Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Norris (technology writer)

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The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Norris (technology writer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The subject has authored many books but unable to find any reliable sources to verify his notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. This WP:BLP has remained unsourced for over three years. J04n(talk page) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP author. The books are published in multiple editions, translated, and . very widely held (a/c WorldCat,Understanding networking technology concepts, terms, and trend has 5 editions and is held by 1,325 libraries; Communications technology explained has been published in 10 edition in English and Polish and held by 952 libraries worldwide. At least one of the books is translated into Spanish as well.) The books are from major technical publishers. I do not think the nominator looked for reviews or sources, but there is [1] from the Philadelphia Inquirer, a RS. Checking for reviews, I find one of Survival in the software jungle in IEEE Spectrum v. 33 (Aug. 1996), one of Software engineering explained in Information and Software Technology v. 35 (Apr. 1993), and three of The healthy software project: a guide to successful development and management in IEEE Software v. 12 (May 1995, The Computer Journal v. 37 no. 3 (1994), and The Computer Journal v. 37 no. 4 (1994). Reviews in reliable professional sources of multiple books shows notability for a author DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew Norris slightly some years ago and we briefly worked on a project together. I don't believe this constitutes a conflict of interest, but I mention it so that others can judge. Over the years, he must have been active in industry, academia and writing, so there are probably thousands of people who have been associated with him at the same level as me. I created the stub (not at the time I knew him) because I was using his book on Gigabit Ethernets and noticed how many other books he had written: it seemed to me he was sufficiently notable as a prolific author to deserve a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, the only biographical detail that I had to hand was the brief biographical notes in his books. If the consensus is to keep the article, it certainly needs a lot of work....and I'll try to contribute to that! Bluewave (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the biographical details derive from one or more book jackets, could you add them as references? It might not be an independent source, but would satisfy the referencing requirement for living people. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I declined the prod because I felt that the multiple textbooks with major technical publishers John Wiley & Sons and Addison–Wesley were a strong indicator of potential notability. I can't add to DGG's research above, but the book reviews DGG points to would seem sufficient to meet WP:Author. A past Visiting professor at the University of Ulster might also be an indication of notability, although I can't verify this. To state that the BLP is unsourced seems a little misleading, as the statement that "he is a prolific writer on technology subjects" appears directly supported by the textbooks, which are readily findable in library catalogues/Amazon &c. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, I'm glad that the article was able to be sourced. J04n(talk page) 13:43, 13 August 2010 (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.