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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Alexandrescu[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling suggests the sources don't exist. The subject's Ph.D. and credentials as the author of a few books are not sufficient for presumptive notability. Msnicki (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The core of his noteworthiness is Policy-based design, which I think it's fair to describe as his personal innovation. As a Java / Python developer rather than a C++ hack I don't really know this topic, but it's notable enough for it, and Alexandrescu's name, to have achieved some recognition even outside his immediate field. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Andy Dingley, he isn't quoted on the the first page of Boost for nothing. Also what do you expect to find ? articles praising him ? then you will probably get the same result as with Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha11owed (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC) — Ha11owed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I expect "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", exactly as required by WP:GNG. So far as I can tell, they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That way I guess we will have to delete entries of most research mathematicians. I thought notability in the subject was good enough for Wikipedia? 128.32.168.30 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that's an argument to avoid WP:ATA in a deletion discussion. Msnicki (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: HotNews (Romanian news site) has articles on the subject in November 9, 2007 and November 30, 2011. These two HotNews articles satisfy criteria 1 and 2 of WP:AUTHOR representing significant coverage at different time periods. A simple Google Scholar search also shows that the subject's Modern C++ design: generic programming and design patterns applied is widely cited by peers per criteria 1 of WP:AUTHOR. It is cited by 646. C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices (C++ in Depth Series) is cited by 79. The subject has other works that are also widely cited but his most prominent work is the Modern C++. Subject also satisfies WP:BASIC with several news sources like Mediafax, Developpez, among others. Pmresource (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nov 9 Hotnews link is an interview, which makes it a primary source and unusable for establishing notability. The Nov 3 Hotnews link is a mention in an article listing lots of random stuff in the news that day that he works at Facebook. It's basically a blog post. The Developpez article is announcement for a conference Microsoft is organizing. The only link you've given that contributes to notability is the Mediafax article. Msnicki (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nov. 9 interview comes from a reliable source. Hotnews has editorial control and published by a reputable publisher in Romania. The Nov. 10 link is a paragraph with 8 sentences and is not a trivial mention of the subject. The Developpez article is an evidence that various sources from different time periods have recognized the subject. The subject's works also easily pass criteria 1 of WP:AUTHOR. Pmresource (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if you search for the phrase "Modern C++" - a phrase almost all C++ writers and trainers use, and many practioners, he will be offered as a related search. This is the person who not only coined the phrase, but the set of idioms that are embraced as "Modern C++". A 2004 review by someone who has gone on to work closely with him concludes " it’s hard to overestimate the impact of Andrei Alexandrescu’s Modern C++ Design". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargRhi (talk • contribs) 13:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is being silly. "Modern C++" is in the title of one of his books. Of course that phrase would turn up with his name. But it's a completely meaningless phrase, like, "modern software". And the link you gave is a link to a review of his book; it's not about the author. This doesn't help with notability at all. Msnicki (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern C++ Design is not only his book, we also have an article on it here, on the basis of notable attention paid to it within the field. When an author manages to have two of their creations with justified articles on WP (and presumably unchallenged for meeting the notability guidelines), then I'd suggest that's a strong hint as to their notability as a worker within that field. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you're welcome to your opinion, Andy, but it's certainly not supported by the guidelines, which make clear that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Writing a notable book (even assuming it actually is) does not automatically make the author notable. Msnicki (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Alexandrescu is notable for several reasons. He is writter of notable C++ books. He is notable for libs Mojo and Loki (well known C++ libraries). Mojo is closely related of teh creation of rvalue references in the new C++ standard. He is also one of the leaders of the D language. This language will be included in the GCC suite as of 4.7. All theses achievements make Alexandrescu a well know person in the programming community. By the way, the article in english can really be improved, no doubt about that. Deadalnix (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Deadalnix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: The idea that Alexandrescu might be insufficiently notable is simply laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.217.133 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2011 (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.