Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Tveit Alvestrand

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.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being the subject of the article, I'm not going to take a position on this, but I fundamentally disagree with the poster's dismissal of RFCs as "memos which should not count" when determining notability. RFCs are, in my opinion, much more influential than most formally published sources. Alvestrand (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I do not mean that RFCs are not influential nor important. But they are not the usual peer-reviewed academic publications. If a particular RFC is highly cited by journal articles, conference articles, or academic books then it can certainly count towards "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" per Criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC.

In this case, it does not appear that these RFCs satisfy the above property (even the citations of RFC 2434 are almost exclusively from other RFCs). I'm not making the statement that your work is not influential, but that I cannot find evidence of it currently meeting

WP:NACADEMIC nor the other notability guidelines. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I would say Harald's contributions in IETF, as specialist, Applications Group leader and writer was vital for the Internet we know today. Important standards such as all the email, directories and internationalisations standards were created in part or in full by him, and are still what carries our daily communication FrodeHernes (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — FrodeHernes (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: With regards to
  WP:GNG, I have found one source from a reliable secondary independent outlet with significant independent coverage of the subject (the same exact article is also published here and a similar article by the same author appears here). I could not find another one but if someone does, that should be sufficient for notability. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Please do not delete Harald. He taught us stuff. (Paul Vixie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.21.181 (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC) — 98.189.21.181 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Noting that scientists are "
  samj _in^out 07:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I will just note my disagreement with a few points. The "significant impact" and "substantial impact outside academia" may be true but 'need to be demonstrated by external independent sources'. Membership on editorial boards and boards of directors of non-profit companies (granted, they are not typical non-profits) is not equivalent to being an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a
    MIT Institute Professor). The existence of similar articles that have not been AfD'ed yet is also not relevant (it is possible that they should be as well). — MarkH21 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • While I agree that the predecessor and successor do not provide basis for an argument, their presence under a similar interpretation of the guidelines (described in the context of academia "for convenience") is relevant. I'd also argue that the selection process for both contributors and contributions in this context are at least as stringent as for academia, and the impact, to the point made below, typically far greater. Hence opting for a "strong keep" rather than soft balling it. --
      samj _in^out 05:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Keep:
  User:SamJ summed it up well, so I won't bother repeating all of that, but suffice it to say, I think being an IETF chair (and the first non-American, and the who wrote their mission statement, etc.) makes him plenty notable enough for Wikipedia. Beginning (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep leaning towards User:SamJ, while we can talk up or down impact, and WP:N is
  not inherited from the other chairs as we need multiple non-primary / third party sources for GNG which isn't met yet. In this case, I think despite a BLP, primaries are OK as per NACADEMIC which is the spirit here. I will remove my old notability tag. Widefox; talk 22:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Concerning RFCs: standards track RFCs are very heavily peer reviewed. While they are not the standard academic journal article, they are a notable intellectual work. From a pragmatic perspective, they have more impact, on average, than normal scientific work. And it's more than slightly ironic that any web site question this. Please consider the work that is at the basis of the site and the whole Internet: RFC 791 (IP), RFC 793 (TCP), RFC 2616 (HTTP), and RFC 2660 (HTTPS) just to name a few. Harald's specific contributions are easily seen here.Tony1athome (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: I am with User:SamJ on many levels. I would also reiterate the sentiment expressed by User:Tony1athome about RFCs being heavily peer reviewed. If nothing else, he does qualify under “The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.“ TonyHansen 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does meet the broader interpretation of
  WP:COMMONSENSE level, I think a reader in this area would expect to find a WP BLP. Britishfinance (talk
  )

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.