Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Shapiro

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! 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Shapiro

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

Non notable, part of an apparent promotional campaign. One book and a few magazine articles don't make for a notable author. The Refs are mostly to his own work, with the typical addition of press releases, and announcements. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the lede about him being a web developer and entrepreneur makes him clearly non-notable - I can't find anything in the refs about a reliable source saying that. The secondary claim about him being a writer is true, the refs to his own work show that, but just having published doesn't make him a notable journalist. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Awilley (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just self-promotion IMHO. Chisme (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not looking to start an extensive back-and-forth debate, but I'll point things a few things out: First, I wrote this article, so I'm inherently bias. Second, let's talk about the merit of the person being discussed from the intended context: Painting Julian Shapiro as a top contributor to open source software. He two popular open source libraries, was awarded Stripe's open source grant, was interviewed on Forbes (which called him a "major contributor to open source"), wrote a well-received book on open source for Pearson, and is a regular contributor to popular web development blogs. You can find the sources for all of these claims clearly referenced on the article version from notable sources — before it was gutted down to 1/5th its length by user Chisme. On that note, a final comment: The article was gutted extensively then immediately nominated for deletion, and that deletion nomination was then immediately supported via "delete" votes by a group of people who historically vote in concert with Chisme. If you're compelled to remove the article, certainly do what's right for Wikipedia, but I recommend someone outside of this initial group of users give the previous article draft due consideration. Factschreiber talk 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If the material in the first versions had not been removed, the article would probably have been speedily deleted for being promotional, so we'll do muvh better judging the present version. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - First off, whether or not I am familiar with other editors bears absolutely no weight on my !vote. Second, I don't recall ever coming across Chisme before. There is a nice piece in Forbes, while although primarily an interview (and therefore a primary source and should not be used for notability purposes), contains enough other in-depth info to make it okay for notability purposes. But that's it. The rest of the hits on News are by the subject or trivial mentions. Newspapers, Books, Scholar, and Highbeam, all produced only a few trivial mentions, or nothing at all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 20 November 2015 (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.