Anybody in the world can add an AfD tag to an article and put it up for deletion. Go ahead, try it: you can get DHH or Paul Graham listed right now. But without a clear consensus to delete, the article isn't going anywhere. Moreover, once the article survives an AfD, it is harder to delete in the future.
This article is running 2-1 keep. I've never seen an AfD succeed with half that opposition. All you can do at this point is piss the WP hobbyists off, have the delete discussion devolve into an argument about "voting versus debating", and make the discussion that much harder for the deleting admin to assess.
Sorry, I know it's a slow news day, but this doesn't count.
Now we know that it's not as big a deal as it seems.
From the big note at the top of the page:
"This article is being considered for deletion ... Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page."
There's nothing there to suggest that it's about to be deleted, and getting more information about the process of article deletion is as easy as following the links posted in the note at the top of the page. Wikipedia tries to be fairly transparent about this sort of thing.
Also, note that this article was considered for deletion about a year and a half ago, and the overall consensus was to keep it. It's probably gonna be sticking around, although it needs some heavy cleaning up.
This isn't true. A blog I like got deleted from wikipedia a while back (IMAO.US back when it was only Frank J) on the charge of not being notable. There wasn't a consensus to delete. There was a huge argument, then they just deleted him.
WP has a "special" definition of "valid", which is codified in the 8043734897 pages in the WP: namespace that document the valid and invalid arguments. If you care --- and as your attorney in this matter I'm obligated to advise you not to --- you could start by reading WP:ATA.
This is frustrating because if you're not an AfD lawyer, you're left wondering why the closing admin ignored you but paid attention to the "WP:NN"! "WP:RS!" "WP:V!" codes other people used. But that's how the system worked.
In this case, there are keep votes pointing to reliable sourcing in the article. O'Reilly definitely counts. Nobody is going to delete it; it'd wind up in WP:DRV, wasting everyone's time some more.
Isn't Wikipedia fun?
In addition, they seemed to have decided that any reason given by a recently-created account could be ignored, without caring if it's valid.
Oh and the real reason it was deleted is that it's a right-wing humor blog and some of the wikipedia people were offended by it's content.
it still exists, but now it's a group blog and not as good.
if you want to try reading a post, this is a good one:
This got deleted because, if you read the "keep" votes, the only arguments were that (a) it had been nominated for several awards, and (b) that it got lots of traffic. Neither are strong arguments.
It definitely didn't help that the blog was conservative and wikilawyers tend either towards shrieky Green Party turboliberalism or, worse, Paulbotism.
I am absolutely certain of this. For example, my keep argument isn't there. I don't remember what it said, but I do remember that I posted one. Also there used to be significant vertical scrolling.
he linked to the wrong AfD page.
His achievements are certainly impressive. I would be content to draw half as well and be half as imaginative. Great product and tool creator and has a band? Come on, do not crush us.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
I saw this link pop-up on my feed, and knowing _why and his contribution to the ruby community, I felt this to be relevant. In hindsight, it now seems like it wasn't that relevant.
To fellow hackers out there, my intention was not to post for the sake of posting. I appreciate the HN community, and find myself frowning occasionally when certain articles get upvoted. I certainly did not intend to pollute the quality of articles that make it HN.
To all, my sincere apologies.
Is it because they've read some of his work and now feel a loyalty towards him?
Or is it because the revelation that "the third most important person in the Ruby community" isn't really all that important when viewed from outside said "community" might give them an unwanted perspective on their own sense of their own importance?
I'm sorry that you're annoyed by his alias, and that you feel that Ruby users are self-important fools. I hope you can either get past those feelings or come up with a better argument.
In any case, looking at the sources at the bottom of this page, this guy doesn't even seem to satisfy this criterion.
So, if you want to take your issue with _why and litigate it in the AfD, go ahead and do it. You'll lose, though.
(I certainly wouldn't imply that "Ruby users are self-important fools", because I've used Ruby myself in the past. But I'm sure only a small minority of Ruby users particularly give a damn about this guy anyway.)
Jigglypuff is more notable than why the lucky stiff? Yeah, OK, if you're a comic book guy nerd.
On the other hand, I've never heard of this "why the lucky stiff" guy (I only clicked on this article because I couldn't parse the headline), although I have to admit I've heard of his "(poignant) guide to Ruby" second-hand from a friend who was complaining how annoying its writing style was. Having read his biography, I'd have to say his achievements, which seem to be limited to writing an online manual, a couple of libraries and speaking at a couple of conferences, don't seem to be all that notable.
Perhaps I'd feel differently if the wikipedia article were listed under his real name instead of his self-important handle. As it is, it kinda looks like he wrote most of this himself. I don't bother to edit wikipedia but if I did I think I'd vote for deletion.
I said "it looks like he wrote it himself", not that he actually did (I know, I read the talk page). From the content it's indistinguishable from a vanity page (the most identifiable feature of a vanity page being that it works hard to inflate minor achievements like speaking at conferences) but I understand he has quite a number of fans so it's quite possible they wrote it.
You have to read him for some time to understand. He's the only code artist that I know.
Of course creating something goddamn neat still doesn't mean that you deserve a wikipedia article, but ultimately making previously-skeptical people say "Wow, that was pretty goddamn neat" is a more worthwhile achievement than being listed in wikipedia.
That said, I don't program Ruby but I know about _why... so that means he should have a Wikipedia page IMHO ;)
_stiff_ is a uniquely creative guy. Instead of copying-and-pasting source code, you'll often find him sketching it out on paper with doodles.
He's a tough guy to define. Maybe it's best not to. Maybe that's why we don't know his real name. He is a hero though to many of us.