that the external links should appear, or even could appear, as references/sources. Let me shuffle that around and see how that shapes up. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reliable source (Scientific Computing) to give a sense of the type of independent sources needed to establish Wikipedia notability. In this case, it would be in support of WP:CREATIVE #3: "multiple independent reviews" of a "well-known work". But would need more sources like that to meet the "multiple" criteria and to show it is a "well-known work". Other paths to notability might include CREATIVE #2 for the CPAN modules, if there are independent sources that can show they are "significant" in some way. For example, the modules are included with a core Perl library distribution that is widely used might be one argument (supported with independent reliable sources). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!, now I've got kind of an idea for what direction to go in. Can you have a look now and let me know if I'm getting warmer or colder? I think the fact that there's a whole chapter in a secondary book that says that I'm the guy who specified the language that the chapter is about, might count for something, but I'm unclear on this.. I plan to put in links to several selected Perl Journal articles-- there's coherence to them in that about half of them are about linguistics, text processing, NLP, etc; and that many are collected in the three volume "Best of the Perl Journal". Also, would it help if I linked to a review or two of the lexicography textbook that I appear in? I never know what's good to add vs just digs me deeper into the hole. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source "foy, brian d (2007)" is excellent because it is independent of the subject (ie. a source not written by Sean Burke) and it shows Burke did something of significance. So is the Scientific Computing source. All the other sources are primary sources (by Sean Burke) and thus can't be used in determining notability. So basically we have third-party evidence that Burke "specified the Pod format", and that Burke wrote a definitive "RTF reference guide". Any book reviews written independently of Burke about Burke (or his book) would be usable too. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the gist of this now. OK, I have other third-party books that discuss modules I've written and published (…and I wasn't an author of the book, and in fact, my modules' appearances in the books were surprises that I stumbled upon *while reading the book*… pleasant surprises, although I wish they'd chosen better example cases. But as they say, "perfect is the enemy of done"); and I'll add citations to those sources in, say, the next twelve hours from me hitting Enter here. (I've got other kinds of sources— for crossing that bridge if we come to it, i.e., to establish further notability if deemed necessary.) —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:42 --(Green Cardamom (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
By the way, your link to Scientific Computing is to an article about general scientific computing. On purpose? —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You (@Mark viking) asked: "Are there any reviews of his books by journalists or impartial sources, establishing notability for his books?" Do online reviews count? Or does it have to be in print? Reason I ask is: there's a decent number of online reviews of Perl & LWP. (And I don't mean blurbs like an Amazon description or something.) Same question for interviews online: "Are there any interviews with Sean Burke or any articles about him in particular?" Well, one or two Perl.com dudes have been saying that I should do an interview there was like with Ilya Zakherovich and Damian Conway. What's everyone's advice? Suggestions, anyone? —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Wikipedia culture is concerned, source quality is more important than the medium; online book reviews can count. Arranging an interview for the purpose of saving a Wikipedia article seems a bit backwards and would be a COI. But if a journalist/news site comes asking you for an interview and the consensus here is that the source of the interview is reliable/reputable and objective, it will likely count toward notability. Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes good sense. Thank you, this is helping me out.
Well dangit. I could have sworn there was a back-and-forth with me in Perl Debugged (2001), but now that I've unearthed my copy, there's just a big paragraph of me simply going on about record boundaries as optimization points. Tossing that in the wood chipper.

—sburke@cpan.org (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, alas. When this article was started, being the author of a technical book was considered enough to be notable. The consensus has changed. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Editing a dictionary does not get through #3, and I don't see that he meets any of the other points. §FreeRangeFrog 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been entirely derelict in not having shown my work in having written articles. There's the word "columnist" in passing, and I have a link to something somewhere, but I have neglected to show as well as just tell. My articles are where I've put a lot of my work. I consider my articles to be at least as important as my books— but in this WP entry on me, as I've make the mistake of letting it stand, you can blink and miss it that they exist at all. I consider my work with the articles as well as with the modules to be parts of a greater coherent work toward demonstrating kinds of natural language processing, and providing tools enabling it. E.g., Locale::Maketext isn't yet another templating system, it's the basis for i18n of entire applications, like Request Tracker, with my goal in having written Locale::Maketext being to solve problems that encumber in gettext; Sort::ArbBiLex isn't just some little do-dad like the amortization module I wrote one afternoon, it's something crucial to localization, the theme of half my articles. I'll go put in some article links now, to make clear what has been, so far, nigh upon invisible in the article— to the result of this to-date resounding bafflement over why two books and a few modules have been claimed as be grounds for notability. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as per WP:GNG, this discussion is not focused on what you have written, but what has been written about you in independent reliable sources. What we're really after is coverage of you (or your works) in the press or in books; independent book reviews; and awards (for either you or you works); and similar. Note that these don't have to be in digital form. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's in the works, too. One (or three or four) things at a time here. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been active in the Perl community since 2001, and Burke has been prominent ever since. In addition, he's a published author in technical and linguistic fields. -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dandv! But at this point, at least as I understand this all: in the complex metarules where these things are reckoned, they need to see you *already having said that*. Everyone, go write an article about me... in the past. I'll be having giving interviews. Hurry, man, before it's still time! But... gnkh,... dammit, I can't get my scp-based teleport to work right.
I like the coincidence that I've just now just finished reading Zero History, which contains a brand of clothing that's famous for being secret. ALSO: In the book, there's an academic named Milgrim who, because of sad drugs that I have some familiarity with, basically can't remember the past ten years of his life, where he's been sorta "of no fixed address". He goes into rehab, where they wean him off the big bad drugs by giving him other drugs. And toward the end, the reveal: «[Milgrim saying]: “I’m almost out of medication.” [they say:] “That’s all been placebos for the past three months.” Milgrim slid his hand inside his jacket, to touch the almost-empty bubble-pack. No more tiny purple notations of date and time. “But I like a placebo,” he said to himself.» I don't think I'm like Migrim,... but if I were, I would probably have forgotten having been. Similarly or at least isomorphically, I know a writer about whom I can almost say that "he's an excellent author who's quite famous— among authors."… but actually he's getting more of an audience now. But, sshh, I must not say his name, or Wikipe-tan might whammy him with the Stark Broom Of Removal.
As for me, my plans for the future involve making up some t-shirts at Café Press saying “But I like a placebo”. But for the moment, it's a secret— Don't tell anyone. Wait,... no,... Go tell anyone!
In the meantime, I'll be ~sourcing~ myself... But seriously, I'm actually finding some interesting stuff. Medical records formatting software using nuggets of my RTF,... people I never knew about using Locale::Maketext,... so APPARENTLY I ACTUALLY AM TAKING THIS PROCESS VERY EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY. READY GO. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacationnine 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by new Scientific Computing and Mastering Perl refs. -—Kvng 05:51, 26 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_M._Burke&oldid=1144349830"