Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Goodger

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 Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Goodger

Submitting for deletion as the article is a blatant vanity page that fails WP:BIO and lacks multiple non-trivial sources. Waste of space. Burntsauce 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Lead developer of Mozilla Firefox browser. Also, tone of nomination doesn't sound like a good-faith nom. Lurker (talk · contribs) 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Passes WP:BIO ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work"), adequate references - although some of the links appear to be invalid, the articles are there if you search for them. The article needs de-vanitizing, but the subject meets the guidelines. Tevildo 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you cite reliable sources that demonstrate this person is actually known and responsible for these significant projects? The article is a borderline WP:BLP failure right now. Being the "lead developer" of any given software project does not automatically make you notable, nor does it allow you to ignore content policies. Burntsauce 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The NZ Herald article [1] seems OK to me - if we can find a fixed URL for it, it should be included in the references. Firefox is a "significant or well-known work". The fact that the article can be improved isn't grounds for its deletion if the notability of the subject is established. Tevildo 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You may want to read WP:COATRACK. If the best we can do is "A is the lead developer of B" then we should delete and redirect the article to B. Burntsauce 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the best-known working programmers in the world (due to his association with a popular browser). Sources abound (200+ more). One of two programmers heavily associated with publicity for the Firefox launch (not always to everyone's happiness). --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree this person has played a major role in the development of a well-known work, but the article seems to just be a link farm to vanity sites about the person. The article doesn't really have any "meat" to it concerning the argument about this being a major developer behind firefox. Even if the article had more to do with this person’s history and how he eventually helped developed firefox, I would give it a weak keep.Redrok84 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep needs more refs and significant coverage. Darrenhusted 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Though I'm sure the claims about this individual's notable accomplishments may be true, they are not verified in independent, third-party sources. If no such sources are provided, he does not meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Simply saying that the sources exist and not linking them here or adding them to article does not fly. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Changing to Keep. If those links are sources, they needed to be in the proper section (References). External links is only for links to content not suitable for the article. If someone had gotten this right the first time, we probably wouldn't have had to do this useless AFD to begin with. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I find it strange that the developer of Firefox, through which half of us are reading this page, can be deemed non notable. There's now sources about him from CNET news etc. Frankly it's this AfD which is the waste of space. Nick mallory 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Nick Mallory. Darrenhusted 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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.