Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lutus

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lutus

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

Sourcing is very weak here. Does not demonstrate the level of independent, notable coverage required from multiple reliable sources to just a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG rules. DreamGuy (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best, he could be briefly mentioned on the Apple Writer page.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... I agree that the article should be deleted. On reading its long history, one sees several two-phase efforts to (a) delete all its references, then (b) move to delete the article on the ground that its claims had no references. Then someone would restore the article to its original state, but this time, the removal effort will probably succeed (and I encourage this outcome). The article was never that strong to begin with, but the valiant efforts by any number of SPAs over the years have turned it into a disaster. I am personally embarrassed by the article's present state, and I am equally embarrassed by the behavior of its editors.

For comparison, after small articles like this are deleted for not being substantial or well-referenced enough (an objection with some merit), here's what I see as the future of Wikipedia: Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. Does anyone have a problem with this 1600-word article? Maybe, to make room for it and articles like it, we can delete a few more accounts of notable scientific and technical people. Lutusp (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some kind of weird OWN stuff happening on that page. No changes are accepted at all. Thus, there's an "info box" that contains just a name and a link to his personal website. There's stuff about a boat voyage, and a link to his free book about it. And the sentence about moving to Oregon and living in isolation. The only notable thing in the article is the authorship of Apple Writer, and some of the awards. Only 4 people on WP are shown to have the Vollum. WP doesn't show anyone else for scientist of the year. (Editors protecting the Lutus Page from any edit should really be contributing to the wider project by sourcing and writing articles about those awards. The Vollum seems like it might be notable.) Nothing else is notable at all. This is just a heavily padded vanity article. Removing padding leaves a tiny stump. Sourcing is weak. Notability is tenuous at best. Editors exhibit problematic OWN and other behaviours. 31.126.206.226 (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has links to free (beer) ebook and to non-free (beer) printed book. That link is aggressively restored. The article would be really thin if the only notable thing is left in. 178.111.60.107 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lutus here. I repeat my prior request: please, either delete the article or freeze it against future vandalism -- I don't care which. Other editors in this conversation have claimed there's a notability issue. Obviously that's a matter of judgment. One editor above says "Only 4 people on WP are shown to have the Vollum." For the record, here's a partial list of past Vollum Award recipients: Linus Pauling, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, and Paul Lutus. There are obviously many more less well-known but deserving recipients in this prestigious award's 38-year history.

Another editor claims that "Sourcing is weak." On the contrary, every claim in the article is sourced, except one -- that I wrote a solar system model used by JPL during the Viking Mars mission. But that claim is sourced, with supporting documentation, here. Obviously I'm not going to edit my own article, nevertheless, every claim in the article has a source.

On the issue of notability and for comparison, here's an article about one of my age-contemporaries in software development: Bill Budge. Not a technologist as I am, but a game designer. No technical or scientific track record. I emphasize this is not meant to disparage Mr. Budge, it's only meant as a comparison. So, one might ask, given our respective backgrounds, what's all this deletion activity surrounding Paul Lutus' article, but none about Mr. Budge's, which has similar content? The answer is that I am a vocal critic of the practice of psychology, and this has resulted in any number of SPAs attacking my article over the years, hoping to reduce my public visibility.

Another editor says "This is just a heavily padded vanity article." So delete the article -- but before you do, read Budge's article. Ask yourself whether my article, and Budge's article, and a hundred similar Wikipedia articles, differ in this trait. Then ask yourself why my article has been singled out for deletion. And don't get confused -- I'm not arguing for this article's retention. I want Wikipedia to either delete the article or secure it against vandalism, and as I said above, I don't care which. Thanks for reading. Lutusp (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. My use of the Budge article is only to show that it's being treated differently, not to argue that "other stuff exists". Again, I would be very happy to see this article deleted, or frozen against vandalism. But please -- one or the other. The outcome is appropriately in the hands of others. Lutusp (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2013 (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.