Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Hanselman

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hanselman

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

Much less suitable for encyclopedic inclusion than an initial search showed. Here's the problem: Hanselman is a spokesperson for Microsoft, so he gets quoted in a large number of articles. However, they are short on personal information, as he's simply a mouthpiece for his employer. A story about business trips at NYTimes actually contains biographical information, but this fails WP:SIGCOV: "sources address the subject directly in detail". He isn't the main topic, it might help, but the information mentioned isn't even the point of the article.

It appears there is another Scott Hanselman who works for Corillian, a company that doesn't have a wiki entry. It is possibly the same Hanselman. However, given that this article is currently written from a WP:COI viewpoint, it's surprising it doesn't mention Corillian, but goes into detail about Hanselman's podcasting motto, NerdDinner.com, and software written for toddlers.

This is a good search excluding Microsoft and Corillian; another option is to not exclude those companies, but it'll take significantly more work than I've put into finding any depth of coverage about Hanselman.

This isn't a case where an individual doesn't exist and appears a hoax. Hanselman certainly passes the existence test. Hanselman appears to be a fantastic technical evangelist. The issue is if he is notable, or if only the companies he works/worked for are notable. tedder (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is recognized for his findings in Chrome of code belonging to Microsoft, as well for explaining the usage of the Windows Template Library in this source: [1]. --Sbluen (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet more subjective interpretation of WP:AUTHOR point 3 in the absence of significant coverage about him. Pcap ping 03:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability to meet WP standard is demonstrated in any source. N2e (talk) 23:06, 13 March 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.