31:
469:
of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Clojure has been the subject of several independent books. The question then is, is
Clojure "significant or well known"? You can argue that it's not; just don't keep pretending that there are no qualification or exceptions to
234:. This is undisputed and alone makes him notable. He is one of the key pillars of the Clojure's community for over 4 years now. Clojure rose to fame due to his video lectures on blip.tv which are still popular today. He was interviewed several times and presented several keynote lectures. Some can be found
751:
I asked a legitimate question. If notability is not inheritable, then Jimmy Wales and Julian
Assange should not be considered because they are notable due to Knowledge and Wikileak. So notability is in fact inheritable but it seems like notability depends on how influential the media is. Influence is
468:
provides for just that sort of inheritance. (I copied the criteria several sections down.) The relevant point is the provision for situations where "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject
1024:
Well they are a bit marginal. The linux journal one seems reasonable, the others I'm not so sure about. I think a case can be made for Hickey's notability, not a slam dunk case by any means, but a reasonable one. Sourcing is trickier. And on balance, I'm not really sure whether this should be a
641:
The notability guidelines do allow notability for creative works such as books, films, music, and the such. Clojure is a creative work. This case should not be any different for the same logic other types of creative work bestow notability. This article was nominated for deletion twice in the past
1254:
he wrote
Clojure. I feel it is perfectly valid to include people in an encyclopedia who did only one notable thing. Indeed, probably many of the people listed in print encyclopedias for science and maths are most known for one particular achievement. Computing in particular is littered with such
756:, he was a very prominent figure in Usenet in 90's, but outside Usenet and computer programmers, he is not wellknown. But if someone starts to propose deletion of Erik Naggum's page, I bet the resistance will be very high due to he was in fact an important figure in Usenet history.
945:
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or
404:." Which totally hints to anyone who still is not quite sure of RH's notability that he's the man. I think this should put this to rest. We're not dealing here with some obscure person. Artem, why are you so strongly in favor of deleting this entry
941:
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or
991:
I think that's an interesting point that you just made. I would suggest that the most specific guideline should be the important one (and therefore WP:CREATIVE). At the same time, we may run into a situation where the guidlines under
422:
Oh my god! The article has a photo in the lead! You know what, I also have a giant photo in
Facebook. Still, common sense suggests that the man is not covered in RS and therefore there is nothing to post in Knowledge, anonymous.
957:
I would guess that 1, 2 are arguable, 3 is likely true in that the programming language has gained some traction, 4 fails except perhaps part c, and 5 doesn't really apply, since I don't believe Hickey is an academic.
399:
This is an interview with RH. At least half of it is about his opinions. And it has a giant picture of Hickey in the lead. And the journal, which is quite reputable, mentions: "An in-depth look at the new language
705:
Why Julian
Assange and Jimmy Wales are notable? Why a reputable online programming media infoQ doesn't count as notable media? What's the difference between blogs, TVs, magazines, radio, podcasts and newspaper?
184:
1148:
is a reliable source. Many of the links provided by the IPs are infact reliable sources. Blogs, for instance, can be a reliable source if they are written by a professional or expert in the field.--v/r -
752:
a quantitative concept, therefore I asked the question about what is the difference between those type of media. If MSDN, InfoQ are considered not notable media outlet, then what about Usenet? Consider
451:
Merry-go-round. Again, there was no coverage of Hickey himself. Hickey cannot inherit
Clojure's notability. As for "this guy really is notable" I suggest that you read which arguments to avoid at AfD.
1144:
is incorrect. Reliable sources do not have to be "notable" themselves. There is not a list somewhere of "approved" reliable sources of "notability". Any source that meets the requirement of
900:, where he describes himself as "Technographer at Microsoft (Channel 9)". This proves that the show "Going Deep" is an official production, and thus suitable for notability.
737:. Plus if you cannot differentiate between primary and secondary, reliable and unreliable, notable and unnotable sources then you should probably not be editing Knowledge.
525:
for instance) seems to add weight. Since I've mentioned Erik Meijer it might also be worth noting that Rich Hickey will be one of three keynote speakers at this years'
145:
178:
1083:
977:
fit into 3 but does this not contradict general notability guidelines? 3 implies the fact that Hickey may not be really covered anywhere but still gain notability.
1106:
40:
437:
Linux
Journal is a reputable source. The guy really is notable. Let's at the very least agree to keep the article for the time being. What do you say?
597:
841:
567:) and therefore does not count towards notability. And no, by our standards other keynote speakers do not really add any weight to Hickey.
331:
514:
1044:
1011:
766:
676:
643:
601:
546:
438:
409:
371:
295:
242:
907:
859:
1297:
585:
996:
are met, but there are no sources of very good quality to use as material for the article. So in that case you might be correct.
950:
618:
These are mere mentions which do not help establish notability. And Hickey cannot inherit notability from
Kernighan in our case.
84:
1238:
722:
118:
113:
17:
122:
1066:
So this seems to be going no where. If anyone could fetch some more experienced editors to chime in, that would be great.
199:
166:
105:
1250:. I almost said merge, but I decided this was wrong. Why? Well, I found this page while searching for info on the guy
545:. I don't know if any of this is helpful, but that company alone seems to be reason enough to reconsider deletion. --
287:
1181:
1279:
65:
46:
1278:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
335:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
770:
605:
550:
375:
160:
1048:
1015:
982:
911:
879:
863:
799:
742:
694:
680:
666:
647:
623:
572:
456:
442:
428:
413:
390:
349:
317:
299:
273:
246:
220:
1210:
518:
258:
874:
Channel9 is a mix of forum, blog and wiki. Neither of these formats are acceptable as a reliable source.
718:
1177:
1137:
978:
888:
The specific section of
Channel9 is actually produced and created by a technographer at Microsoft - see
875:
795:
738:
690:
662:
619:
568:
452:
424:
386:
345:
313:
269:
216:
156:
1264:
1242:
1214:
1185:
1156:
1121:
1098:
1075:
1052:
1034:
1019:
1005:
986:
967:
915:
883:
867:
817:
803:
789:
774:
746:
726:
698:
684:
670:
651:
627:
609:
576:
554:
482:
460:
446:
432:
417:
394:
353:
339:
321:
303:
277:
250:
224:
87:
844:. His appearance on Channel9, it should be noted, is not a blog, but rather an interview as is clear
903:
855:
762:
734:
710:
81:
1234:
470:
206:
192:
1260:
1133:
1071:
1030:
1001:
993:
963:
928:
813:
785:
478:
465:
330:
is notable; it is a magazine with an editor, not somebody's blog. That said, it is kind of new.
1206:
1117:
1094:
564:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1166:
1153:
405:
109:
927:: Though creative works were mentioned above, I think it might be useful to point towards
172:
935:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
593:
530:
522:
1227:
757:
714:
1291:
1256:
1067:
1026:
997:
959:
849:
837:
809:
781:
474:
1202:
1145:
1141:
1113:
1090:
938:
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
264:
There are no independent reliable secondary sources. His keynotes or videos may be
1010:
So none of the sources offered are legit? Not even the Linux
Journal or MSDN one?
139:
291:
268:
popular but they do not add to notability unless they get reported in the media.
1150:
101:
93:
1169:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
344:
Magazine with editor? Good. But merely saying "it is notable" is not enough.
889:
845:
367:
529:. The list of keynote speakers is a short one that consists (this year) of
893:
235:
1223:
1198:
675:
Why not and how is it any different from other cases of creative work?
231:
76:
848:. Also, I believe that Mr. Hickey meets several of the guidelines in
538:
534:
526:
385:
The article is about Clojure and adds little to Hickey's notability.
897:
542:
589:
1205:
will naturally accumulate there and we can reverse the decision.
1272:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
753:
733:
Should I consider that a legitimate opinion or a joke?
135:
131:
127:
1226:. No real notability apart from his work on Clojure.
191:
931:, since it gives pretty specific criteria. To whit:
261:). Clojure may be notable but its creator may be not.
1176:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
794:Rhethoric (i.e. pointless) questions are neither.
689:No different. No coverage of person = no article.
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1282:). No further edits should be made to this page.
808:Agreed. But the one doesn't justify the other.
537:, and Rich Hickey. Last year the list included
1255:personalities: it's the nature of the beast.
1084:list of Software-related deletion discussions
521:), but the weight of the other interviewees (
205:
8:
1105:Note: This debate has been included in the
1082:Note: This debate has been included in the
840:along with the previous mention of Channel9
1107:list of People-related deletion discussions
1104:
1081:
312:These sources are not notable themselves.
892:for reference to Charles Torre, and then
1201:. If he is truely notable then links to
45:For an explanation of the process, see
1039:Okay, let's err on the safe side and
852:. Thus, I would recommend keeping.
7:
657:Again fallacy. Clojure's notability
896:for a link to his personal Twitter
257:The notability is not inheritable (
563:MSDN Channel 9 is more of a blog (
24:
951:Knowledge:Notability (academics)
780:Insulting people isn't helpful.
41:deletion review on 2017 April 15
29:
642:and it was decided against it.
215:Notability is not established.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
515:Expert to Expert: Rich Hickey
953:for guidelines on academics
1314:
1265:14:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
1243:04:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
1215:02:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
1186:16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
1157:00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
1122:00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
1099:00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
1076:23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
1053:20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
1035:16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
1020:09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
1006:06:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
987:05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
968:02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
916:03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
884:05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
868:03:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
818:06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
804:05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
790:02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
775:19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
747:01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
727:20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
699:01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
685:20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
671:16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
652:09:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
628:08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
610:02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
577:08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
555:02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
483:06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
461:05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
447:01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
433:01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
418:20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
395:08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
354:01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
340:21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
322:08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
304:01:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
278:01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
251:01:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
230:Hickey is the creator of
225:00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
88:00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1298:Pages at deletion review
1275:Please do not modify it.
586:Reference to Rich Hickey
61:Please do not modify it.
1043:it for a while longer.
527:Strange Loop Conference
406:based on technicalities
594:Google Scholar results
1140:'s understanding is
598:Mention in InfoWorld
588:by the very notable
402:from the man himself
1138:User:Artem Karimov
1025:keep or a delete.
73:The result was
1188:
1124:
1110:
1101:
1087:
906:comment added by
858:comment added by
765:comment added by
730:
713:comment added by
543:Douglas Crockford
370:(LinuxJournal) --
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1305:
1277:
1175:
1171:
1111:
1088:
918:
870:
777:
729:
707:
210:
209:
195:
143:
125:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1280:deletion review
1273:
1164:
901:
853:
760:
708:
590:Brian Kernighan
519:WP:NOTINHERITED
259:WP:NOTINHERITED
152:
116:
100:
97:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1311:
1309:
1301:
1300:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1268:
1267:
1245:
1217:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1173:
1172:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1126:
1125:
1102:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
955:
954:
947:
943:
939:
936:
922:
921:
920:
919:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
778:
703:
702:
701:
661:be inherited.
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
613:
612:
582:
581:
580:
579:
565:primary source
558:
557:
535:Gerald Sussman
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
380:
379:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
332:66.194.235.133
328:Code Quarterly
307:
306:
281:
280:
262:
240:Do not delete!
213:
212:
149:
96:
91:
82:Black Kite (t)
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1310:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1293:
1283:
1281:
1276:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1168:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:#2, and #3.
1135:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1108:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:46.116.139.61
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:46.116.139.61
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
979:Artem Karimov
976:
972:
971:
970:
969:
965:
961:
952:
948:
944:
940:
937:
934:
933:
932:
930:
926:
917:
913:
909:
905:
899:
895:
891:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
876:Artem Karimov
873:
872:
871:
869:
865:
861:
857:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
796:Artem Karimov
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
779:
776:
772:
768:
767:50.74.194.211
764:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
739:Artem Karimov
736:
735:WP:OTHERSTUFF
732:
731:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
704:
700:
696:
692:
691:Artem Karimov
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
677:46.116.139.61
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
663:Artem Karimov
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
644:46.116.139.61
629:
625:
621:
620:Artem Karimov
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
607:
603:
602:216.26.125.63
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
583:
578:
574:
570:
569:Artem Karimov
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
548:
547:216.26.125.63
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
484:
480:
476:
472:
467:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
453:Artem Karimov
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
439:46.116.139.61
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
425:Artem Karimov
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
410:46.116.139.61
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
387:Artem Karimov
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
372:216.26.125.63
369:
365:
364:
355:
351:
347:
346:Artem Karimov
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
314:Artem Karimov
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
297:
296:46.116.139.61
293:
289:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
275:
271:
270:Artem Karimov
267:
263:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
243:46.116.139.61
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
217:Artem Karimov
208:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
158:
155:
154:Find sources:
150:
147:
141:
137:
133:
129:
124:
120:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
95:
92:
90:
89:
86:
83:
79:
78:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1274:
1271:
1251:
1247:
1228:
1219:
1207:Stuartyeates
1194:
1165:
1129:
1065:
1040:
974:
956:
924:
923:
908:72.38.27.114
902:— Preceding
860:72.38.27.114
854:— Preceding
836:See article
833:
832:
761:— Preceding
709:— Preceding
658:
640:
471:WP:INHERITED
401:
327:
265:
239:
214:
202:
196:
188:
181:
175:
169:
163:
153:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
1134:WP:CREATIVE
994:WP:CREATIVE
929:WP:CREATIVE
754:Erik Naggum
531:Erik Meijer
523:Erik Meijer
517:I realize (
466:WP:CREATIVE
286:What about
179:free images
102:Rich Hickey
94:Rich Hickey
539:Guy Steele
326:I'd argue
1178:T. Canens
1114:• Gene93k
1091:• Gene93k
758:Eugenejen
715:Eugenejen
75:merge to
1292:Category
1239:contribs
1167:Relisted
1068:Blowfish
1027:Blowfish
998:Blowfish
960:Blowfish
946:museums.
942:reviews.
904:unsigned
856:unsigned
810:Blowfish
782:Blowfish
763:unsigned
723:contribs
711:unsigned
513:Or this
475:Blowfish
146:View log
1252:because
1224:Clojure
1199:Clojure
925:Comment
232:Clojure
185:WP refs
173:scholar
119:protect
114:history
77:Clojure
850:WP:BIO
659:cannot
157:Google
123:delete
1231:wales
1220:Merge
1203:WP:RS
1195:Merge
1146:WP:RS
1142:WP:RS
834:Keep:
200:JSTOR
161:books
140:views
132:watch
128:links
16:<
1261:talk
1257:prat
1248:Keep
1235:talk
1229:Rich
1211:talk
1182:talk
1132:per
1130:Keep
1118:talk
1095:talk
1072:talk
1049:talk
1041:Keep
1031:talk
1016:talk
1002:talk
983:talk
964:talk
949:See
912:talk
898:here
894:here
890:here
880:talk
864:talk
846:here
842:here
838:here
814:talk
800:talk
786:talk
771:talk
743:talk
719:talk
695:talk
681:talk
667:talk
648:talk
624:talk
606:talk
600:. --
573:talk
551:talk
541:and
479:talk
457:talk
443:talk
429:talk
414:talk
391:talk
376:talk
368:this
350:talk
336:talk
318:talk
300:talk
292:this
290:and
288:this
274:talk
266:very
247:talk
236:here
221:talk
193:FENS
167:news
136:logs
110:talk
106:edit
1222:to
1197:to
975:may
973:It
366:Or
207:TWL
144:– (
85:(c)
1294::
1263:)
1241:)
1237:·
1213:)
1184:)
1120:)
1112:—
1109:.
1097:)
1089:—
1086:.
1074:)
1051:)
1033:)
1018:)
1004:)
985:)
966:)
914:)
882:)
866:)
816:)
802:)
788:)
773:)
745:)
725:)
721:•
697:)
683:)
669:)
650:)
626:)
608:)
596:.
592:.
575:)
553:)
533:,
481:)
473:.
459:)
445:)
431:)
416:)
408:?
393:)
352:)
338:)
320:)
302:)
294:?
276:)
249:)
238:.
223:)
187:)
138:|
134:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
80:.
43:.
1259:(
1233:(
1209:(
1180:(
1154:P
1151:T
1116:(
1093:(
1070:(
1047:(
1029:(
1014:(
1000:(
981:(
962:(
910:(
878:(
862:(
812:(
798:(
784:(
769:(
741:(
717:(
693:(
679:(
665:(
646:(
622:(
604:(
571:(
549:(
477:(
455:(
441:(
427:(
412:(
389:(
378:)
374:(
348:(
334:(
316:(
298:(
272:(
245:(
219:(
211:)
203:·
197:·
189:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
159:(
151:(
148:)
142:)
104:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.