Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Tweedie

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 keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Tweedie

Stephen Tweedie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Seems to be a very clever chap indeed, but is he of encyclopedic notability? The references provided are all to papers written by him, not independent reliable sources. kingboyk 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. He does have some notability in WP:PROF. He was working on ext2 and ext3.--Edtropolis 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes. If someone wants to write a real article about him, they can. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pmanderson and nom. I'm working on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not notable. Someguy1221 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. Someguy1221 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs rewriting. Suggest AFD in 2 months.Vectorsap 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (or move to Vectorsap's userspace). No sources indicating notability. Per Edtropolis, I don't see how this passes WP:PROF, and deliberately avoided adding it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators because I didn't think it was a good fit for that list. If Vectorsap wants to rewrite it to better demonstrate notability but can't get it done for two months, I suggest that moving the article to his or her userspace would be a more constructive path than leaving it in its current state as an article. —David Eppstein 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, with one paper having 42 cites, he is certainly an academic, though I am not sure he would pass PROF based just on that. However, it is not uncommon for software produced by comp.sci. academics to be included in research output metrics. In this case, Tweedie has contributed to some very high impact software. John Vandenberg 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, his ext3 work has had significant, as John says, "impact". .--soum talk 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the area in which he works he is notable. I've re-written the article a wee bit and added more references which I think cover the "independent" and "reliable" bases. AlistairMcMillan 11:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think that the delete side fully appreciates how important ext3 was. At the time, the lack of a journalling filesystem on Linux was cited as a key reason why Linux couldn't penetrate the enterprise market, and reiserfs was building up a lot of momentum to replace ext2. Ext3 changed that. If there aren't gushers of articles about him, I think it's plain that it's not because the Linux magazines and sites wouldn't love to interview him, but because for whatever reason he's just not interested. We shouldn't value self-promotion more than the respect of his peers. (For example, in this interview,[1] Andrew Morton describes his journalling work as "easily the most complex part of the kernel with which I have had experience.") --Groggy Dice T | C 12:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was (for me at least) not about doubting the significance of ext3, but the article providing utterly no information on his contributions to it, and no independent sources for it. This has been cleared up now. Someguy1221 23:36, 23 June 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.