Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Robbins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I'm not sure about this one. First glance looks pretty notable, but on digging a little I'm not sure. Google news search found me 5 hits, 4 of which were mis-spellings of the footballer, but perhaps I'm not searching the right way (I used: ([1])) If he's notable, let's get the article properly referenced. But I do suspect he's not notable, hence this AfD. Dweller (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NB WP:COMP notified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Mark_Robbins_at_AfD --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could not find any independent, reliable third party sources indicating notability. Lots of hits for random Mark Robbins's, but almost none are this Mark Robbins other than Wikipedia, Answers.com or the various associated companies he has worked for. If sources can be provided I would definately change to keep, but as it stands and with what I found, have to delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. Reliable source addition would cause me to change my !vote--The assertions of notability are weeak, and sourcing is neither present nor easily locatable by the nom and previous commentator. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I first posted the original article since Mr. Robbins appears to meet the criteria as a Creative Professional. I have contacted him to ask about references and sources. He is retired now and has a large collection of print references to his work at the time. The companies he built and worked for have long since been merged and absorbed, and so their history is largely lost. Mr. Robbins' development work took place in the early and mid-80s, before the modern Internet, and that's why there are no references. It is problematical to scan and post some of the printed reviews and news of that day that he has in his collection. He hasn't figured out a good way to do that. Computing became a lot more fun and useful when the machines could be all connected together, and Mr. Robbins was a leading developer to that end in his day. That's why the article was posted. I hope a way can be figured out to add some of his print references so that verification can be more sure here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly permissible to keep a copy of this article in your user space, and work to add references there--I'd recommend doing so before this AfD is scheduled to close. References don't have to be scanned and posted to be valid--If there's enough information for a reference that a good librarian can find a copy, it's fine in my book. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been updated with some external references, two of which mention Robbins by name. Also added a little more internal linking. There's been some pruning and minor cleanup. Mark has to dig to find the printed references in his ancient collection, but he initially provided these web links that might be helpful. Please see what you think. I looked through a sampling of other pages and saw that they indeed have a lot of print link references. Guess I haven't paid attention to that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant content updates have been made to the article with more references added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After all the recent article updates, I gather I'm supposed to make this formal request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the avoidance of doubt, which of the references you've added include non-trivial mentions of Robbins in a reliable source? Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I couldn't find any. Happy for you to persuade me away from delete, but currently, you've not succeeded. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In summary as best I can tell - At the bottom line this is a biography of a businessman who is claimed to have a significant role in developing and marketing several technical products in the 1980s. At present dispute are not engineering principles nor the fact that the products existed, but that Mark Robbins played an important role in developing and marketing those products. In this instance, most likely third party sources would have to be print business and trade publications of the day. Technical product marketing such as in this case is a trailing ephemeral so the sources would likely need to be contemporary print. Most older technical products are not widely discussed for long. These specific products were significant in their day as they helped to democratize computer file sharing, so this article would appear to have some historical interest. In that sense, it would seem to be a shame to delete it pending some source research. We will need to find contemporary print business and trade references to Robbins' role in the development and marketing of the products ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. For articles to be kept, they need to fulfil WP:V. If he's not the subject of multiple, non trivial references in reliable sources, your opinion that he's important and it'd be a shame if the article were deleted, is interesting and noted, but not material to this discussion. You've improved the article no end, but sadly, not shown notability. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read through the tutorials at this point. However, it turns out while the products Robbins created are novel, advanced for their time, technically influential, widely known, discussed and bought, Robbins is not directly notable as an individual stand-alone person apart from his technical creations. The creations are a literal extension of Robbins and in effect seem to speak for themselves given their widespread documented acceptance and review as significant technical developments. Magazines, editors, etc. widely wrote about the products but not so much their creator himself. In fact several of those product creations are described in Wikipedia articles, so that in itself naturally certifies notability of those technical works! - see internal linking. So to meet the notability requirement, all we evidently need to demonstrate is that Robbins himself was the one who actually developed and in some cases marketed the notable devices. This ostensibly should satisfy the notability requirement. The software and hardware devices as created, distributed, widely reviewed and bought - plus described in other Wikipedia articles - seem to conclusively define Mark Robbins' notability if he's their creator.
- There could be a case of an artist whose works are very well known. The works are widely bought, reviewed and possess widely acknowledged fine design and influence. However, that individual artist person produces and markets the works from their workshop without so much personal wide connection to the outside world. That artist is notable by the recognized works they have created. The fact that those works are widely acknowledged, discussed, and reviewed as notable objects thereby makes that artist a notable person. Robbins' technical products are his works, just as with that artist. Thus you can easily Google all of Robbins' works but not the individual man himself. In order to be fair, I think that has to be kept in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read through the tutorials at this point. However, it turns out while the products Robbins created are novel, advanced for their time, technically influential, widely known, discussed and bought, Robbins is not directly notable as an individual stand-alone person apart from his technical creations. The creations are a literal extension of Robbins and in effect seem to speak for themselves given their widespread documented acceptance and review as significant technical developments. Magazines, editors, etc. widely wrote about the products but not so much their creator himself. In fact several of those product creations are described in Wikipedia articles, so that in itself naturally certifies notability of those technical works! - see internal linking. So to meet the notability requirement, all we evidently need to demonstrate is that Robbins himself was the one who actually developed and in some cases marketed the notable devices. This ostensibly should satisfy the notability requirement. The software and hardware devices as created, distributed, widely reviewed and bought - plus described in other Wikipedia articles - seem to conclusively define Mark Robbins' notability if he's their creator.
- Hi. For articles to be kept, they need to fulfil WP:V. If he's not the subject of multiple, non trivial references in reliable sources, your opinion that he's important and it'd be a shame if the article were deleted, is interesting and noted, but not material to this discussion. You've improved the article no end, but sadly, not shown notability. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In summary as best I can tell - At the bottom line this is a biography of a businessman who is claimed to have a significant role in developing and marketing several technical products in the 1980s. At present dispute are not engineering principles nor the fact that the products existed, but that Mark Robbins played an important role in developing and marketing those products. In this instance, most likely third party sources would have to be print business and trade publications of the day. Technical product marketing such as in this case is a trailing ephemeral so the sources would likely need to be contemporary print. Most older technical products are not widely discussed for long. These specific products were significant in their day as they helped to democratize computer file sharing, so this article would appear to have some historical interest. In that sense, it would seem to be a shame to delete it pending some source research. We will need to find contemporary print business and trade references to Robbins' role in the development and marketing of the products ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More references added to help substantiate Mark Robbins' connection to products and companies described in this article. Further references will be added. Mark Robbins' physical condition has tended to slow down the research unfortunately, but he'll get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current TODO in progress:
Another couple of specific references, which are on the way
Prune References list
Critically comb the article and again assure that the development roles as described are faithful to any documentation. An ongoing concern is if a contemporary co-worker or co-creator were to legitimately make an error claim. A true "credit hog" objection, say, would be unacceptable. There are serious online techie critics beyond the Wikipedia community itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (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.