Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandi Bachom

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Bachom

Sandi Bachom (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)

Fails GNG: No independent, reliable sources offer significant coverage. —swpbT 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw(talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—swpbT 12:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly should know extremely this all well by now; or be embarrassed to admit that you don't. There are exactly two possibilities: you still don't understand what independence means (which, at this point, can only be called incompetence), or you don't care (distruption). Either will end your AfD career just as effectively. —swpbT 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again with the threats. Stop. It would be wise for you to focus on content. There are additional possibilities: 3) You disagree with my analysis. You certainly have the right to do so. It is reasonable for you to suggest that some source material may go toward verifiability more than notability, I equally have the right to state my case. Just because we disagree does not mean we have to be disagreeable. That said, your point on two of the three sources you just listed is a reasonable one, I disagree with you on the traversecity source. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will not stop calling you out when you come to my AfDs with falsehoods, ever, and I will keep telling you exactly where it will lead. This isn't a "disagreement", this is one editor continually presenting false facts. —swpbT 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
swpb, you are engaging in personal attacks. I am not presenting "false facts," I am presenting what sources I could fund, and offering my interpretation of the guidelines. You need to stop making threats. The community will decide this case and you need to look at phrases like "my AfDs" You don't WP:OWN these nominations, and I weigh in ay many other AfDs besides yours, particularly where they involve biographies of women, as here. (I even !vote delete about 1/3 of the time, last I checked.) Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw the facts really aren't on your side here. These were trivially obviously terrible sources, and you are a sufficiently experienced editor that anyone working with you should reasonably expect better - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented what I could find, made the case for the stronger sources, and I will respect the consensus of the community, David Gerard. This is not the strongest set of sources I have seen, but I think that there's enough to at least place it in a gray area and apply the principle that there is a presumption of notability. But if consensus goes the other way, this one is not a hill I'm going to die on. That said, other editors (not you) need to lay off the attribution of my motives and stop making threats. Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reposting of the edit notice given all commentators for this discussion:
As per the guidelines identified to editors when they post at this discussion, the first paragraph of "How to contribute" states,

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

Unscintillating (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a trivial mention:


These two are the only ones that might be halfway decent, but only halfway:

Adam9007 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. His work is not notable by today's standards, so this article might not survive. --BuickCenturyDriver 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The GNG requires not just coverage, but substantial coverage. The sources claimed to be the strongest: the New Yorker, is a profile of another person altogether, and Bachom is just one of the incidental figures hanging around.It provides almost no information about the subject of this article. The NYT is about a botox studio, she's one of the patients. Al Jazerra is a tribute to Pete Seeger. They interviewed a half dozen of his friends. She was one of them. This is exactly what is meant by non-substantial coverage. If she were notable, she's a film-maker, and this is a field where notable people get really substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: Yes, what is meant by "non-substantial" or "substantial"?  Why do you make WP:IAR arguments, but put a veil over their status as WP:IAR arguments?  Significant coverage does not require that it be the main topic of the article.  Denial Is Not A River in Egypt remains popular 18 years after publication.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see DGG claiming here that significance requires the subject be the main topic. I've seen some poor AfD arguments from DGG, but this isn't one of them. —swpbT 13:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the New Yorker is the strongest of the sources. But the entire contents about Bachom, in a long article about Manny Goldrich's famous musical instrument store, Manny's Music is "It was Holly Goldrich, Henry’s daughter, who, together with a filmmaker named Sandi Bachom, had the idea for Manny’s Virtual Wall, a social-networking site. " They didn't even bother to mention his films. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 30 September 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandi_Bachom&oldid=1083681459"