Contents

Talk:Chris Gulker

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Apple Inc. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm thinking about adding a Tributes section with links to articles that offer personal perspectives on Chris, which, I believe, would be fitting for this advocate of personal publishing. Examples:

• Foss, Kurt (2006-11-08). "Acrobat 8: Behind the credits - Chris Gulker". Kurt Foss's Blog. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
• Winer, Dave (2010-08-02). "Moving on for the last time". Scripting News. Retrieved 2010-08-11.

I would think putting these in an "External links" section would be sufficient, and more in line with Wikipedia's neutral tone. ("Tributes" sounds a bit panegyric, which isn't really the purpose of WP.) Gabrielbodard (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks, Gabriel! ARK (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against deleting this article mainly because Chris appears to be widely published (and presumably widely read). I'll admit that it currently has far too many references to self-published material and too many references that don't make it aren't clear in the title that the reference is mainly about the subject. I see no reason these couldn't be rectified. 121.73.68.51 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above was me, having forgotten to sign in. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stuart! The article has been proposed for deletion because of its subject's alleged lack of notability. The article also stands accused of being poorly sourced. I believe that both claims are groundless. Chris is a respected creative professional whose work, as the article shows, has been noted by many reliable sources, including, amongst others, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Oregonian, Akron Beacon Journal, Editor & Publisher, The Cole Papers, Salon.com, The Vancouver Sun, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and a peer-reviewed ACM paper.

While I strongly object to deletion, I do agree that the article needs more work. ARK (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see more references being added to the article, but:

• They're best added as proper references rather than into the External links section.
• Ideally they should replace references to the subject's blog posts, which still need to be cut down on (except where they support a direct quote)

The "External links" don't reflect on the "direction of the article". They're intended as a list of articles that "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" (WP:ELMAYBE). Once the list begins to infringe on the principle that "links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum" (WP:ELPOINTS), it can be hosted elsewhere. ARK (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed another passage that was sourced from primary materials. ARK (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the "non-reliable" external links to a separate aggregation page off Wikipedia. ARK (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]