Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Soghoian (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.

Christopher Soghoian
The result was   Speedy Keep. The nomination has been withdrawn, and thus this item may be speedily kept. Articles meeting the criteria for WP:SK are eligible for Non-admin closure. There is also a WP:CONSENSUS to keep. Johnsemlak (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2009 and could easily have been decided delete, or at very least no consensus, as there did not seem to be consensus to keep. Subject is notable for a single event, and coverage related to that event is not substantial enough to otherwise pass. Many sources uses are from the subject himself. A search for reliable (ie not computer forums, blogs, etc) provides little.  Grsz 11  01:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw the nomination at this time, but like Nomoskedasticity said, it could use some editing.  Grsz 11 18:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, in part because there seems to be no reason to re-nominate: deletion requires consensus, and if there is no consensus then the article is kept, so the decision last time was correct. The article could probably be trimmed a bit, but I think it passes on GNG if nothing else.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems to meet the WP:GNG as a public intellectual and security activist. Ray  Talk 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. If the nom has a problem with the prior close, this is not the place to contest how it was closed.  Nom's admission that the prior close could have been "no consensus" suggests that there was nothing wrong with the close -- the result would be the same, as the article would be kept.  Agree it passes GNG.  I suggest that nom look beyond the refs in the article, as required by wp:before -- there is robust coverage in RSs of the subject of the article, and quotes of his views..--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the previous nomination. The question is if Soghoian is notable for more than one event, and if not, is the coverage significant enough to overcome that fact.  Grsz 11 04:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 77 google hits, and all around the same time. That's a pretty clear indicator of WP:BLP1E.  Grsz 11 04:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "around the same time" you mean "within 3 years of each other," that would be accurate. However, I decline to regard somebody in the news for 3 years as lacking persistency in coverage. Ray  Talk 10:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Ray. Furthermore, the entire first half of the nom's nomination was a discussion of the prior nomination.  That could tend to make one think it had something to do with his rationale for nominating the article for deletion.  (Plus, 2 of the 3 !delete voters at that AfD didn't have five prior edits to their name collectively before the AfD or since, making their !votes quite odd--and making nom's above characterization of the AfD even more peculiar).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. WP:ONEEVENT states that "[t]he general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person", however, it also suggests that it certain cases it is more appropriate to name the article after the person. I'm convinced there are enough sources over enough period of time to indicate that the article is named properly. Location (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Nomoskedasticity and per AWP:Energy conservation. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2010 (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.