Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Tang (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Audrey Tang

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

not note-worthy or significant Hu Gadarn 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article was previously nominated for deletion in April 2005. The result was keep. Electrolite 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, nominator has not given sufficient reason for deleting this article: on talk page, nominator commented that the article is promotional and has a photo. However, many biographies include photos, and if the nominator feels the article has a promotional tone, that's grounds for improving it, not for deleting it. The subject of this article is a notable person in the free software community. SparsityProblem 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Audrey Tang is the main architect behind Pugs and the previous nomination seemed to agree this was noteworthy so I'll vote to keep. Debolaz 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks notable and significant to me.  --Dennisthe2 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notable secondary sources to confirm notability as per WP:BIO; no apparent notability outside of a single programming project. Much of the content is autobiographical, added by User:Autrijus, whose user page is a redirect to this one (maybe userfication would be appropriate?). Previous AfD hinged solely on claims that he/she is considered a "moderately well-known programmer" with no sources to back this claim up. — Krimpet (talk/review) 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Keep now that reliable secondary sources have been added to satisfy notability and attribution guidelines. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the simple fact that I've always wondered who this person is. :) Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added citations (one from a mainstream Taiwanese newspaper, the other from a computing magazine) and expanded the article to further discuss notability, for example, the fact that she is regarded as one of Taiwan's top programmers. Now meets WP:ATT, WP:N. cab 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions.   -- cab 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- cab 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Debolaz --Roswell native 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have some notability--Sefringle 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep There was a previous AfD, and there was no rationale introduced for re-nomination that wasn't already covered in that debate. That said, there ARE problems with the article. Notability isn't one of them. -Harmil 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Betweeen 25 April 2005 (last AfD) and now, Wikipedia policy about biographies and level of sourcing in general became much more strict. But the article showed almost no improvement during that same period ; a few things got reworded, a footnote was added about her surname, external links were put in to some blogs, and that's it. The only things even resembling really solid sources were the O'Reilly interviews, and those might be considered shaky for establishing notability for a variety of reasons (the interviewer using a pseudonym, the subject having worked for O'Reilly as a translator in the past, etc.) A reasonable person could feel that the article the way it was at the time of nomination was no longer valid under the newer, stricter criteria. Anyway, it's improved and this AfD will almost certainly close with a much stronger precedent to keep; no harm to let it run the remaining days rather than invoking WP:SNOW (which might provoke future controversy). BTW Speedy keep is technically only applicable in cases where the nominator withdraws or acted in bad faith. cab 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I had either misunderstood the definition of "speedy keep" or it changed sometime in the past year or two. I had understood it to mean "this nomination is not appropriate," not a more deeply damning statement about the nature of the nomination. As such, I have struck out the "speedy" in my edit, above. Thank you for the clarification. -Harmil 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.