Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Nussbaum


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Lucas Nussbaum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another Debian Project Leader, but not notable outside of Debian. Jamesx12345 18:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO.  Googling turned up nothing helpful, including nothing helpful from books or scholar.  Msnicki (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete GS h-index of 7 nowhere enough in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. I'm not convinced that elected leader of the Debian project is inherently notable, enough to inherit notability from Debian itself. And he does not yet have enough notability as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with David Eppstein on lack of inherent notability for role, and lack of notability as an academic. I considered general coverage of Nussbaum to meet WP:GNG, and taken on the whole it did not meet what I consider enough significant RS coverage to establish notability. I found two types of coverage to consider: two medium/longish interviews with Nussbaum, and a number of brief articles just after each election, mostly in marginal sources. The scope of short articles didn't provide significant coverage, and the strength of the sources was generally weak (I would weigh similarly-sized articles more heavily if they were in Linux Journal, IEEE Spectrum or Le Monde). The interviews cannote some notability in that he was worth interviewing, but they consist almost entirely of Nussbaum's replies, rather than independent coverage about Nussbaum, and so I don't consider these very weak indicators. While less nuanced judgement might consider two or three of the first three sources below meet the multiple, independent, RS coverage requirements, it feels like a stretch to me.
 * RS, longish interview with Nussbaum.
 * Probably RS, longish article about his election.
 * Not sure if RS, medium-length interview with Nussbaum.
 * Not sure if RS, short 3-paragraph article on re-election.
 * Not sure if RS, short 4-paragraph article on election.
 * Not sure if RS, short 1-paragraph article on re-election.
 * Doubtful RS (personal blog?), short 4-paragraph article on re-election.
 * Doubtful RS, medium/short 6-paragraph article on election.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2014 (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.