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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Beauchamp Taylor

[edit]

In my opinion, the subject of this biographical article doesn't meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. The contents of the article are, as far as I can tell, entirely derived from the subject's personal web page and this is the only source listed in the article. A search of the web turns up no significant third-party sources on the subject. Cosmo0 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing the following:

(a product created by the subject of the above article) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN No meaningful references Tiptopper 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are only 40 results when googling "Mark Beauchamp Taylor" if TOPCAT is notable enough to have it's own article, shouldn't the author be? ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reserving judgement on whether TOPCAT deserves its own article, I don't believe the one necessarily implies the other: the fact that a person contributed (even significantly) to a noteworthy project doesn't automatically make the person noteworthy in their own right. As for the 40 or so results returned by Google, they are almost all mirrors of Wikipedia content, along with a few contributions by the subject to other sites - there is no third-party biographical info. Cosmo0 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply First, inclusion is not notability. The fact that an article exists is not proof that article complies with policy. Second, notability is not inherited. I am willing to entertain the plausibility of notability for either Taylor or Topcat, but if only one is notable then the other should be merged into the one that passes. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person, fails WP:RS. I added TOPCAT to this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for him--he seems to have contributed to many other projects as well as TOPCAT--and has had a career as apparently a principal programmer for a very important research group. But this needs attention from an expert. DGG (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources, after a search of Google News Archive and Google Books. Possibly merge to TOPCAT if utility is deemed notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no assertion of notability for either the software or it's author, and no obvious grounds for such an assertion. I can't find the user forums, or archived user mailing lists I associate with notable software in the case of TOPCAT. Pete.Hurd 06:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pete Hurd--Crusio 09:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I get from the article is "he's a programmer who has worked on a bunch of projects". That's not enough. —David Eppstein 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:BIO and, charitably WP:PROF - if one's only source of material is a Uni's website, I'd expect at least meeting PROF. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 4 October 2007 (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.