| Revision as of 20:41, 24 October 2005 editYuckfoo (talk | contribs)5,974 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:01, 24 October 2005 edit undoKappa (talk | contribs)36,858 edits →[]: still keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ::'''Comment''': despite ]'s comment below I wish to keep my vote unchanged since the ZD-net article was not the only argument behind my vote. Being board member at OSI and her work on OOo licensing are to be considered as well. Besides, and this may a bit of a fallacy, we have articles on the board members of the Wikimedia Foundation too. -- ] | ] | ] 20:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | ::'''Comment''': despite ]'s comment below I wish to keep my vote unchanged since the ZD-net article was not the only argument behind my vote. Being board member at OSI and her work on OOo licensing are to be considered as well. Besides, and this may a bit of a fallacy, we have articles on the board members of the Wikimedia Foundation too. -- ] | ] | ] 20:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per ZD-net label. ] 22:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per ZD-net label. ] 22:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::Commment: agreeing with Esperanza, I thank Barno for pointing out ZD Net's unreliability but it's been reported more widely than that (e.g. so it forms part of the body of knowledge that people would want to be able to research. ] 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''with verifiable sources such as ZD Net article see attached and her membership of the Board of the ] makes her notable enough for mine. ] 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''with verifiable sources such as ZD Net article see attached and her membership of the Board of the ] makes her notable enough for mine. ] 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment:''' ZDnet has in recent months published a number of articles (sometimes categorized as "commentary" instead of "news" in ways not obvious to casual readers) containing assertions that were verifiably untrue (disprovable with a couple of minutes of research) and apparently motivated by blatant commercial interests. They've had to publish retractions and apologies. I do ''not'' recommend treating a label in one of their columns or headlines as an authoritative source establishing notability. The OSI is notable but membership on its board doesn't confer notability. '''No vote''' pending more substantial evidence, but leaning toward delete per nomination. ] 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | *'''Comment:''' ZDnet has in recent months published a number of articles (sometimes categorized as "commentary" instead of "news" in ways not obvious to casual readers) containing assertions that were verifiably untrue (disprovable with a couple of minutes of research) and apparently motivated by blatant commercial interests. They've had to publish retractions and apologies. I do ''not'' recommend treating a label in one of their columns or headlines as an authoritative source establishing notability. The OSI is notable but membership on its board doesn't confer notability. '''No vote''' pending more substantial evidence, but leaning toward delete per nomination. ] 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 24 October 2005
Danese Cooper
This reads like vanity, though it's not. Here we have a person who "is an advocate of open-source software" (I advocate a bunch of things myself), is on the board of some organization, and works at Intel. Does this mean everyone get's in an encyclopedia? I don't see how this is encyclopedic. -R. fiend 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd say she's notable enough with a proven impact on the IT industry, but I'm no insider. Being labelled as an "open source diva" by ZD-net also weighs on favour of keeping this article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: despite Barno's comment below I wish to keep my vote unchanged since the ZD-net article was not the only argument behind my vote. Being board member at OSI and her work on OOo licensing are to be considered as well. Besides, and this may a bit of a fallacy, we have articles on the board members of the Wikimedia Foundation too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per ZD-net label. Kappa 22:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Commment: agreeing with Esperanza, I thank Barno for pointing out ZD Net's unreliability but it's been reported more widely than that (e.g. news.com.com so it forms part of the body of knowledge that people would want to be able to research. Kappa 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keepwith verifiable sources such as ZD Net article see attached and her membership of the Board of the Open Source Initiative makes her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: ZDnet has in recent months published a number of articles (sometimes categorized as "commentary" instead of "news" in ways not obvious to casual readers) containing assertions that were verifiably untrue (disprovable with a couple of minutes of research) and apparently motivated by blatant commercial interests. They've had to publish retractions and apologies. I do not recommend treating a label in one of their columns or headlines as an authoritative source establishing notability. The OSI is notable but membership on its board doesn't confer notability. No vote pending more substantial evidence, but leaning toward delete per nomination. Barno 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- keep please this does not read like a vanity article she seems notable too Yuckfoo 20:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)