Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Everson (2nd Nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Everson (2nd Nomination)[edit]

Call for Second VfD It's time we voted on nuking this a second time, this time noticing these points:

  • WP:DVAIN is a policy that came into effect after the last AfD and therefore is an entirely new guideline to consider.
  • Textbook violation of WP:VAIN
  • WP:AUTO WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP Are there any more I'm forgetting that he's also violating?
  • Michael Everson himself reverts any modification to the page from his own personal writing, be it addition or subtraction, even when factual information is added. He will most predictably be a part of this discussion and the greatest opponent to deletion. His username is Evertype
  • Autobiography is highly frowned upon and sets a poor example to other editors
  • Since Everson himself states he is one of the numerous co-authors of the Unicode standard, maybe he should be merged with a small portion of a larger page listing all of the Unicode authors.
  • The links at the bottom of the page to evertype.com are a commercial site where he is advertising products, so by definition, him writing his own article about himself and his products on Wikipedia is nothing more than thinly veiled spam
  • This article is a fine example of what user pages are for, and all of its content should be on User:Evertype instead of here.
  • This article does not cite any sources that are not primary. He has a source cited of his own personal website and two links to interviews with himself.
  • While this article has been vandalized numerous times by trolls, it is also important to note that reverting vandalization is not justification of content and we can't turn a blind eye to the fact that Evertype has made a mockery of Wikipedia not only in his original violation by writing the article himself but through continued reversion to this vanity page to this very day. He is not remorseful in action despite numerous "apologies".

- --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, since Everson would always rather waste time addressing the author than the issue, I would like to state ahead of time that I'm not a sockpuppet and that I nearly never contribute anything to Wikipedia whatsoever, which doesn't make any of the above points less valid. Thank you. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fixing the header so it doesn't break the topic list. No vote.—Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see media coverage. He looks at least marginally notable. See no reason to delete. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, he was on the front page of the technology section of the New York Times. That's what, section number S? If he's so famous, how come nobody else wrote an article about him? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, possible bad-faith nomination, and possible WP:POINT violation. I don't really see anything wrong with the article. Furthermore, I see nothing that fails WP:NPOV. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware the author wrote the article himself and reverts all changes made to it? That's not NPOV at all. This is precisely the sort of article that Wikipedia vanity page guidelines are specifically against--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no evidence of that. If he's notable enough (which he seems to be, he meets WP:BIO), we can ignore the vanity guidelines. As for the edits, he has only made three edits to this article this year. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -the last AFD established there was no consensus to delete. It sounds as if you need to go to WP:RFC or WP:RFM if he is protecting the article. Yomangani 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like you need to read the discussion page of the article, where he rants and raves about what a celebrity he is --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I complete agree with SayWhatYouMeanWhatYouSay, in so far as this page is clearly a violation of WP:VAIN. Just look at how eager he is to talk about himself on the talk page! It is obvious that Evertype is using this as a second userpage, and that is a bad example to other users. However, he does seem just notible enough for his own page. Would not oppose a Merge with Unicode if that was consenus. Thε Halo Θ 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actions of a user are a different issue than whether or not the article is notable. Seems to pass WP:BIO. --Craig Stuntz 15:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but are you making a joke? In WP:BIO guidelines is a direct quote: "Autobiography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?" Then I direct you to Talk:Michael Everson and tell me he's not the worst offender to WP:VAIN in the history of Wikipedia. This is precisely the sort of self-aggrandizing garbage that the editing guidelines are for. Also, an autobiography is by definition not NPOV because it is from the point of view of the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay (talk • contribs) .
You fail to mention that your quote comes from the section headed, "Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed (but haven't necessarily received consensus support)". There is no rule against autobiography, and I do not agree that autobiographies are by definition POV. When I said, "seems to pass WP:BIO," I was of course referring to the primary guidelines at the top of the page, and not the alternative proposals which haven't yet reached consensus. --Craig Stuntz 16:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the cruft about him being a Buddhist, a polyglot, part Irish and other stuff like that? That's uncyclopedic and belongs on his userpage or better yet, MySpace. If I for some bizarre reason were researching Unicode contributors and authors (and there's a whole lot of them but Everson likes to make it sound like there's a grand total of two Unicode authors in the world) would I need to know all this? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That can just be removed. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were that easy, I wouldn't have gone to all this trouble. I've attempted to edit that cruft out and revert wars between me, him and his sockpuppets start. He doesn't allow a point of view that is not the Michael Everson point of view. With Everson, you get your cake and you eat it too. He's advertising on Wikipedia for free, he has his resume on Wikipedia for free, and he's the god of his own article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need to list this article at WP:RFC, not here. Yomangani 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Biography suggests including the subject's religion. Being polyglot and part Irish appears to me to be 1) directly relevant to his professional work and 2) categories, not article content. If you don't like the categories, that's also a separate issue. --Craig Stuntz 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does he need a biography? All he's ever done is make a few fonts for Unicode. Big deal! He didn't invent Unicode, he's not the sole contributor, and if it weren't for Michael Everson's vanity, this article would never exist in the first place. He's worthy of maybe an extremely brief mention in Unicode on what fonts he's made, but why does anybody at all need to know all that about him, why do we need a picture of him looking very color-coordinated in front of a landmark in Iran, or have a seperate page for him whatsoever? He's got a userpage, that's what it's for. DELETE. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Unicode on the basis of no non-primary sources. --Weevlos 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's done more for Unicode than simply make a few fonts, and the article as it now exists strikes me as a starting point that could use the inclusion of some counterpoint about his detractors and the messy falling out he has had with some of his business partners, but that's a question of article content, not whether there should be an article about him at all. If he is continually deleting non-complimentary info about him, seek to have the article protected and have him banned from editting. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Michael Everson is a very well-known and influential expert (I am tempted to write "celebrity") in the world of coded character sets and typography. I have known about his work since the mid 1990s, i.e. long before Wikipedia was conceived. There can be no doubt that he clearly deserves an article in Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with a readership that has showen a particularly keen interest in matters related to computers. This includes important specialist technology leaders such as Michael Everson. I cannot find anything in the article that would seem out of place in a detailed encyclopedia article and I very much welcome Michael's contributions to keep the article accurate, authoritative and up-to-date. Most importantly, I found reading this article most interesting and insightful. Should it be deleted, I will not hesitate to rewrite from scratch an equivalent article, which is likely sound very similar. This 2nd vote for deletion is entirely unfunded and a petty and disappointing vendeta against a notable Wikipedia contributor. Markus Kuhn 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion of rewriting the article yourself would, for once, actually be a step in the right direction to obeying the rules and making the article up to some sort of NPOV. If one is to base judgement of Everson's notability by the entry he wrote, he is like a God, the master of letters and linguistics who all but invented Unicode. Anybody who checks up on the facts finds this to be embellished and inflammatory. He won't link to Unicode.org because that website shows he is less of a contributor than at first it may appear, and joined the project at a later date than many. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your last remark indicates to me that you have very little first-hand familiarity with the history and evolution of both the Unicode and the ISO/IEC 10646 project, that you have not been for years on the relevant internal mailing lists and committee meetings, that you are not a regular reader of the countless very well researched documents that Michael Everson has contributed to the working groups in charge of ISO/IEC 10646 over the past decade, but that instead you are quick to form strong opinions after a very superficial search on a few web sites written for lay audience. With regard to rewriting the article from scratch, well, I am to a first approximation as lazy as anyone else and am certainly most happy to let the man himself provide the raw material to get started, which I am then most happy to trim and extend in scope and language as I see fit for an encyclopedia entry. Just like with any other Wikipedia article. Please work a bit harder on finding a pragmatic balance between treating the no-autobiography policy as a strict and irrevokable religious dogma, and the practicalities of getting high-quality and authoritative biographic information into Wikipedia. Did it never occur to you, that the vast majority of biographies out there of living people written by others are relying almost exclusively on raw information provided by the person concerned? Most dispicable of all, you have so far been only some anonymous coward. Show at least some face, contribution, and personality, rather than a sock puppet created obviously for the sole purpose of deleting this article! Markus Kuhn 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While you're right that SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay hasn't contributed anything, and yeah he probably is a sock puppet, and I'm sure Michael Everson has done a lot with Unicode, what does that have to do with the general utter suckiness of this article? --205.162.51.137 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep. This was already discussed and disposed of, and the article has not materially changed since, allegations of protection notwithstanding. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a narrowly drawn res judicata policy that overrides Wikipedia:No binding decisions in these cases. Otherwise, what is to prevent a third, a fourth, yea, a ninety-ninth VfD? I suggest that even this second VfD is already an abuse of process. --John Cowan 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when you'd show up, John Cowan. The very fact that the page has not changed at all and is not *allowed to be changed at all* through you and Everson's (is he your friend or something?) reverts is further proof that this page does not belong on Wikipedia. It's a MySpace, and you know it. To answer your accusation that the VfD itself is somehow abusive, it's been over an entire year since the last time and a whole lot of people have tried to change this page and it just seems to be getting reverted continuously, even on the occasion something new is found out about him. In addition, he only cites primary sources, which is reason enough to nuke. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the honor to be Michael's friend, yes. Useful changes have been made and not reverted: only vandalism has been reverted. In addition, anyone who deliberately links a Wikipedia article to that extremely unfunny travesty at Encyclopedia Dramatica exposes, in my opinion, his utter lack of good faith. --John Cowan 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That vandalism has nothing to do with this VfD, as per addressed in the original reasons. I wrote that part for people like you. [So you openly admit violating a guideline, then. --John Cowan 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)] [No, I definitely do not. You must have heard I am backing out of this conversation. That doesn't mean you get to accuse me of things long after we have discussed. That's bad faith. Back off. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]You're terribly predictable. To address your earlier comment about how there should be "exceptions" to the Wikipedia:No binding decisions policy, that is the sort of ludicrous hipocrisy that brings the trolls to target contradictory arrogance like that. You want the Wikipedia:No binding decisions policy to have binding decisions? Logically, it wouldn't be a no binding decisions policy any more, then, would it, Johnny? Your action of asking for some sort of special protection against people constructively editing an autobiography does NOT apply, that's for user pages, not autobiographies. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for a policy to prevent endless VfDs. That's very different from page protection. --John Cowan 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, anybody who starts from the first edit and looks at the diffs can plainly see there's been A LOT of constructive edits that have been reverted soley because of the autobiographer's personal opinion. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems notable enough, but I have a big problem with people editing articles about themselves. Imo, the best action for people to take regarding bad information in an article about themselves is to post on the talk page or simply ask another editor to do so. Wickethewok 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with this, although I think that AfD is not the solution. --Craig Stuntz 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has recently asked me to revert vandalism, and I was happy to do so. (I am not a sock puppet.) --John Cowan 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Michael Everson has done more than a 'few fonts' for Unicode, I believe he is responsible for encoding about 5-10% of the 100000 characters in the standard. I think references to Budhism, Ireland etc. are useful trivia; makes his biography more interesting. If Everson has violated the policy for editing articles about himself, there should be other ways to correct it; IMHO removing this page is not the solution. Vnagarjuna 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Vnagarjuna. -- Arwel (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what user pages are for? Again, if he's notable, why didn't somebody else write an article about him? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep His work on the Irish is extraordinary. This article is well justified. (btw, I hope he doesn't have a big head!) El Gringo 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep With the same comments as last time. If you know about i18n then you know about Michael Everson, and if you don't then the Wikipedia article about him is sufficient to fill people in. Sure, writing about yourself is a cardinal editing sin, but the article has been up for peer review for long enough now to make that moot. Moreover, it's been mooted to the point where my distain at good Wikipedia articles hitting the big bit bucket in the sky for political or peripheral reasons seems much more pertinent. --Sbp 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Noteworthy, extraordinary achievements. MelForbes 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Him? --205.162.51.137 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I don't need evidence that he's notable; the del advocate(s) have given so many transparently irrelevant args that they have no credibility in claiming n-n. Make it speedy for the sake of the dignity of AfD and as a courtesy to the abused editors. If there are shortcomings, they can be fixed in the normal course of editing. (On the off chance that the article were worthy of deletion, a well-established Wikipedian would eventually notice and make a credible case against it.)
    --Jerzy•t 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I am quite familiar with Everson's work and its quantitative and qualitative significance in a broad range of cultural and technical contexts. It fully justifies an article about him and, as many have already stated, there are more elegant editorial devices for nudging it into total WP conformity than the one now being voted upon. --futhark 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, I don't think this is a speedy candidate however. Per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Your points/reasons doesn't qualify it for AfD. Michael Everson doesn't need this page at WP as a resume, as this User:SayWha... or any other user who is/are thinking or suggesting. So many Organisation, Institution, University, Government office, Company, Websites, etc have info/article on him, that in fact, WP itself is honored to have a higher status on the search returns, like from google, yahoo. Unicode is a very big thing, if you/we/i try making only 100 existing characters or symbols on your/our own, only the drawing steps or to maintain proportion will make you realize how hard this is, let alone, all the other steps needed to finally make only 100 glyphs as a standard. After so many peer reviews, and no biased POV, this article is a very good collection of WP. Even if he has started or edited this article by himself, anyone was alaways/anytime allowed to rectify/correct, with a reference/proof, if there is/are any mistake. As no one has done that, it absolutely cannot be an AfD issue, neither NPOV, just because if any user raises this / says so. --Tarikash 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
My response to that: There's been a whole lot of talking about how notable he is. If there's so many institutions verifying all of this information how come links to unicode.org keep getting reverted, how come ON unicode.org he wrote his own bio as well, which echoes this article, and how come he only references his own website and interviews about himself? Could it be because if you research the issue, Everson is a much more minor contributor than you think he is to Unicode? Tell you what, why don't you give me some sort of number here on how much he's done vs. total number of typefaces and we'll see how notable he really is. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In 1986-1987, At Xerox, Huan-mei Liao, Nelson Ng, Dave Opstad, and Lee Collins begin work on a database to map the relationships between identical Japanese (JIS) and Chinese (simplified and traditional) characters for quickly building a font for extended Chinese characters. Xerox users (e.g. Nakajima of Toronto) were in fact using JIS to extend the small Chinese character set. This leads to a first discussion of Han Unification, the pros & cons of which are written up by Eric Mader. At the same time at Apple, discussions of a universal character set are sparked by the Apple File Exchange development. Mark Davis begins Apple's participation in ANSI X3L2. From February 1989, working group meetings starts more frequently, starts the foundation of Unicode Consortium, (which formally founded in 1991). (At this point, most probably less than 25 active founding members). November 1988, Lee Collins begins building the Unicode Non-Han database and defining the initial repertoire, the first database for the Unicode names and mappings. The Unicode Standard was first published in October, 1991 (ISBN 0-201-56788-1 ). Unicode 1.0.1 (Volume 2)(June, 1992)(ISBN 0-201-60845-6). Unicode 1.1 (June 1993)(Previos 2 publications and Mark Davis' Unicode Technical Report #4:The Unicode Standard, Version 1.1) is actually known as real Unicode. UTF-8 borned in 1992. Even in June 1994, Michael Everson was Irish representative (official member CEN/TC304 and ISO/JTC1/SC2/WG3). I've found Michael Everson's papers (Unicode related N956 at JTC1-SC2-WG2 archive) from March, 1994. Michael Everson released "Everson Mono Unicode" font in 1995, After more than a year in development. Which is world's 3rd Unicode font. Before him, first was Charles Bigelow & Kris Holmes' "Lucida Sans Unicode" font in 1993 (Shipped in Win NT 3.1). Second was, "Unihan" font by Ross Paterson in 1993. UTF-8 was formally adopted in ISO 10646 in 1996. Unicode 2.0 (August 1996)(ISBN: 0201483459 . 9 major authors). Unicode 2.1.2(May, 1998. Prev 3 publication and paper of Lisa Moore, Unicode Technical Report #8, The Unicode Standard, Version 2.1). Unicode 3.0(Sept, 1999, published in 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5). Since 2000 (from the version 3.0), He is one of the Co-author of publications of Unicode Standards, out of total 12 (principal) authors (Joan Aliprand, Julie Allen, Joe Becker, Mark Davis, Michael Everson, Asmus Freytag, John Jenkins, Mike Ksar, Rick McGowan, Lisa Moore, Michel Suignard, and Ken Whistler). Unicode standard is now going under very important changes (ie roadmap) to enhance the standard for applied fields, based on the papers, where Michael Everson is one of the co-author, out of total three authors. He is now a very bigger figure than before. --Tarikash 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
There's only primary sources (interviews *are* primary) and original research here, which violates WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP, and have been reason enough all by themselves to speedily delete other articles. Then there's the fact that he keeps reverting and nitpcking edits by not just the vandals but ordinary edits of himself or reverting by proxy through Mr. Cowen, which is explicitly violation of WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just because this article's been around for a long while doesn't make it any less of a vanity entry based on original research. Besides, does every creator of a character set deserve a Wikipedia entry? --Jacj 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's opening paragraph is: Michael Everson is an expert in the writing systems of the world. He is a linguist, typesetter, and font designer, and is one of the co-authors of the Unicode Standard. There are many experts, linguists, typesetters, and font designers in the world, and Unicode was developed by the Unicode Consortium which is a large organization. This gentleman seems to be doing a lot in his life, but I see nothing in the article which would make him particularly encyclopedic. If he is more notable than an average linguist/typesetter/font designer - as the numerous 'Keep' votes above would seem to attest - then would someone please point out in the article's first paragraph why he's important? - Brian Kendig 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Or merge with Unicode after some major rewriting. article reads like a vanity page. ~ CBGB 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with unicode. article is original research by the subject. Smooth Henry 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a mere three references in this article. Two of which are to the author/subject's own homepage. Talk about lack of WP:RS and WP:V. What if every WP user wrote an article about themselves and used little more than their own website as a reference source? This content is what user pages are for.--Bouquet 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bouquet's statement -- ContivityGoddess 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian Kendig and Bouquet--Nosmik 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. he's an authority in his field and written up in NY Times. If there are questions on points of V simply should be a rewrite. Why is this even nominated? rootology 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Listerin 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CBGB - vanity page, merge what verifiable/useful contents with unicode (the only thing he's famous for) and delete the rest. --timecop 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. Everson is certainly a significant part of Unicode/ISO10646 as we know it today. His is a field that goes little noticed, requires much self sacrifice, and yet has impact upon everything typed and read electronically. We could only wish for more articles on the people behind this crucial standards. --Yacob 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you feel so strongly about this person's accomplishments, would you please edit the article to put more emphasis on them and why they are particularly notable? I accept that Everson may be a terrific person, but from the article I still don't understand why he deserves note in an encyclopedia or why it's relevant that he was born in Norristown or is a Buddhist or likes Tolkien. That Unicode is important is a fact which belongs in the Unicode article; that Everson is a "significant part" of it is something which this Michael Everson article does a poor job of conveying. - Brian Kendig 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally find him a notable person, passes the Amazon test, article seems to be written from a neutral point of view, the information currently in the article seems verifiable (personal information from his personal website and the information on his work is probably well documented a unicode.org). —Ruud 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've replaced the generic NPOV template with a more specific autobiography template. Hopefully the new template will appropriately define the potential issues with this article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like others have said, he's done his job for unicode and seems to now think he is some kind of legend. I do a job but I don't have a page about it. If he really is such an influential figure within the unicode community, give him a paragraph in there. All this linking to his homepage/interviews with himself is a complete joke. How can people seriously consider keeping this, unless they are all in on the joke too? Alexs 08:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete In addition to what other users have said specifically about his case, he's yet another example of popular/powerful wikipedians getting some perks. This is a disturbing trend, and it could someday compromise the integrity of wikipedia. --NEMT 16:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or complete rewrite This article, as is, is an autobiography, and a rather unverifiable and boastful one. It has no value to the encyclopedia in its current location, and would be somewhat questionable even as a user page. Further edits would be to a work already tainted by Michael's conflict of interest in having created and maintained it. I see the use of a Michael Everson, as his work has some inherent notability (and a much shorter article detailing his contributions to Unicode would be encyclopedic) but this page as is should be deleted or, at the very least, blanked and rewritten by anyone but him. --66.92.130.57 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I normally am an inclusionist, but this just reeks of vanity. The only way to save it would be a complete rewrite. GaryNigel 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I made the AfD. Vanity, redundancy, unencyclopedic. I'm sure Unicode is wonderful but Everson is not notable enough to warrant a seperate page. He is one of 12 primary co-authors to unicode, therefore hardly deserving an individual page. (Unicode 3.0 (Sept, 1999, published in 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5)) Delete or merge to Unicode. As a matter of fact, if you look in the Acknowledgements section of that book, (it's a PDF) you will find he is the 6th out of 12 listed and there is a lot less about him than some of the other contributors. Wow! This is a very revealing book. Ken Whistler is listed as the "Driving force behind the Unicode project" (he has no Wikipedia article) and several others as well that are acknowledged for doing more than he has done. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The authors in Unicode 3.0 are listed in alphabetical order, and everson is 5th of 12, not 6th. In Unicode 4.0 ISBN 0-321-18578-1, they are also listed in alphabetical order (Everson is 5th out of 13). More bad-faith special pleading on your part. Aye-Aye 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite notable; also no particular reason to delete. Bryce 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's one of 12 contributers, none of them have userpages. Read [1] and you'll find there are contributors with more notable achievements, and none of them have their own vanity page. Go on, look. You can change your vote if you want. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have written pretty much the same substance as currently in the article. By the way, we should have an article on Ken Whistler. – Kaihsu 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just make articles for the other 10 out of 12 primary co-authors as well? And then all of the secondary contributers. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we should. – Kaihsu 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Feel free to rewrite and lock, but deleting is plain wrong. Michael Everson is definitely worth a page at WP, or are we running out of space? —behdad (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, either. --ForbiddenWord 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1) Notable author of the Unicode Standard. Suffice it to say without his contribution (among others'), we wouldn't have Wikipedia in all of these language editions we have today. (2) Neither autobiographical authorship (in part) nor a scarcity of verifiable sources are reason enough for deletion, especially given a prior "keep" vote. A-giau 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If being the subject of a profile article in the New York Times doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia, then there needs to be a Great Purge of thousands of biographical profiles of people with fewer claims to public fame. Any specific problems with the article can be addressed in the proper place. AnonMoos 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you contend with a straight face this article would exist if it were not auto-biographical in nature? --NEMT 20:54, 25 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Everson_(2nd_Nomination)&oldid=1138076322"