Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Schelter

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bill Schelter was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Vanity page for nonnotable individual. Deletionist 09:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. AtonX 10:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems like he had some accomplishments. Do we have precedents for authors of widely used but specialized free software projects (other than "megastars" RMS, ESR, and Linus)? I don't see how it can possibly be a vanity. Gazpacho 11:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can it be a vanity if the guy has died?Dr Zen 12:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful stub for a guy who sounds quite notable enough to me. Andrewa 12:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: So far as I can tell, he wrote petitions over piracy, got discussed on forums, programmed an implementation, and died. Otherwise, he is mentioned mainly by Wikipedia mirrors. Wikipedia is not the site for memorials, and the biography is not sufficiently notable, unless his ideas on the commons or his programs become lasting and effective pieces of the culture. Geogre 15:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof of academic notability. JFW | T@lk 16:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lack of proof of academic notability, per JFW above, isn't necessary in this case - he seems notable enough as a programmer, and is author of at least two significant enough pieces so he can't readily be merged. Samaritan 19:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • So why not mention his programming abilities, particular concepts in CS he coined, the circumstances of his death in Russia???? In the present form the article really is deletion material. JFW | T@lk 09:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep notable as author of two significant programs. Wolfman 01:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is a notable developer (particular of GCL --Gnu Common Lisp, descendent of Kyoto Common Lisp used in Maxima).CSTAR 03:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As the article now currently states, he wrote the first GCC description of the I386. Notable event in the history of Linux. Deleting the article would be a mistake, I believe.CSTAR
  • Keep, duh. He was a major Lisp guy back when I was doing Lisp stuff. Lack of information about him here and on the net is proof that this article and the net are both crappy, not the other way around. Who's next, Alan Turing? ("I can't find any of his source code on the net, must be less important than Linus"). Stan 05:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sofixit! Light a candle rather than cursing. Geogre 19:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Follow up 24 hr later: no one has helped the article whatsoever. For being for "building" the encyclopedia, a number of people seem strangely reluctant to help deletable articles. Geogre 20:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Who's foolish enough to bother touching an article while it's on VfD? I don't have so much spare time that I can spend it adding to articles that might be deleted anyway. VfD is not supposed to be a backdoor to try to force people to spend their time on particular articles. Stan 05:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Agree whole heartedly. VfD is not a tool which encourages article building. If anything, it fosters exactly the opposite. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
WTF?!? I've saved numerous articles from VfD by expanding them during the voting period, as have others. There's a good reason the VfD template says "However, you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it." Niteowlneils 21:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Knock yourself out, this is just my personal policy. The original claim was lack of notability, which is a property independent of whether this particular article was any good - if he's not notable, then a detailed three-page article should still be deleted. People who don't know enough about Schelter to know whether he was notable or not should have the sense to abstain from this vote, IMHO. Stan 06:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see! If no one had listed it on VfD, you'd have been thrilled to help out, but now your feelings are just so hurt you can't be bothered? Your injunctions for everyone else to improve things are hollow in the light of such hypocrisy. Geogre 05:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Heh, you should check Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits before criticizing people for how much they do; at 1,700 and #563, you have a long way to go to catch up with ol' Stan, who's 29th-most-active with nearly 16,000 edits. Stan 06:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for a bits-only encyclopedia. Bbpen 05:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs expanding, but not a candidate for deletion. DCEdwards1966 03:26, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was nominated by someone who calls himself "Deletionist"? *sigh* [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 19:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You know the subject? If so, fix the article! Improve its quality. You have a lot more credibility when you do. (Comment left by Geogre 20:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC))
      • He needs credibility now? And just writing "Not notable" or not even bothering to give a reason (as gK does above) is credible? It's like having a flat tyre. I don't have to change it myself to prove that I don't need to get rid of the whole car.Dr Zen 05:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 15:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why did I originally not give any reasons for my vote? I got to the debate late (I am not a regular reader of the WP:VfD page) and it was obvious that everyone had already made up their mind and nothing I could write would change anyone's opinion.
  • "Why did I vote for deletion of the article? Because if the information in the stub for Bill Schelter are the highlights of his CV then his career was rather insignificant and not noteworthy. He wrote one particular implementation (out of at least eight) for just one of the more than a dozen different dialects of Lisp (see Common Lisp#List of implementations and Category:LISP dialects for examples). Big deal! Did he do any of the major work on the design and development of Lisp, or even did he make any major improvements to Lisp? No!
  • My criteria for inclusion as a separate article in the Wikipedia (in this particular case): Does he rate a mention in any of the major Wikipedia articles on Lisp (e.g. Common Lisp or Lisp programming language) other than the gratuitous See also at the end of the Lisp article? No! (At best, he rates a merge into the Common Lisp article.)
  • My judgement: Still a Strong Delete! [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 05:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: significant achievements. Umm, Schelter is deceased, so it seems unlikely to be a vanity page. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Wile E Heresiarch and Stan Shebs. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep fvw* 06:53, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Schelter&oldid=1033970484"