Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Freeman (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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Freeman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited sources are almost exclusively about some other topic, with this person mentioned in passing. Seems to me he's just another programmer, and does not meet WP:N. Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is quite detailed bug, examining it, it's still questionable for independent notability. Delete fornnow at best, SwisterTwister talk 12:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment + Keep I'd like to note that there was a deletion discussion for this article closed three days before this discussion was opened (closed as no consensus): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Freeman. I'd like to include my vote from that discussion along with the list at Talk:Jay Freeman#Additional references that could be useful. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to !vote this either way, since I don't have a strong opinion and don't really care. What I will say, is as a procedural matter, I don't think it was a good idea to renominate this article so soon after it was closed as no consensus. I think it would have been better to leave it for a while, to allow people to mull on the topic a bit more, etc, rather than rushing in to another nomination. SJK (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- reply to Comment""" - I did not notice when I made the nomination that it had recently been up for an AfD. It tripped some trigger or other and seemed to me to be an obvious candidacy for AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable for the creation of Cydia and is covered extensively in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy call. The first two sources I tried, The Daily Nexus and the WSJ, were all I needed. He's notable. The WP:RS discussing the subject exist. Msnicki (talk) 03:13, 19 May 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.