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.
There is some claim for notability, but most references are about companies he worked in and products he worked for, not about him.
Arthistorian1977 (
talk) 06:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- not sure, but it appears that there's some walled garden going on with
Databricks. I was going to comment as "Redirect" to Databricks, but it appears to be a non-notable company itself, along with its founders. I tagged Databricks for "Notability" and PRODded one of the personnel articles.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Sorry for the format. This is the first entry I added. This guy is perhaps the most influential in the Apache Spark project, which is the largest open source project in big data. He has been cited by a lot of media in the enterprise data space. Just some examples I found via quick Google News:
He also had a Google Scholar profile with 1500+ citation count. Should we update the page to reflect these?
Xuweixuwei (3:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 04:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, I'd like to see at least a short article, couple paragraphs anyway, in a major daily paper. That, or a full interview or mini-bio in a less notable venue. Not seeing this. There's a mention
here in notable Wired... he's quoted, a couple sentences, which is a start, but...
WP:GNG wants "significant coverage", defined as that which "addresses the topic directly and in detail"... I'm not seeing that. On the other hand, we are not slaves to
WP:GNG, and there're a lot of mini-references which result in a reasonably-detailed, reasonably-well-ref'd article. If pressed I would say the article is maybe worth keeping.
Herostratus (
talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (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.