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. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Liberty[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jesse Liberty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Though not a reason for deletion, the article also fails WP:NPOV, not surprising given the subject has been a major contributor to this article about himself. Msnicki (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concede he's authored a lot of books but that by itself does not satisfy the notability guidelines for WP:AUTHORs. To establish that he satisfies any of these criteria, we need sources WP:RS, the same as needed to meet WP:GNG. We're not quibbling, e.g., that we've got a couple independent articles about him but disagreeing whether the language quite rises to describing him as "an important figure." Notability is always and only about what do other people not connected to the subject say about the subject in reliable sources. We don't have those sources. Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this as a reference to WP:ACADEMIC, especially the WP:ACADEMIC#Notes to specific criteria discussion of highly cited academic work, I don't think this contemplates a series of introductory tutorials. I think this contemplates the sort of scholarly work described as the first item in the WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria, namely, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't think this is satisfied. Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the guidelines are you relying on to establish notability? I don't think there is anything in the guidelines to support notability based on "career achievement" without at least some criteria. For WP:AUTHORs, it's certainly not just "lots of books". Msnicki (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that at a certain point, "lots of books" does indeed start to count. There is a "lots of articles" rationale used all the time in deletion debates about academics; this is no different in essence. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the subject is not an academic doing scholarly research adding to knowledge, he's an author who writes tutorial books. Nowhere in the guidelines can I find support for deciding an author is notable based on the number of books he's written. The fact this non-policy-based argument has been offered elsewhere is irrelevant; lots of WP:ATA get made all the time. The guidelines WP:GNG could not be more clear: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." So far as I can tell, there are no such sources nor are there any to be found. Msnicki (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The books here are indeed educational; in my view this subject should be treated as we do academics. There is enough substance here to merit a useful page, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mention being a best seller because it is a subjective measure of notability. As for objective criteria, see Wikipedia:Notability_(books) Criteria 1: 'The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.' - Footnote #2: 'Slashdot.org for example is reliable.' :: A quick search finds this: http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/11/03/1545254/Programming-NET-35 ---- and, Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals Criteria 3: '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 ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews' = Notable. Wxidea (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. At the top there is a big box, "This page in a nutshell." The first line of that box says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
  2. The first section after the lede is "Basic criteria." That again states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  3. The second section after the lede, "Additional criteria," says clearly that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
It does not require a close reading of the text to see that the primacy of the basic criteria casts its shadow over all the later, subordinate sections. The additional criteria are not intended and have never been accepted as overriding the general notability requirements. So I do not believe that the arguments has even been made that this author can meet that standard? Finally, the notability guideline for book is, eponymously enough, about books, not authors. In the absence of signifigant coverage of this person in reliable sources, delete.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(With all due respect. I don't have even one book published, and the brave stance this author appears to have taken w.r.t. his personal life is to be commended, in my opinion.)
Aaron Brenneman is cherry-picking comments. As per WP:Ignore all rules, the issue rises of what makes a software author notable. We don't need to re-invent new guidelines, but Jesse Liberty is clearly a solid, mid-tier software author. Software books are not covered by mainstream media, they would only be reviewed in techie circles, so requiring news coverage is an inappropriate metric. Also, they are not critically studied, though they may be an invaluable resource in academic settings or for professionals. Market response matters and is a huge measure of notability. For example, "Sams Teach Yourself C++ in One Hour a Day" is in it's 6th Edition. "Sams Teach Yourself C++ in 24 Hours" is 5th Edition. "Programming ASP.NET" is 3rd Edition (from OReilly). This means the publisher sold so many books they updated the book and re-issued it. Or search for '"Jesse Liberty" syllabus site:.edu' in Google, you'll see a ton of courses using the book. The AfD in 2004 found the author to be notable. Brenneman specifically ignores the slashdot review, which 100% fits the guidelines. Maybe Brenneman should get a jump on these software book authors also: , there are 324 total, many of whom have similar notability to Jesse Liberty. Putting aside Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, there's clearly huge precedent for including tech authors who do not appear to fit the main biography guidelines for creatives. Jesse Liberty strikes me as firmly having more than enough notability. See similar Afds Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Jason_Dominus Wxidea (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I don't think "cherry picking" mean what you're trying to say here. You're making arguments about the books not about the author. It's perfectly sensible and internally consistent to say that Sam's book series has enough sources to make an article, but that according to the existing guidelines "Sam" doesn't.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes sense for this author to have articles about specific books. It's more about a corpus of work. You can find all the rules you want to say this is not notable, but my gut sense is that this is a notable and appropriate article about a tech writer. I do think the article needs editing/rewriting, though. Wxidea (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a person who has never published any fiction, but who has been published professionally on and off since 1984, I believe it is fair to say that non-fiction authors, especially in the boring world of "how-to", have much higher barriers to notability than fiction writers. Liberty is the sort of author who is known among others practicing his craft, but is not known to the world at large other than as a name on a book cover and title page. This does not constitute actual notability. If the next edition of Sams' Teach Yourself C++ in One Hour a Day had an author line of "Golias Silverlock" instead of "Jesse Liberty", not one in a thousand users of the volume would so much as blink, and only a fraction of the instructors who recommend it would notice or care. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Mike, that's a better argument than the others here, and I agree. The brand in this case is owned more by the publishers. While I think some of the counter arguments on this page are weak and overly bureaucratic, after looking at other author pages on Wikipedia, and thinking about this more, I think Jesse Liberty does not currently carry enough of a brand as to be notable. I'm changing my view to delete. But as a matter of principle, I think that prolific and adored tech or nonfiction writers should be considered notable if they have enough of a following. Wxidea (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that being a gay rights activist would be another avenue for notability, and for sure, role models are needed in the LGBT community. But one 'Human Rights Watch' profile is not notability. If anyone can find deeper evidence of Jesse's advocacy, then that could be the lede on the article, and he could be notable. Wxidea (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2011 (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.
Category