Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Whitney (computer scientist)

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 keep. Several in-depth interviews in reliable sources is, according to the concensus below, enough to show notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Whitney (computer scientist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources given are interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY and are not helpful in establishing notability. Further, I have been unable to find better sources through all the usual Google searches. The best I could find was a blog post mentioning his A+ language as the "obscure language of the month" which hardly seems to be a ringing endorsement of the notability of that, either. Msnicki (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The A+ and K articles have some information, maybe the article can be rewritten as a section of the article K? (Apparently K was written by him, and A+ was a developed by a team) Ziiike (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment I don't see enough yet in searching to satistfy GNG or WP:PROF, but an interview published in the ACM Queue is not a primary source for establishing notability -- the fact that an important RS chose to interview him is a definite argument for notability. I'm satisfied that the languages themselves are notable now and with that plus the coverage in press sources, switching Comment to Keep-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The principal creator of two notable languages is notable--I'm assuming the languages actually are notable--if this is doubtful, a combination article could be written, either under the name of the best known language--or here, with sections on the languages. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like he should meet WP:ACADEMIC for his contributions to computer science (he also helped create J, which is probably better known). Not very many sources, though. This ACM Queue interview has some facts at the start[1]. Bloomberg has a bit of info[2]. This Computer Weekly article mentions him but quotes Wikipedia so maybe shouldn't count[3]. Is the Journal of the British APL Association a reliable source?[4]. Not RS[5]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources aren't helpful in establishing notability. The ACM Queue article (1) is an interview, which makes it WP:PRIMARY. The Bloomberg article (2) is trivial coverage. The Computer Weekly article (3) is interview with the CEO at Kx Systems, which the subject founded; this is just plain NOT independent. The BAA article (4) is routine coverage of one of Kx Systems' launch parties and (even more useless) it was written by someone AT Kx Systems. I think the tribute to Roger Hui (5) is probably reliable with a citation to the original ACM publication but it's about Roger Hui, not the subject; any mentions of Whitney in this article are incidental to explaining Hui's accomplishments and offer very little information about Whitney. I don't think this is sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC and notability established by sources listed above. The content of an interview is WP:PRIMARY for the purposes of citing facts but the fact that an independent source chose to conduct the interview is strong evidence of notability for the topic. --Kvng (talk) 17:39, 7 June 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.