He's notable as a thinker and speaker about programming, quite apart from Clojure. The idea pool is the same, but that's true of any thinker.

It's a bad argument regardless. Plenty of figures in intellectual history are notable because of one big thing they created, and I'm sure most have Wikipedia pages. Alas I'm blanking on examples just now.

I'm confused by your reply, since we both agree that Rich deserves a wikipedia page.

I was agreeing with you completely!

Uh-oh - is that confusing? That could cause some problems around here...

My post was mocking the wikipedia way, while yours was serious, that's what confused me ;)

By that reasoning, we might as well remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum.

That is actually a kinda good reason.

Aren't most notable people notable for one notable thing? Sorry, to get into Wikipedia, you'd have to win at least one gold medal at the Olympic games, be elected president of at least two countries, die in no less than 3 battles, AND you have to be the first confirmed case of at least one pandemic.

I think a rule of thumb is that something must have been written that was about you, rather than about your creation or whatever. The idea is that as Wikipedia is supposed to be a summarization of the secondary sources on a topic, there should be some material that would fit only in an article about you, and not in the article on whatever you're famous for. Some interesting examples are in the section about “people notable for only one event”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#... (which is not about people who created something and does not apply here! Just mentioning it for what it shows about interesting aspects of their policy.)

Having created a notable thing is not EXACTLY the same as being notable. Sometimes.

I agree with that. Wikipedia certainly has a page about Kim Kardashian. She is notable. For what? For being notable. Perfect case for Wikipedia.