Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branden Robinson

:{{la|Branden Robinson}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Branden_Robinson Stats])

:({{Find sources|Branden Robinson}})

Subject of article does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Only one independent reference (which is not about the subject, and only appears to mention the subject in passing). No significant external coverage from independent secondary sources. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources for 3 years, and it still only has one lone citation to an independent source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep: there are multiple interviews ([http://www.linux-mag.com/id/1865/], [http://lwn.net/Articles/174705/], [http://archive09.linux.com/feature/113995], etc), news items specificly covering his opinions and statements ([http://www.zdnet.com/debian-developers-ponder-trademark-changes-3039220181/ eg]) and other numerous but light sources. Frankly, I can't find anything to decisively support my !vote, but I believe he is worth mention in Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

::*Interviews are a primary source and hence are not considered a reliable source, see WP:RS, "Further examples of primary sources include ... , editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews;... A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include .. interviews".

::*News items are not enough to establish notability. WP:NOTABILITY "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability" and "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage."

::*Being in the news is not a valid argument for a keep vote. WP:INTHENEWS "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and keep arguments must take this into account."

::*Being mentioned or quoted in passing in a source is not enough to establish notability, see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE

::*The subject of the news is Debian. There is no evidence that Branden Robinson is notable independent of his ex-role as Project Leader, WP:NOTINHERITED

::*There is no significant external coverage from independent secondary sources on the topic of Branden Robinson. That is the bar for notability. Interviews are primary sources. There is plenty of coverage of Debian by secondary sources, so Debian is notable, but being mentioned or quoted in news about Debian does not make a person notable. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

---

::::While I generally agree with your points (particularly about interviews ≠ RS), the claim "There is no evidence that Branden Robinson is notable independent of his ex-role as Project Leader, WP:NOTINHERITED" is laughable: people are always note notable separately of their roles. Obama is not notable separately of his political career, Napoleon is not notable separately from his political and military career, Brittney Spears is not notable separately from her singing career, etc. In this sense BLP notability is always inherited, so we may safely assume that WP:Notability (people) wholy overrides WP:NOTINHERITED. Again, for clarity: I have no accountable claim for his notability, only "feeling" that he belongs here per his impact to Debian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::I think you missed the point of WP:NOTINHERITED. The point is that, just because the subject "Debian" or "Debian Project Leader" is notable, it does not mean that every Debian developer, or every Debian Project Leader, is individually notable. If there are articles about Debian, and an individual gets quoted because they have a particular role in Debian, this does not make the individual notable. It is Debian that is the subject of the article. It is Debian that is notable.

:::::How many reliable sources are there about Obama? Not reliable sources about the role President of the U.S., but specifically about Obama? How many reliable sources are there about Branden Robinson? Not reliable sources about Debian or the Debian Project Leader, but specifically about Branden Robinson? That is the difference. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

::::::Obviously, but the news item about the actions of particular Debian Project Leader contributes to his notability, not to the notability of position. You should also note, that mainstream press (which is the press that covers Obama) has different habbits, out of necessity: they don't have to explain in every article, what is U.S., what is President, what is U.S. President in particular, and how is it called, because unlike independent tech sources they may safely assume that their readers are knowledgable of subject. At the same time, average tech source has to explain all these points simply to ensure that newbies (largest slice of TA) grasp the news item. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Can you give specific examples of secondary-source-reliable-source articles that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" regarding Branden Robinson?

:::::::The only example so far was the news article "Debian developers ponder trademark changes", which is not particular detailed, and would be classed as "routine news coverage" ("it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage").

:::::::Notability requires verifiable evidence: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition."

:::::::So please provide the evidence of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Because that is what is required. Not primary sources, or interviews, or routine news coverage, or press releases, or personal blogs. Notability requires verifiable evidence, not "feelings" that the person belongs in Wikipedia. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep See also [http://besa-innovation.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Eciswp131.pdf "The end of communities of practice in open source projects? Evidence from the Debian case."] for additional coverage in re Debian, and [http://portal.uc3m.es/portal/page/portal/dpto_economia_empresa/seminarios/seminarios_antiguos/Seminarios_2006-2007/Ferraro_GOPC_9-8-06_000.pdf "Governance in production communities" p. 22], but I would like some coverage of his X-Windows work. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. 1292simon (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete The sources found by Bejnar are both just passing mentions in very long articles about somethign else. SpinningSpark 12:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete As above. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete – I also do not think it meets notability standards. United States Man (talk) 03:27, 10 June 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.